Sitting of 24 January 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Islwyn, in the room of the right hon. Neil Gordon Kinnock (Chiltern Hundreds).[Mr. Derek Foster.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Grammar Schools, Plymouth
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to close the remaining grammar schools in Plymouth.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): It is for local education authorities to bring forward proposals for changes in the pattern of organisation of schools in their area.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because Plymouth is about to become a unitary authority under Labour control, our three remaining grammar schools—all of them centres of excellence—feel very much under threat? Is it not a pity that, despite choosing the best schools for their own children, Opposition Members still seek to deny choice, diversity and excellence to everybody else?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to hear that the three grammar schools in Plymouth are popular and successful, and I hope very much that a change of local government organisation will not put those excellent and succesful schools under threat. The Labour party's stance on choice and selection is a great puzzle for those who follow these affairs. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) seem to support parental choice, at least for their own children. Perhaps it is a case of one rule for Opposition Front-Bench Members and another for the rest of the country.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Secretary of State aware that six grammar schools were closed in Plymouth in the 1980s, a time when there was a Tory Devon county council and a Tory Government and—I might say—a time when the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) was a member of the Social Democratic party and advocating the closure of those schools? Does the Secretary of State agree that the greatest threat to grammar, grant-maintained, primary and comprehensive schools in Plymouth is the severe cuts in their budgets which have been brought about by her Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman in the slightest. It is quite clear that the
    124
    greatest threat to excellence and high standards in our schools comes from the Labour party, which has devoted so much time during the past decade to opposing every possible measure which would improve standards in our schools.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Secretary of State aware of the outrageous and disgraceful proposals by Devon county council to cut teaching staff in Plymouth grammar schools and others? They also intend to reduce the money which goes to those schools—rather than cut their own bureaucracy—to save some of the £650 million it costs to run Devon county council. Will she ring fence the education budget so that the council cannot do what it is threatening to do?
    Mrs. Shephard: To ring-fence any portion of a county council budget is beyond my powers, but I hope that pressure from my hon. Friend and colleagues will prevent that kind of damaging cut in Devon schools.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received regarding the democratic accountability of colleges of further education.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): None, though my right hon. Friend has occasionally received correspondence generally on the accountability of colleges of further education.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister accept that the removal of democratic control and accountability has made possible the abuse of public funds and the distortion of education priorities, as happened in Derby and Birmingham? If he accepts that, and the report on those two organisations, what actions will he take to rectify the situation?
    Mr. Boswell: I do not accept that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and the independence that we have extended to colleges of further education, which they have warmly endorsed and from which they have benefited immensely, are contributing to their failure or lack of accountability, as precise rules—set out in their instruments of government, the 1992 Act and the financial agreements that they reach with the funding council—secure them.
    There have been two cases of difficulty. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the reports on those two colleges, which have been prepared by independent persons at our request, it would he inappropriate for me to comment now. We are satisfied that the arrangements work well in general. The Opposition have not yet told the nation what they mean by bringing grant-maintained schools under a local democratic framework. That is a slogan, just as the hon. Gentleman's question was.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend realise that, by removing Weymouth college from the democratic control of Dorset county council, the college has been able to expand student numbers, its funding and its excellence, while all those schools that stayed within local education authority control last year received only

    125
    1 per cent. from the county council when the Government gave them a 4 per cent. increase in their revenue budgets?
    Mr. Boswell: All that I can say is that I am not in the least surprised to hear that news from Weymouth because it is replicated throughout the country. This year, we are substantially increasing funding to colleges of further education and they are benefiting from our policies. That applies as much in Weymouth as in many other parts of the country—Leicester included.
    Mr.Kilfoyle: Is not it a fact that colleges of further education have had their governing bodies stacked with like-minded people, often from outside the community that they serve? Have not those governors often put the salaries of a few people at the top of the pyramid ahead of the welfare of staff and students and have not the Government, by their actions, allowed many of those community colleges to be divorced from the very communities in which they have their roots? Is that not further evidence of the fragmentation of further and higher education while this Conservative Government have been in charge?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman must do a lot better than that to keep his present position. I am not sure how many colleges he has visited, but the plain fact is that every one that I have been to has been grateful for the freedom that we have extended to them. We have also extended the framework and transferability of democratic accountability. There is much more accountability now. The problems at the colleges that were referred to earlier had their origins in the past, long before the independence of colleges. The hon. Gentleman should look and learn a little more about the further education sector and stop knocking it so much.
    Mr. Allason: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to South Devon college in my constituency, which recently won a charter award for excellence and is regarded as having far greater accountability to the local community than it achieved when it was in the hands of the county council?
    Mr. Boswell: Indeed, my hon. Friend can rightly draw my attention to that college. I know of its achievements in obtaining a charter mark and being a winner in the further education charter competition. I meet Dr. Keen from time to time and have a great respect for what he has achieved. Surely the greatest tests of accountability are the readiness and willingness of students to select colleges and their obvious achievements when benefiting from their studies there.

    Revenue Support Allocations
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received from schools concerned about teaching and staffing
    126
    redundancies in 1995–96 following consultations on the revenue support allocations for education in the next financial year.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My Department has received a number of representations about the local government finance settlement, as is customary at this time of the year.
    Mr. Turner: I too have received many representations. Some of the letters that I have come from schools in Wolverhampton and they tell me of the impending crisis for their schools, and for schools throughout the country, unless the Secretary of State wins her battle with the Treasury to increase resources to schools during the next 12 months. In the midlands—[Interruption.] Hon. Members do not want to hear the truth. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the midlands, a £70 million shortfall is predicted and more than 1,000 teaching jobs will be lost because of the attendant massive increase in class sizes? Will she call on the Prime Minister to intercede to offset that crisis?
    Mrs. Shephard: This year's settlement amounts to £17 billion, which allows for an increase of more than 1 per cent. compared with last year. Under the provisional capping arrangement, local education authorities, including those in the west midlands, will be able to increase spending next year. At the moment, local education authorities are comparing the settlement with their budgets and spending plans. That is not to compare like with like.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Havering has received the worst education settlement in the country bar none, followed by south Tyneside, Northumberland, Gateshead, Stockport and St. Helen's, with which it seems to have nothing in common, whereas the four authorities that have done best are all inner London boroughs? Will she undertake to look into the reasons for that catastrophic quirk and do all she can to alleviate its worst effects on the education of children in our borough?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot generalise on the position within individual LEAs. I remind him that the Audit Commission, for example, has calculated that more than £0.5 billion is held in individual schools' budgets and that LEAs have recourse to their own balances, capital receipts and transfers between budget heads. Of course, all the components of the budget are not yet known.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State stand by the prediction she made in a letter that she wrote to her right hon. Friends just before the Budget? Given that LEAs are expected to reduce expenditure on primary schools by £50 per pupil and on secondary schools by nearly £200 per pupil, does she accept that that will lead to significant cuts in the number of staff and rising class sizes, and that the quality of education will suffer as a result?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am not prepared to comment on a leaked letter. As I said, part of the component of budgets will be the recommendations of the School

    127
    Teachers Review Body. It has not yet submitted its report. When it does, we shall consider its recommendations, consult and announce our proposals.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of an organised campaign by local education authorities that is designed to draw attention to inequalities in standard spending assessments? Does she agree that the principal reason for such a campaign is to distract attention from the divisive and confused policies of the Labour and Liberal parties, especially as they relate to a graduate tax, the abolition of grant-maintained schools and the ending of charitable status for the independents?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. There are always gloomy predictions at this time of year and there is certainly evidence of a fairly vigorous campaign. In the slightly longer term, however, it will be unable to conceal the divisive and shambolic nature of the Opposition parties.
    Mr. Faber: Has my right hon. Friend received representations from Edington school in my constituency, a popular and successful local village school? Is she aware that, in an act of breathtaking hypocrisy last Friday, Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors on Wiltshire county council combined to vote through the closure of that successful and popular school? Is she willing to meet a small delegation of parents from the school who are now desperately worried about the future education of their children?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am not yet aware of the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned. It is always a great pity when a popular and successful school is threatened with closure. As part of the appeal against those proposals it will no doubt be possible to arrange for representations to be made to me or to ministerial colleagues.
    Mr. Hardy: While it is obvious that the Government will look for someone else to blame, does the Secretary of State accept that she and her Department expect many redundancies, perhaps mass redundancies, to be announced at many of our schools? How does she expect to maintain success in education against that
    background? Will she urgently look at the situation to avoid schools being placed in grave difficulties and to prevent standards and the maintenance of education being imperilled?
    Mrs. Shephard: The STRB has not yet submitted its report, it is impossible to make the predictions that are being made so widely around the country. Whether or not class sizes will have to rise depends on local circumstances. I remind the hon. Gentleman that studies have never shown conclusive evidence of a link between class size and pupil performance. There is no reason to see marginal increases in class sizes as a threat to standards.
    Mr. Blunkett: Tell that to the public schools and those who buy private education—[Interruption.]—and they will laugh in the the Secretary of State's face.
    Given the right hon. Lady's prediction that the teachers' review body would award a pay increase for the coming year that will so exceed the amount that the Government have allocated for education that there will be mass redundancies and increased class sizes,
    128
    does she agree with her right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who this morning recommended that, in order to avoid those redundancies, local authorities should emulate the Government, who are to sell off the Treasury building and then lease it back? He suggested that authorities should sell off local town halls and other buildings and use the capital receipts for revenue purposes to pay teachers' salaries. Alternatively, perhaps she will send him back to university to learn the difference between capital and revenue spending.
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman is more than usually imaginative, although the interesting display of his continuing prejudice against the private and the independent sector in education is not equally imaginative—a prejudice not shared, of course, by many of his hon. Friends. The STRB is free to recommend such increases as it sees fit, but I have asked it to take into account affordability. Pay levels should be no more than is necessary to retrain, recruit and motivate staff. The STRB will need to judge the extent to which schools will be able to fund pay increases when it makes its recommendations, without the florid solutions suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about reports circulating the west country this week that at a time when the Liberal-controlled LEA has threatened to cause massive redundancies in our schools, it has created a £17 million reserve for non-statutory administrative functions? Will my right hon. Friend carry out an investigation to see whether that is true, because we cannot possibly rely on the LEA in question to carry out an investigation into itself?
    Mrs. Shephard: What my hon. Friend reveals is interesting and one wonders how much of that kind of practice is going on in the rest of the country, particularly in those areas from which the most noise is coming. I shall be happy to look at the details of that case, although I am quite certain that my hon. Friend will not let it rest, either.

    Maintained Schools, Bradford
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the main criteria she observed in setting the latest capital allocation for Bradford's maintained schools.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues about the capital programme shortfall facing Bradford metropolitan council in relation to education expenditure.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): In December, my right hon. Friend and other ministerial colleagues and I considered the allocation of annual capital guidelines, ACGs, to all local education authorities with great care in relation to the Government's published priorities, which are as follows: commitments arising from previous ACGs or supplementary credit approvals; identified need for new school places and cost-effective projects to remove surplus places.

    129
    Full details are given in the Department's letter of 4 July 1994 sent to all authorities, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister ensure that, when the Secretary of State comes to Bradford on 1 March, she finds time to visit local authority schools and to discuss with parents, teachers and governors their anger at the way in which, in the past 16 years, the Government have consistently neglected the need for repairs, renovation and replacement of crumbling schools in that city? This year, we have received £5 million, when our real needs are estimated at £40 million plus. The last straw came when, some time ago, the Department allocated a large amount of taxpayers' money to provide a covered-in playground for Bradford city technology college.
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman appears to be slightly confused. First, as he knows, my right hon. Friend is looking forward to visiting Bradford, and during that visit she expects to be able to visit one or more LEA school. Secondly, I am sure that the House would welcome some recognition from him of the substantial success of Bradford CTC instead of the constant carping that we hear. Thirdly, if he was not already aware, he will now be aware that all ACGs, as I mentioned, are allocated by formula and, to the extent that Bradford LEA's bid matches that nationally agreed formula, so proportionately it will receive more money.
    Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to what he alleged to be a poor rate of building money provided by Government in recent years. He should he aware that support for schools' capital increased by 57 per cent. in real terms between 1986–87 and 1993–94. That is a good record, by any standards.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: The Minister will be aware, though, that the Secretary of State's visit to Bradford on 1 March will not be the first visit by a Secretary of State. During every previous visit, Secretaries of State promised extra help and support for Bradford when they heard the undeniable case made by Bradford people. I hope that, when the Secretary of State visits this time, she will take away the opinion of the all-party committee on education in Bradford, which says that the need in Bradford amounts to between £70 million and £100 million. I hope that we receive, not simply tea and sympathy, but some of the money that we need.
    Mr. Squire: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is delighted to hear of the warm reception that she will receive in Bradford—a warm reception that she receives in all parts of the country when she visits them.
    I know that my right hon. Friend will listen carefully to arguments made to her, but the hon. Gentleman must understand and accept ultimately that, if we were to distribute the money under anything other than an agreed formula, he would be one of the first to say that something was wrong, and he would smell some sort of rat. We have to distribute in accordance with a formula. Provided that the arguments that he and his friends in Bradford make are in line with that formula, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will listen carefully.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can my hon. Friend compare the position of schools in Bradford with that of those in Lancashire? Is he aware that Lancashire
    130
    county council receives a substantial increase in funding, but, far from handing that over, it has threatened a cut of between 6 and 8 per cent.? Not only that, but—[Interruption.]—it has reduced the proportion handed down under local management of schools from 87 per cent. to 85 per cent.
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is a good try by the hon. Lady, who mentioned Bradford only once and now is concerning herself, quite understandably, with Lancashire, but I am afraid that she must wait for a question on Lancashire. This is the other side of the Pennines, and both she and I know the difference.

    Higher Education Students
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the planned total number of students in higher education in 1995–96 and 1996–97; and what were the figures underlying the 1993 Budget statement.
    Mr. Boswell: The planned total number of students in higher education in England is 961,000 for both 1995–96 and 1996–97. The figures underlying the November 1993 budget were 941,000 for 1994–95, 963,000 for 1995–96 and 968,000 for 1996–97.
    Mr. Purchase: The Minister must know that demand for places is increasing far more rapidly and, that by the policies he adopts, he is denying the opportunity for many putative students to study at university. Does he accept the opinion of the Confederation of British Industry and many others that it is vital that a bigger and bigger percentage of our young people attends university to bring us up to date with the skills that we need for the 21st century?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is stronger on assertion than on history. Student numbers have risen by 50 per cent. in the past five years. We are reviewing higher education and taking advice on the future size and shape of HE from interested parties and others who wish to contribute to the debate. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listen to their suggestions before jumping to conclusions.
    Mr. Rowe: About a year ago, my hon. Friend's predecessor told me that the Department was looking at the length of some degree courses. Does my hon. Friend agree that some students attending courses could complete their studies in a much shorter time than that laid down by the higher education institutions that they attend? Will he look again at the possibility of giving those students the opportunity to complete their studies more quickly?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. It is very much a matter for institutions and their students to consider, as they are responsible for academic courses and academic standards. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a plain mathematical fact that, the longer the length of a course for an individual, the lower the proportion of students who can be financed with the same given amount of money.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the lack of a relationship between the number of students and the consequent changes in funding has meant that many

    131
    students today suffer severe student poverty? Will the Minister undertake a study of the relationship between student poverty and academic success?
    Mr. Boswell: It is an interesting fact that every three years there is a student income and expenditure survey. The survey published last year revealed no evidence of widespread poverty. It also found that if students avail themselves of the grant and loan to which they are entitled, they receive as much money to maintain their studies as they did previously. We protect the real-terms value of the total students' support package. While there may be specific cases, it is appropriate to refer them to the access funds. The overall participation of students and the expansion in their numbers suggest that poverty is not a widespread or significant problem.

    Truancy Rates
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information the Government's performance tables provide about truancy rates.
    The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The tables published in November 1994 found that significant amounts of valuable learning time are being lost due to unauthorised absence. In the maintained sector, an average of 11 half-days were lost by every absent primary school pupil and 22 half-days were lost by every absent secondary pupil. Rates of unauthorised absence varied widely between individual local education authorities and schools, as did rates of authorised absence. The latter were published for the first time in 1994.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. In the light of what he has just said, what practical help can he give to head teachers who are experiencing difficulties with truants? Is he aware of a head teacher in my constituency who is trying to deal with a persistent truant who is only nine years old and who could one day become a criminal statistic unless something is done?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises an important point that greatly concerns both me and the Department. I am sure that she will be aware that, last year, we supported 80 local education authorities with projects worth £14 million—this year, we supported 90 local education authorities with £15.5 million. We helped them to run imaginative schemes to identify and tackle truancy, and to find how best to deal with it. We will review the projects and disseminate the best of them to all schools. It is vital that all pupils are in school and learning; if they are not, they not only lose out educationally but could develop criminal tendencies, or worse. That is why we lay great emphasis on the fact that all pupils should be in school all the time.

    Inner-city Schools
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of Stare for Education what new grants for education support and training money has been made available to improve standards in inner-city schools.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The GEST programme for 1995–96 will benefit schools in all areas, directly or
    132
    indirectly. In addition, initiatives to raise standards in schools are eligible for funding from the single regeneration budget.
    Mr. Enright: Does not a real cut of £20 million here on top of a cut of £13 million in inspection funds mean that the Government are mouthing things about quality, but will not put their hand where their mouth is?
    Mrs. Shephard: No. [Interruption.] I think that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and his rather extraordinary image; I certainly disagree with the sentiment that he has tried to express. The GEST programme for the next financial year provides £250 million for local education authorities and schools to spend on 20 priority areas, including school effectiveness, and on a number of in-service training areas, particularly for primary teachers, concentrating on a grasp of the basics. All those areas will contribute directly to raising education standards.
    Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that adequate funding is available under the GEST programme and other programmes for the 100 or so state schools which are located on the route between Islington and the London school at Brompton Oratory?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that I can confirm that to my hon. Friend's satisfaction.
    Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that considerably fewer funds are available under the GEST programme now than five years ago, yet the changes in the national curriculum orders mean that schools must perform many more tasks? Will the Secretary of State consider allocating more funds to the GEST programme? Otherwise, it will be a huge failure and teachers will be very disappointed indeed.
    Mrs. Shephard: As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), a great deal of money—nearly £250 million— is devoted to the GEST programme. I also made it clear that components of the GEST programme are designed specifically to maintain high standards and to provide training for teachers. The hon. Gentleman should look also at the resources that are now devoted to inspection and testing, all of which are designed to increase and improve education standards.

    Grant-maintained Schools, Essex
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools in Essex are .grant-maintained.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: There are 69 grant-maintained secondary schools in Essex, more than in any other local education authority area. Two thirds of the maintained secondary schools in the county are self-governing.
    Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grant-maintained secondary schools in Essex are highly regarded by governors, staff, parents and pupils, which contrasts with the county council-run sixth form college in my area where examination results are very poor? Therefore, does she understand that grant-maintained secondary schools in my constituency need to establish their own sixth forms? When will she respond to the applications by King Edmund school, Rochford, and

    133
    Greensward school, Hockley, and will that response come in time to put in place the September arrangements for pupils?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am aware that grant-maintained schools in Essex are very popular and successful, and I am also aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the proposals for those two schools. I undertake to give him a decision, in all possible haste, about the future of those sixth forms.

    Schools Report
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the schools in "15,000 Hours".
    Mr. Forth: No. It was agreed between all parties before the research began in the early 1970s that the schools would never be identified.
    Mr. Bottomley: May I put it to my hon. Friend that, as the agreement was made in 1970–25 years ago—we can expect the names of the schools to come out in five years' time under the 30-year rule, or will the schools' names be kept more secret than Cabinet secrets? While we are awaiting those names, is it not about time that more attention was drawn to the results of the research by Professor Michael Rutter and others, showing that the features of a school—ethos and structure—make a difference, and it does matter to which schools parents send their children? Is it not important that all education authorities re-read that important book?
    Mr. Forth: The undertaking of confidentiality was given by the researchers before the schools and teachers agreed to take part in the project. It was not necessary for the Department to know the identity of the schools and the researchers did not provide that information to the Department. Therefore, the Department has kept no official record of the schools that participated and, regrettably, my hon. Friend's ingenious and impassioned suggestion cannot be followed up.
    On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, of course a great deal of valuable research has been done, within the Department and outside, on school effectiveness in the broadest sense. We want to know more about what makes a good school: the contribution by the head teacher in particular, the governors, the staff and the parents. We are working hard increasingly to identify what elements make a good school so that we can disseminate that to the other schools and give them the opportunity to improve.

    Further Education
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures she proposes to take to prevent the misuse of public funds in the further education sector.
    Mr. Boswell: The chief executive of the Further Education Funding Council for England is responsible for ensuring that public funds are used for the purposes for which they were given. He has a duty to ensure that institutions have proper arrangements for financial
    134
    management and accounting. The council has also implemented a range of measures to prevent the misuse of public funds.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does the Minister accept that there is substantial evidence of abuse by further education colleges, primarily because the regulations governing those colleges are extremely weak? Will the Secretary of State undertake to review those procedures?
    Mr. Boswell: I am surprised at that because the Further Education Funding Council has introduced a range of measures. These are enshrined in the initial Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the instruments of governance of the colleges, the financial memoranda between the various colleges and the council and other audit controls which are imposed, and strengthened by the fact that the principal of the college is himself or herself the accounting officer for the purpose and has an important statutory role. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific evidence of malpractice or financial irregularity, I hope that he will draw it to the attention of the funding council. I have none.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend also examine the good use of funds in the further education sector, in particular the brand new facilities at North West Kent college, which were inaugurated by the Duke of Kent in Gravesend this morning?
    Mr. Boswell: I am delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend on that further advance in the further education sector. We are providing an additional 4 per cent. of funding for that sector in the coming year. We are making big demands on it and it is rising to the occasion.
    Mr. Beggs: What advice is given to further and higher education authorities to prevent fraud gangs from masquerading as students and getting away with millions by faking student identities to obtain grants?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question, although it is more germane to higher education. We and the higher education institutions and local education authorities have been concerned for some time about organised student frauds. The hon. Gentleman may have seen press reports on that matter only this morning and I hope he will have noticed that we have made available from Department for Education funds the sum of £120,000 for better computerised matching of similar, apparently similar or fraudulent entries in our determination to stamp out the problem.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: In place of all this ministerial complacency, is it not time that Ministers addressed themselves to the declining morale of the further education sector? Have not Government centralising policies, such as using crude holdback to dictate the outcome of local disputes, reducing local accountability and marginalising the role of staff and students on governing bodies, given rise to the widespread anxiety that further education could join the slippery slope of other public institutions into the quango state?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman's technique on these occasions is, "If in doubt, say that there is something wrong with morale." I do not know how many further education colleges he has visited recently. I have had exhaustive discussions with many people and staff, as well as at principal level. I find morale generally to be

    135
    high and the readiness of governing bodies to involve their academic and profession staff on a professional basis in the activities of college is to be welcomed. I do not accept the picture he has painted, nor do the students whose numbers are increasing in accordance with the target of a 25 per cent. expansion in that sector over the next three years.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the chief use of funds in further education is to provide more places? Does he agree that the increased number of places under this Government should be a source of congratulation rather than subject to niggling criticism of the kind that we have heard all afternoon?
    Mr. Boswell: We are not complacent about the record. The safeguards for accountability are in place, and we are determined that the nation should make the best possible investment from the additional funds that we are making available to further education.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has for securing an end to the dispute in the further education colleges sector.
    Mr. Boswell: The dispute about further education lecturers' contracts is for the employers and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education to resolve. The Government have no plans to intervene.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware of the immense damage being done throughout the country by the failure of college management to negotiate on the future of further education? Will he join me in appealing to the governing body of West Cumbria college in Workington to meet all the staff in an open forum, to seek a resolution to the difficulties?
    Mr. Boswell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to comment on an individual case, unless he thinks that it would be better if Ministers were to run college industrial relations policies. I naturally hope that discussions between staff and governors will always take place, locally and nationally. Although we have no plans to intervene in this case, I understand that the national negotiating bodies are again considering their position. We would like those matters to be resolved, but the basis of progress must be professionalism and efficiency in the delivery of further education.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
    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. Flynn: Was not top Tory John Maples right when he said that Tory Britain means the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor? Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that the orgy of unashamed greed of top salaries is justified? How does the Prime Minister
    136
    explain that the wage of one boss of a privatised industry is worth the same amount of money as that received by 20 doctors or 100 nurses?
    The Prime Minister: I have set out my views on board pay before and have made it clear that I do not agree with excessive and unjustified increases. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would agree. If he feels that the matter has been badly handled, he might discuss it with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who declares an interest in a company that advises British Gas and North West Water.
    Mr. Rathbone: When my right hon. Friend is making plans for the Tory manifesto for a Conservative victory at the next general election, will he pay particular attention to policies that touch on and support the encouragement of the family?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion. We are embarking on perhaps the widest examination of the policies that will be right, up to the next century and beyond it, that any party has undertaken for many years. I look forward to contributions from my hon. Friend and many others.
    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister says that excessive pay awards are a matter for shareholders, and as the Government are the 40 per cent. shareholder in National Power and PowerGen, why will he not intervene?
    The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that, having put the company in private hands, we are riot going to retain control over detailed decisions within the company. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have been speaking about something that sounds much like the beginning of a pay policy.
    Ms Church: Yes.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady says yes. I am pleased to hear that she says yes. The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether the new Labour believes in the free market or in controls and the politics of envy. The truth is that the language is new, but the prejudices are familiar.
    Mr. Blair: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what we believe in: public services run for the public and in the public interest. We can see whom the Tories represent. While they represent these excesses, the Labour party will speak up for the vast majority of ordinary people. People struggling to pay their bills and worried about their living standards are fed up with the same small group of people playing the boardroom equivalent of the national lottery and awarding themselves huge pay increases, hitting the jackpot week after week at the expense of the public.
    The Prime Minister: Well, now we see it: the right hon. Gentleman is becoming a slave to grievance politics. I shall tell him who is concerned about public services—the people who put the services that did not serve the public well in private hands. The result is that prices are falling, investment is rising and consumers are getting better service now, in the private sector, than before. The Labour party's campaign shows just how unreconstructed and envious the Opposition still are. The right hon.

    137
    Gentleman makes no reference to the improvements in services. All he is doing is milking prejudice and exposing the fact that the Labour party has not changed.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's most welcome reports confirming that the Samsung Heavy Industries Company from South Korea is to establish a manufacturing plant near Knaresborough in my constituency, ultimately providing up to 600 jobs? Does he agree that the United Kingdom beat off competition from eight European countries because our Government have managed the economy so well? We have an excellent infrastructure; more importantly, we have a brilliant work force in Yorkshire.
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that Samsung has decided to invest in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am only sorry that we did not hear the same sort of support for inward investment when NEC went to Livingston and Black and Decker went to Sedgefield.
    The fact is that more inward investment is coming to this country than to any other in Europe because of the policies that we have followed, and because we will not accept the social chapter. People can see that the economy of this country is doing better than any other major economy in Europe. That means jobs for people in this country—jobs that would be lost by the policies followed by the Labour party.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the life sentence handed out to Private Lee Clegg, although required by the law, is nevertheless shamefully inappropriate, and that this is the moment for him to be released under licence, and the law changed?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for Ministers to comment on the actions of the court.
    There are two points that I can make to the right hon. Gentleman about Private Clegg. The first is that there have been suggestions in recent days of fresh evidence that might cast doubt on Private Clegg's conviction. If so, that evidence should be provided to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He will then consider it and decide whether it is sufficient to refer to the Court of Appeal.
    Secondly, after the recent decision, the question arises what should happen to Private Clegg now that his conviction has been upheld by the court. As the House will know, as for all life sentence prisoners there is a process to be gone through before a release date can be set. It will include consultations with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and it will take into account the nature of the offence. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that that process is undertaken both effectively and with due care.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the Government banned veal crates and introduced the strictest regulations governing the transport of animals, and when they recently introduced welfare regulations covering the rearing of pigs, they did so hoping that Europe would soon follow? Will he persist in that policy?
    The Prime Minister: We certainly will persist in that policy. We need a European-wide level of legislation if
    138
    we are truly interested in animal welfare. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pressed that issue in Brussels yesterday. He secured agreement yesterday to advance the review of European Union requirements, which was scheduled for 1997, and found that there was considerable sympathy for the aim of phasing out the veal crate. I believe that the writing is on the wall for that production system, and there is no one in Europe who can take more credit for that than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Battle: As the Prime Minister and his Government hold the golden shares in the privatised water companies, why is he allowing Yorkshire Water to force people to have compulsory, expensive water metering, so that families, pensioners and the disabled pay the highest price for their water while Sir Gordon Jones and his directors hoard thousands of shares to themselves and skim off some £829,000 in boardroom remuneration?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my first answer, he would have known the answer about the golden share. What the hon. Gentleman illustrates, yet again, is that, whenever they can, the Opposition wish decisions to be taken by Labour Members of Parliament. They are in no sense interested in the private sector. They are not interested in putting decisions out to the private sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sleaze."] Whatever they may say, they want centralisation and nothing but. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sleaze."] Those Opposition Members who are chanting may well be directing their chants to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), but they need not chant at me.

    Prime Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Ruislip-Northwood Parliamentary constituency.
    The Prime Minister: I have not had the opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Had my right hon. Friend been able to visit the Ruislip-Northwood constituency since 28 November 1994, he would have found strong support from local people, backed by their local Member of Parliament, for the view that RAF Northolt, which is frequently used by Her Majesty's Ministers, should develop its services to the armed forces to the full. It welcomes the forthcoming arrival of the Queen's flight, but local residents would not approve of any extension of civil movements to RAF Northolt beyond those already permitted.
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on one of the most effective pieces of coat-trailing that we have heard in the House for some time. I understand the points that he made and will draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

    Taxation
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister what was the tax burden on an average income family in 1991; and what is the estimated burden on a similar family in 1995.
    The Prime Minister: The answer would depend on a number of factors, such as family size and expenditure pattern, which the hon. Gentleman does not specify, but I can tell him that real take-home pay after tax and inflation has risen by 4 per cent.—about £11 a week in today's prices—since 1991 for a one-earner family on average earnings and is expected to rise further next year.
    Mr. Cohen: Despite the Prime Minister's manifesto assertion, "I believe in low taxes," since the previous general election an average family must pay an extra £15.50 a week in tax. Will he give the reason for that whacking increase, especially as public services have deteriorated or been privatised? Surely the Prime Minister should be referred to the Nolan committee for bringing manifesto commitments into disrepute.
    The Prime Minister: Were that to be so, after that question the hon. Gentleman would have to join me, for he will know that the Labour party proposes to introduce—in addition to existing taxes—a windfall tax, a payroll tax, a health tax, an entertainment tax and a development tax. That is on top of the intricate piece of accountancy by the Liberal Democrats, on which I congratulate them, which suggests that Labour party plans would already add 5p to the standard rate of income tax. While we head for 20p, the Labour party heads for 30p.

    Engagements
    Mr. Legg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Legg: Will my right hon. Friend please assure those of my constituents whose children are at grammar and independent schools that he has no plans to abolish
    140
    the assisted places scheme or charitable status, or to stop selection? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the Opposition wish to abolish such schools, many of their spokesmen have benefited from them?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. A large number of what I believe are called, in current Labour terminology, "sensible" parents have evacuated their children from Labour-controlled education authorities and sent them elsewhere, including the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Barking (Ms Hodge).
    Mr. MacShane: Cheap.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is cheap, but that is what they have done.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Indonesia.
    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.
    Mr. Corbyn: As the Prime Minister has no plans to do visit Indonesia, will he convey to the Indonesian Government the British people's abhorrence of the illegal occupation of East Timor and the death of 200,000 East Timorese people at the hands of the Indonesian army? Will the right hon. Gentleman halt all British arms sales to Indonesia, which have been used to suppress and oppress the people there, and specifically ban the export of the Scorpion personnel carrier which can be used to kill and injure people in East Timor in order to maintain that illegal occupation?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not recognised the Indonesian annexation of East Timor. That has been our position for a long time and we continue to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to find a lasting solution to the problem. However, there is neither a European Union nor a United Nations embargo on arms sales to Indonesia; nor do I believe that one would be justified.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point or order, Madam Speaker. Tomorrow, Scottish Members table Scottish Questions under the new procedure, but even under that new procedure we still will not have the right directly to question all Scottish Office Ministers. That is extremely frustrating for Scottish Members. Could that be referred to the Procedure Committee for further consideration?
For example, I am sure that today many Scottish Members would have wished to question the Law Officers on whether they had available to them information from the American air force before they initiated proceedings against the current Lockerbie suspects. But even the basic democratic question of "What do you know and when did you know it?" is not available to Scottish Members. Does that not amount to an abuse of Scottish democracy?
Madam Speaker: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is referring to Standing Order No. 94B, which does not envisage Ministers who sit in the other place answering questions in the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he may wish to pursue the matter. The only way that the matter can be pursued is by putting it to the Procedure Committee and asking it to consider the matter.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Page 165 of "Erskine May" makes the point that control of the accommodation and services of the House
"is vested in the Speaker on behalf of the House."
I mention that because it may reassure us that we will not find, one of these days, that the building is being privatised like the Treasury building over the road. This is an apt opportunity to make it clear that the Palace of Westminster will not be turned into offices and a hotel by private speculators. Otherwise, the rumour may grow that, if it can be done over the road with the Treasury building, perhaps this building will be next.
Madam Speaker: From time to time, many of us complain about this building—that we do not have sufficient accommodation or that it is not as modern as we would like. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Quite right."] That may be so, but, I would defend this building until my last breath. I shall be the first to the barricades to safeguard it as it stands.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister perhaps inadvertently to mislead the House and to suggest that I have evacuated my children at any stage
142
to schools outside the local authority, when all my five children have always attended local authority schools in the district in which they reside?
Madam Speaker: I missed the point, if that was the point, that the Prime Minister made, but the hon. Gentleman has put the record straight for himself.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to press you on this matter, but you will remember that three months ago I intervened and asked whether you would rule on occasions when Ministers exploited the children of hon. Members by raising these issues in the House. You ruled that you believed that it was wrong. Today, the Prime Minister has done it in relation to five hon. Members. Would you assert those rulings whereby hon. Members are advised that they should not make such statements?
Madam Speaker: I did not think today that the Prime Minister was exploiting the children of hon. Members. I thought that he was exploiting the hon. Members themselves and the attitudes that they took. I am careful in listening to the exchanges across the House on these matters. I am sure that the House knows that I deprecate the use of families like footballs across the Floor of the House. We have to be careful. It is reasonable, however, for hon. Members on both sides of the House to be attacked politically because we have a platform on which we can reply. That is the way in which it should be done.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it another point of order on this matter?
Mr. Bruce rose—
Madam Speaker: I have made my ruling. I will hear no more points of order on the matter. The House knows clearly where I stand. The hon. Member said that it was a point of order on this matter. Has he changed his mind? He has thought of another one.
Mr. Bruce: I rose on a point of order in relation to a completely different matter, Madam Speaker. I thought that you had finished and I apologise for interrupting your flow. My point of order deals with access to the House. On Sunday, you may have seen on the BBC "On The Record" programme a picture of people queuing to get into the Gallery of the House. The person introducing the subject said that people had to get in a queue to lobby their Member of Parliament, which is incorrect. I wonder whether you have any powers to keep the fourth estate in line on this matter. Perhaps we should take their passes away for a week or so, so that they would more accurately reflect how people can lobby their Member of Parliament.
Madam Speaker: I shall consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The Select Committee on Broadcasting could consider the matter. I have not seen the programme. I have quite a lot of other interesting things to do on a Sunday evening.

Community Care (Rights to Mental Health Services)
3.38 pm
Ms Tessa Jowell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for comprehensive services for persons referred to specialist psychiatric services or discharged from hospital following treatment for mental disorder and for connected purposes.
The Bill would give enforceable rights to care and support to mentally ill people in the community. It would also establish national standards for the provision of services and care. Mentally ill people still live at the margins of our society. For too long, our concern and the public resources it represents have been as marginal. We have all had our reasons for that failure.
Professor Kathleen Jones put it well when she said:
"to the politician community care is a useful piece of rhetoric; to the sociologist it is a stick to beat institutional care with; to the Civil Servant it is a cheap alternative to institutional care which can pass to the local authority for action or inaction. To the visionary it is a dream of a new society in which people really do care. To the Social Services Department it is a nightmare of heightened public expectation and inadequate resources to meet them."
Those words are as relevant today as when they were first written 20 years ago, and that is the problem.
There is now unquestioned and universal agreement about what makes care in the community work—agreement that was validated by research in the mid-1960s, and confirmed by numerous studies since then and by the experience of mentally ill people themselves during the past 30 years. The essential elements of community care are stable accommodation, the support of a named key worker, day care and access to crisis services that are available 24 hours a day and not—as, unfortunately, is still too often the case—only from 9 to 5.
Shamefully, whether a person secures the services that he needs, when he needs them and for as long as he needs them, still depends on a geographical lottery. The level, range and quality of provision varies enormously from one district to another. Eligibility varies. Is it any wonder that mentally ill people desperate for help just get lost, sometimes with tragic consequences?
When treatment was provided in large, distant hospitals, society could and did ignore the injustices and, sometimes, even the brutality that that caused. Patients were denied privacy and their own clothing; even false teeth were handed out before meals by charge nurses. But that time has long since passed, and no one seriously proposes a return to policies abandoned by public and professional consent a generation ago.
Today's challenge, which cannot be bucked, is to bring the essential elements of care once found in mental hospitals to every person who stands in need of them. The risk posed by recent tragedies is that public confidence will falter just when the Government and Parliament must be made to face that challenge and deliver a policy that works for all. How can confidence be restored in a policy that depends on the one hand on public acceptance and support, and on the other on the actions and decisions of countless doctors, nurses, social workers and other professionals?
What is needed is a system for care and treatment that can meet the twin concerns of public safety and the need to ensure that individuals are given appropriate and reliable help while living their lives in the community
144
rather than in a hospital ward. Our present legal framework for mental health is out of date; the legislation is hospital-based, and fails to take account of the fact that 90 per cent. of care is now provided in the community. Indeed, our mental health laws work against the very aims of community care, becoming more and more discredited as tragic cases highlight their glaring limitations.
Parliament created that inadequate legal framework, and it is now Parliament's responsibility to change it. In the House, we can legislate for a system within which the various rights and duties combine to provide a safer and more effective service for the mentally ill person, his relatives and the public. We can render more accountable those—from Ministers to individual practitioners—whom society has entrusted with the task of getting the policy to work.
What is needed to inspire both professional and public confidence is nothing less than root-and-branch reform—not tinkering with the details of the present law as the Government propose, or offering some paper-thin charter, which will be the next desperate idea. Numerous inquiry reports have emphasised that people can simply be lost by the services that should be helping them. Only last week, one such report—produced by a committee headed by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper—termed the Mental Health Act 1983 obsolete. The Health Service Journal, adding its voice, said that the "outmoded" Mental Health Act is "inadequate" and needs replacing.
My Bill offers a new legal framework. It will impose clear duties on health authorities, national health service trusts and social services authorities to assess and keep under regular review the needs which a person might have for the full range of medical treatment, social care and practical assistance required for life in the community. It will require the Government to establish and enforce minimum standards of community care provision throughout the country, with corresponding responsibility to ensure that those having to meet those standards have the funds with which to do so.
The Bill will define new duties which make health and social work professionals, and the authorities which employ them, accountable to those patients with whom they work and to the public for the decisions which they make on their behalf. Above all, it will for the first time give those who must rely on our health and social care system clear rights to receive the services which they need to have a decent chance of something better than just surviving in the community.
My Bill has the support of every major organisation concerned with the care and support of mentally ill people. Its principles are supported by MIND, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Mental Health Foundation, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, Survivors Speak Out, the patients' organisation, and Unison, the health service trade union.
The Bill also has extensive cross-party support within the House. I hope that it will be given an unopposed First reading by the House and that, in time, its much-needed proposals may find their place in legislation.
Question put and agreed to.

145
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Tessa Jowell, Ms Janet Anderson, Ms Jean Corston, Ms Angela Eagle, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, Ms Estelle Morris, and Mr. Roger Sims.

Community Care (Rights to Mental Health Services)
  COMMUNITY CARE (RIGHTS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES)
  Ms Tessa Jowell accordingly presented a Bill to provide for comprehensive services for persons referred to specialist psychiatric services or discharged from hospital following treatment for mental disorder and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday March 3, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

Madam Speaker's Statement
Madam Speaker: Before we embark on the Second Reading of the Disability Discrimination Bill, the House may wish to know how I view the position of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill presented by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), which is due to receive its Second Reading on Friday 10 February.
Obviously the question arises as to whether the private Member's Bill can properly proceed once a decision has been reached on today's Bill. "Erskine May" states on pages 468 to 469:
"There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provisions. But if a decision of the House has already been taken on one such Bill, for example, if the Bill has been given or refused a second reading, the other is not proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions".
The Disability Discrimination Bill and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill clearly overlap in many respects, but in many respects they are incompatible and they cannot be said to contain substantially the same provisions. To the extent that their provisions differ and are incompatible, the House may at some stage have a choice to make between them. I do not consider that it would be right for me as Speaker to prevent the House from proceeding with the Second Reading of the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East if it wishes to do so, even if the Government's Bill has previously been given a Second Reading.

Orders of the Day

  Disability Discrimination Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.49 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Government give a high priority to helping disabled people to live with dignity and independence. During the past 15 years, much has been done to further that aim. The new access to work programme has enabled a wider range of disabled people to obtain and keep employment, by helping them to overcome barriers at work. The introduction of access requirements to the building regulations has had a substantial effect on social, recreational and employment possibilities for disabled people. The number of disabled children educated in mainstream schools has increased steadily, great progress has been made towards an accessible transport network, and spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has more than trebled in real terms.
  Despite what has been achieved, the Government recognise that discrimination still occurs. Disabled people are still liable to be afforded less favourable treatment throughout a whole range of activities—whether when applying for a job, or trying to get a table in a restaurant. For example, a few years ago, Scope conducted an interesting experiment, in which job advertisements were responded to with two curriculum vitae, which were identical in every way, except that one revealed a disability. The study concluded that an able-bodied applicant was much more likely to receive a positive response to an application.
  The Government have always made it clear that they are committed to ending the irrationality with which disabled people are all too often treated and regarded. It is utterly wrong that disabled people are restricted, or excluded from some aspects of life. We all must come to terms with including people with a disability in our work, travel, study and leisure—all the more so because our ageing population will bring with it an increasing number of people with some kind of disability.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister quoted the case of someone being discriminated against when applying for a job and thus clearly gave the House the impression that such discrimination was not acceptable to the Government. If it is not, and he nods, why should the Bill make it acceptable for companies employing fewer than 20 people?
  Mr. Hague: The provisions in the Bill will cover 83 per cent. of employees who work in firms employing 20 or more people. There are reasons why we want to exempt smaller firms from the employment requirements and I will come to those.
  The Bill is the most tangible evidence yet of the Government's commitment to disabled people. It establishes Britain as leading the way in Europe. In time,
  148
  it will bring about the dramatic changes to which I shall refer. It will involve millions of people in taking positive action, its implications for what individuals and businesses must do are more far-reaching than existing sex and race legislation, and its effects will be felt across the board, in all aspects of life. It will give disabled people a right not to be discriminated against in employment, and a right of access to goods, facilities, financial services and the transport infrastructure.
  As our White Paper made clear, however, our proposals go much wider than the areas in which legislation is necessary. The accompanying measures, on transport and education, and the consultation on domestic dwellings complete the most comprehensive package to deal with such matters proposed by any Government.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister mentioned accompanying measures to deal with education. In an answer to me last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the Bill applied to education, yet one clause deliberately excludes 12 areas—mainly on the basis of the funding authority involved—so it is difficult to know which educational institutions will be covered by the provisions. Will the Minister confirm that those are not covered and clarify whether they will be covered by some other provision?
  Mr. Hague: As the hon. Member knows from the White Paper and from my statement to the House on 24 November 1994, the Government are proposing a number of education measures that are separate from the scope of the Bill. As he should also know, its employment provisions will apply to educational institutions, so the Prime Minister was right to say that aspects of the Bill apply to education, just as he was right to say that aspects of it apply to transport.
  Part I defines disability for the purpose of the new law. Opposition Members have implied in their reasoned amendment that we have defined the concept of disability too narrowly. But a wider definition that stretched the concept of disability too far would lack credibility and be open to abuse. Our definition is the right one, because employers and service providers will understand it, and it will therefore make the Act operable.
  Part II concerns the employment right. The new employment right is broadly on the lines of present anti-discrimination provision for women and ethnic minorities, but with the additional requirement on employers to make reasonable adjustments to overcome any practical constraints imposed by a person's disability. The right covers all aspects of employment: when disabled people apply for work or take up employment and when people become disabled during their working lives. It will replace the outdated and unworkable quota scheme. Like that scheme, it will cover a broad range of physical and mental disabilities.
  The Bill provides for codes of practice to be issued, which will help employers in deciding whether an adjustment is reasonable in a particular case. They will need to take account of the cost of the adjustment and its usefulness in overcoming the practical effect of the disability. Most disabled people who want to work need no or only very modest help.

  149
  The new right will apply to employers with 20 or more employees—a point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—and include 83 per cent. of all employees.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister said earlier that most disabled people who want to work need no or very little help. On what authority does he say that?
  Mr. Hague: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be eager to agree with me. I say it on the basis of experience in the United States, where employers found that "reasonable accommodation", which is their equivalent of our term "reasonable adjustment", cost nothing in 43 per cent. of cases because it involved just moving the office furniture around or doing something sensible and practical like introducing different working hours. A large proportion of other adjustments cost very little. So I am entirely justified in saying that—
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
  Mr. Hague: I must get on with my speech, but if the hon. Gentleman needs further elaboration, let him ask.
  Mr. Clarke: I promise the Minister that I shall be as generous and give way to him at least twice.
  Given that the Minister has just said that those measures cost nothing, which was an important statement on behalf of the Government, why are the Government being so mean?
  Mr. Hague: It is most comforting to know that the hon. Gentleman will give way to me twice, but it is not comforting to see that he cannot reconcile the various statements that I have made on this matter. It can be simultaneously true that, while many adjustments cost nothing, some cost something. Some employers will have to pay a bill to finance a reasonable adjustment, and I see no inconsistency between those positions.
  Mr. David Hanson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hague: I must now make a little progress, but I shall try to give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later if he wishes. Many other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  The exemption for small firms reflects the Government's recognition that it may be more difficult and burdensome for smaller firms to get to grips with the new right. There will, however, be provision for the threshold of 20 employees to be changed by way of regulation and the Government will keep the level under review as experience is gained of the new right.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hague: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). I shall then make a good deal of progress with my speech.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend spoke of the undesirability of imposing a burden on business. I do not want to be unreasonable, but should not we expect
  150
  business men to behave as decently as other people? Does my hon. Friend recall that Oliver Twist's first cry on being born in the workhouse advertised to the inmates "the fact of a new burden having been imposed on the parish"? Does my hon. Friend sometimes feel, as I do, that we need a new Dickens to describe the absurdities and horrors of our complacencies?
  Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend describes the position in an interesting and literary way. We can think of those matters as burdens but also as opportunities for employers and service providers, many of whom will find that including disabled people brings benefits. We must recognise, however, that there will be a cost implication for many employers and a cost to goods and service providers—in their case we expect it to run into hundreds of millions of pounds. We cannot wish away the fact that the Bill's provisions will represent an additional cost for many people.
  Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister expect that his hon. Friends will table amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Race Relations Act 1976 to provide a 20-employees exemption? If he does not, why is he treating disabled people differently?
  Mr. Hague: I cannot anticipate what amendments may be tabled to the Bill, let alone to previous Acts of Parliament. It is important to recognise that the Bill expects more cost and positive action on the part of employers than that expected of them to overcome other cases of discrimination. As I have already said, the Government have provided that the threshold of 20 employees may be changed through regulation. We shall keep the level of that restriction under review.
  Part III contains the access provisions. Service providers will be required to change policies, practices and procedures that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to make use of goods. They will also be required to provide auxiliary aids or services—such as induction loops—or remove physical barriers to help disabled people gain access to goods, facilities and services. Those requirements will lead to a huge leap forward in the accessibility of goods and services to disabled people. We have listened carefully to the representations made during our consultation exercise and we have responded.
  We have consulted in particular on insurance. We have decided that a statutory provision needs to be made for the insurance industry. We are taking powers to prescribe that insurers may treat disabled people differently only where that is based on sound evidence. My officials, together with their colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, are discussing with the Association of British Insurers and Lloyd's a statutory framework to end discrimination against disabled people.
  The Bill is drafted in such a way that indirect as well as direct discrimination can be dealt with. We have adopted a definition of discrimination that leaves disabled people with practical solutions to the real problems that they face—however they are categorised. A situation where dogs were not admitted to a cafe, with the effect that blind people would be unable to enter it, would be a prima facie case of indirect discrimination against disabled people and would be unlawful.
  The proposals amount to huge change. While recognising that that change will be welcome to disabled people, it must also be acknowledged that many in the

  151
  business sector will be apprehensive. The business community is entitled to know as precisely as possible what is expected of it. The courtroom is not the place for such matters to be decided—it is up to the Government to make the information available. The Bill shows that the Government are prepared to face up to that responsibility, and it has been drafted to provide for maximum certainty.
  One characteristic that sets the Government's Bill apart from alternatives which have been proposed is that it includes provisions that will allow the Government to tie down as precisely as possible what employers and service providers will have to do to comply with the law, as well as providing for maximum flexibility of approach.
  The Bill will allow us to specify exactly what is meant by terms such as "auxiliary aid" and "reasonable alternative provision". We will be able to specify particular instances when it would, or would not, be reasonable for service providers or employers to take a particular course of action.
  Crucially, we will also be able to make explicit precisely how much money a service provider needs to spend in any particular case on making his service more accessible. Under the Bill it will not be up to the courts to decide whether a business would be subjected to "undue hardship"—whatever that might mean, it is certainly a recipe for uncertainty and dispute.
  As a consequence, we are able to tie down the cost of our proposals for access to services. The reason why the maximum cost of the Government's proposal can be estimated at around £1.3 billion is that, unlike other Bills that have been presented, it is not open-ended—it is not a blank cheque. Having consulted further, we will be able to set a limit which is appropriate to the needs for disabled people and realistic for business.
  The need for certainty is why there will be a further round of consultation before the regulations under the Act are laid—to ensure that the detailed proposals are easily understood, affordable and fair.
  We shall consult on the contents of the code of practice for employers, which will draw on the extensive experience of the Employment Service's placing, assessment and counselling teams in helping disabled people and their employers overcome any practical effects of their disabilities in a job. We shall consult on what it will be reasonable to expect those in each service sector to do to provide an accessible service. We shall also consult on the financial limit.
  The employment right, a provision that replaces an existing requirement on employers, is likely to commence by spring 1996. Aspects of the access provisions, such as the prohibition on refusing to serve a disabled person, will also commence in 1996. We shall start as much as possible as soon as possible. However, the more stringent duties on service providers, such as the duty to make physical alterations, represent totally new departures. It is likely, therefore, that a phasing-in period of perhaps five to 10 years will be appropriate to ensure that businesses have sufficient time to gear up for their new responsibilities. That issue will also be the subject of consultation.
  I know that we shall hear this afternoon about the exclusion of education and transport vehicles from the right of access. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has already referred to it. Their
  152
  exclusion has been a focus of criticism, yet it would be flying in the face of common sense not to accord special treatment in those areas.
  The Education Act 1993 made provision for a biennial survey of the accessibility of schools—due to report this summer—which may help to identify areas where better access may be needed. In tandem with existing programmes of improvement, the Government will also bring forward proposals to encourage providers of education to devise imaginative, cost-effective projects aimed at increasing accessibility.
  The potential interaction between proposals to include education in the Bill and the 1993 Act is unclear, but it would certainly cause severe difficulties for local education authorities. There would be conflicts between the responsibilities of the local authority as set out in the 1993 Act and the idea that adaptations should not cause the provider "undue hardship"—a stipulation that is very difficult to define in terms of schools and local education authorities. The provisions would undermine local authorities' planning role and increase overall costs.
  The inclusion of education might have the effect of not allowing schools to teach children with special needs separately, preventing them from benefiting from supplementary help or from gradual inclusion into mainstream tuition. It would replace a carefully worked out system, which was established as a result of a great deal of consultation, with a set of provisions inappropriate to efficient education.
  As for public transport vehicles, there is only one sensible way to require accessible vehicles, and that is on a replacement basis. To fix a timetable for the manufacturers of all types of transport to adhere to would be folly, and could lead to services being withdrawn. Instead, we shall require all new buses to be of a low-floor construction, to match new rolling stock that is already built to an accessible design, and the fully accessible designs of purpose-built taxis, which have been available since the mid-1980s.
  It is obvious nonsense to suggest that excluding transport vehicles from the Bill denies disabled people access to transport. The Government's record on initiatives in that area is second to none. For example, all new licensed taxis in London are already wheelchair-accessible. By 1 January 2000, all taxis in London will be wheelchair-accessible. More than 60 other licensing authorities have mandated for all or part of their fleets to be wheelchair-accessible. Other improvements include the accessibility of the new light railway systems and the inter-city network, ranging over to the orange badge scheme and the contribution of Motability to the independent personal mobility of disabled people.
  The key is that those people who argue for the inclusion of transport vehicles appear to have ruled out any thought that different treatment might be appropriate in certain areas. Most sensible people will think the "one size fits all" approach to be rigid and counter-productive.
  Mr. Roger Berry: Does the Minister accept that the argument that he just made is simply incorrect? Those who supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill have argued consistently that consultation on the codes of practice in that Bill would enable those issues to be explored in great detail, and the

  153
  Minister is not here arguing for special treatment for transport. The case that he just made is not for special treatment for transport.
  Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman recognises that I am not arguing for special treatment for transport, and I am pleased to have his recognition of that. I am saying that there are practical and sensible ways of bringing about radical change in the accessibility of our transport systems in this country—change that is already well under way—without legislation. The most flexible, sensible and practical way to do it is outside the scope of legislative requirements.
  We have seen significant improvements in access provision across all transport areas, but the benefits of those developments have sometimes been lost because of inaccessible infrastructure. That has often been the weak link in what is otherwise becoming a more accessible service. Transport infrastructure is covered by the right of access to goods and services. The measure will help us in securing the fully accessible transport system which is our ultimate aim.
  The Government's approach is the right one—it also presents the perfect opportunity for Parliament to discuss and frame legislation to ensure that disabled people get the Bill that they deserve. I believe that the Government's proposals are clear, in that they give people specific obligations and rights in a way that the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East would not. They are workable in that they provide for flexibility and practical solutions to distinct problems—the hon. Member's Bill does not. They are fair in that they end discrimination while considering the interests of others—the hon. Member's Bill does not. That is why I will be asking the House to support this Bill and not the one that he has presented to the House.
  Part IV deals with the national disability council. The Opposition's amendment claims that the Bill provides only an ineffective enforcement procedure. I do not accept that argument and I think that the analogy with the existing commissions is flawed.
  To a much greater extent than for women, or even ethnic minorities, the problems faced by disabled people in securing fair treatment in society are individualistic. Disabilities pose—or are wrongly perceived to impose—specific practical limitations on what a disabled person can do. Overcoming such problems requires practical, individually tailored solutions. I do not believe that it is an area where the bringing of class legal actions has substantial relevance.
  Only a small minority of sex discrimination cases—fewer than 10 per cent.—which are resolved in the courts are supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission. As for the much-vaunted test cases, we believe that there is a better way of reviewing and keeping the law up to date without any of the horrific legal costs that such cases can accumulate. We recognise that the effects of the Disability Discrimination Bill, when enacted, will need to be sustained and reviewed to ensure that it is having the intended effect and that changes in society's attitude and behaviour towards disabled people need to be kept under review so that discrimination can be countered effectively, now and in future.
  154
  That is why we need the national disability council. It will work closely with existing organisations representing the interests of disabled people. Its primary duties will be to.advise the Government on measures relating to the elimination of discrimination and the drawing up of codes of practice to help with the interpretation of the Bill. The question of who should sit on the NDC has yet to he decided, but it will almost certainly include members of representative committees and organisations, business representatives, and disabled people themselves. Another reason why disabled people will be well protected under the legislation is that there will be, in the sector of service provision, somewhere for them to turn if they feel that they have been discriminated against—to go alongside the existing support network for employees.
  The Bill makes provision for the establishment of an advice and support service to help disabled people secure their rights and to promote the settlement of disputes arising under the right of access to goods and services. We intend that the advice and support should be locally available so as to be of maximum benefit to disabled people and easier to use than the centralised service offered by existing commissions in other areas.
  My Department will support the advisers with detailed guidance on the right of access. There will be procedures to help disabled people to set down the details of their complaint so as to make plain the precise legal provision that they think has been infringed. Their complaint would then be put forcefully to the trader accused of discrimination.
  We have begun discussions with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on the possibility of helping citizens advice bureaux to be better able to advise and support disabled people and to provide the service that we have in mind. Those discussions will address such issues as the detailed nature of the services, the possible involvement of disability organisations in ensuring that staff are properly trained and can provide an effective service, the degree to which citizens advice bureaux are accessible to disabled people and how any deficiencies may be remedied.
  However, in those cases where legal redress is sought, the county court's power to award an injunction will he extremely important for the purposes of the Bill. Although damages will be available, what disabled people want is an increasingly accessible environment and a change in people's attitudes. That is our objective in bringing forward the Bill and that is what it will provide. Our enforcement strategy is the right one in the circumstances.
  Mr. Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hague: I have already done so, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once more in acknowledgement of his involvement in these affairs.
  Mr. Barnes: I have written to the Minister about the role of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service upon which he is now elaborating. The letter suggests that we are not very far down the path in the process and that all the ideas in the Government's legislation must be developed considerably and then finalised. Surely there is a difference between a private Member's Bill which tries

  155
  to set up some structure or arrangement and Government legislation which should tell us exactly what their plans are.
  Mr. Hague: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well down the track in developing our plans. I have been able to announce to the House today considerably more progress than I set out in my letter to him—I know that it was written yesterday, but I thought that it would be better to inform the House of Commons of our proposals rather than leak it to the hon. Gentleman by letter last night. That is why I have set out our plans to the whole House today.
  We are well down the track in our discussions. We are taking the sometimes painstaking time and trouble to ensure that the system works and will provide a locally available source of advice and assistance for disabled people. I think that it is worth taking that time and trouble because the prize is considerable: if the service works, it will provide tangible help to large numbers of people.
  Sir Donald Thompson: Is not my hon. Friend trying to make what is reasonable and normal become acceptable and commonplace?
  Mr. Hague: Yes. I am trying to frame our legislation in such a way as to require people to do things differently and also to change attitudes in the country without creating a backlash against the objectives that we are trying to secure. That is why we have framed the legislation in that way.
  I make special mention of two aspects of the Bill which I propose to amend in Committee to take account of representations made since the Bill was published. Firstly, the Bill applies to Great Britain, with power to extend its provisions to Northern Ireland by Order in Council. It has always been the Government's intention that those new rights should apply throughout the United Kingdom. We also want them to take effect in Northern Ireland from the same date as elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  We expect hon. Members from Northern Ireland to be able to take part in any discussion of the Bill's provisions. However, a number of hon. Members from Northern Ireland—including the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who is in the Chamber now—have sought stronger assurances on those points. To avoid doubt, the Government have decided to extend the Bill to cover Northern Ireland from the outset. The necessary amendments, including any local provisions required, will be tabled in Committee.
  Secondly, some hon. Members have said that the sale and letting of property should be covered specifically in the Bill. The Government agree in principle. We will need to consider the details of how the legislation might be framed, and I will address that matter during the Committee.
  I believe that attitudes to disability and disabled people are changing. In the world of work, people are starting to appreciate that disabled people have strengths and weaknesses in the same way as everybody else, and that an individual's disabilities are not nearly as important as his or her abilities. In the service sector, people are beginning to realise that making services and facilities accessible to disabled people is pure good business sense.
  The Bill shows that the Government are determined to play a major role in maintaining that transformation of attitudes. We are determined to tackle the frustrations
  156
  which disabled people encounter in attempting to do the things that many of us take for granted, and we are determined to do so across the board.
  We have listened to disabled people and their representatives and we have listened to employers. We have built on the Government's already impressive record of helping disabled people by producing a Bill which represents an historic advance for disabled people. It establishes a new right not to be discriminated against in the field of employment, it establishes a new right of access to goods and services, and it establishes a new national disability council. It is a Bill of which we can he proud, and I commend it to the House.
  4.19 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  That this House declines to give the Disability (Discrimination) Bill a Second Reading because it believes that the Bill is not an acceptable or enforceable measure to ensure civil rights for all disabled people because its employment provisions would extend to less than five per cent. of firms, because it fails to provide for a comprehensive definition of disability or for a Disability Rights Commission to work towards the elimination of discrimination, because it specifically excludes access to the means of public transport and because it fails to make unlawful discrimination in the sale and letting of premises.
  I begin by thanking Madam Speaker for her very clear statement on procedure at the beginning of the debate. Whatever the decision of the House today, Opposition Members look forward with confidence to 10 February when we shall support the Bill presented by my hon. Friend for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) because we realise that that is the only civil rights Bill before the House this Session.
  The Bill that the Government have laid before the House today is not so much a measure to help disabled people as a measure to help Ministers get out of the hole that they dug themselves last year. Their Bill is, above all, a public relations exercise. They certainly need to improve their public image, but it will take a good deal of positive publicity and a much more positive Bill than this one to undo the damage done by the shambles that we witnessed last Session.
  Since their obstruction in the House of disabled people's civil rights, the Government have spent £1 million on advertising, trying to project a more positive image, but as 6.5 million disabled people, their families and carers know, the image and the reality are very different. The Bill before us today shows that the Government have moved less far than they would pretend and nowhere near so far as disabled people want.
  Last week, I heard the Minister claim, as he did again today, that he has brought about strong and wide-ranging legislation to deal with discrimination against disabled people. What we have before us, however, is neither strong nor wide ranging: it is weak and narrow and, worst of all, it actually introduces a new discrimination between different groups of disabled people, as the Minister confirmed today. It is a Bill of half measures and unenforceable concessions. The Minister said that his Bill represented a great stride forward for the Government in their approach to disability, but it is no such thing: at best, it is a great step sideways. Indeed, in terms of the employment of disabled people, it represents one step forward and two steps back.

  157
  As the Government have at least entered the debate, we should remember where they were when they began. In 1990, Her Majesty's Government told the World Health Organisation that they were
  "not convinced that the goal of integration and equality can be particularly advanced by any all-embracing or generalised law proclaiming the rights of disabled people."
  In the same year, the Department of Employment—I understand that an Employment Minister is to reply to the debate—also expressed misgivings about the very idea of disabled people's rights when it said:
  "disability, unlike race or sex, can be relevant to job performance".
  The same document stated:
  "Anti-discrimination legislation is unlikely to be effective in achieving policy objectives and might be counter-productive by making a constructive approach by employers less likely."
  That was said against all the evidence of the American experience. It was not even an argument that persuaded President Bush who, unlike the Minister, seemed to see the benefits rather than what the Minister described today as the burdens involved. It is from such a backwoods of indifference or even hostility to the rights of disabled people that the Government have begun to emerge. It was not until January 1992, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) presented his Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, that the then Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) told the House:
  "We all know that there is still too much unjustified discrimination against disabled people."—[Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1251.]
  Until that time, the Government were unwilling to recognise the problem. They have shifted their position because the pressure of public opinion has left them little choice.
  The history of efforts made by Members of both Houses goes back many years. Lord Ashley presented a Bill while a Member of this House 14 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) also made several attempts. Lord Longford and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe made memorable contributions to winning a majority in Parliament for civil rights for disabled people.
  Last year, the pressure finally grew too great even for the present Government to withstand, and the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) dragged the Government kicking and screaming into the debate. Right hon. and hon. Members were lobbied extensively by their constituents, and thousands of people came to Westminster to lobby their elected representatives. My hon. Friend's Bill won overwhelming backing by organisations of and for disabled people, received its Second Reading by 231 votes to nil and returned from Committee even stronger than before.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: I was a teller when the Bill received its Second Reading and I recall that some Conservative Members who are here today to say that the principles behind that Bill were wrong nevertheless voted for its Second Reading.
  Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's recollection. As he reminds the House, the true number in favour of the Bill was 235.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I was present on that occasion and I recall that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said that he was prepared to emasculate the Bill—not his words, but I paraphrase his remarks—to remove the onerous conditions that it would apply to businesses.
  Mr. Berry: That is cobblers.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, makes the right reply: the observation was, indeed, cobblers and unworthy of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).
  After the Bill's Second Reading, the Government chose to frustrate the will of the House. The right hon. Member for Chelsea had his chance to prove that Government recognition of the need to act against discrimination was more than skin deep, but he did not take that chance because he was not allowed to do so. Since then, we have seen more of the same—a Government with no real commitment to or understanding of the issue giving ground reluctantly under pressure from all parts of the House and the country
  The Government were under such enormous pressure that last July Ministers offered to open formal consultations. Whatever they were told by those whom they consulted, the Government were clearly intent on preventing another civil rights Bill coming before the House if they possibly could. That is why we have this half-hearted Bill before us today, which still leaves disabled people as second-class citizens.
  The fact that the Government have presented a Bill of their own, however inadequate, nevertheless represents a victory for civil rights campaigners and is a substantial climbdown from the positions taken by Ministers and certain Conservative Members in the past. Today we have evidence of the Government's profound embarrassment on this issue. They now grudgingly accept that anti-discrimination legislation can be effective in achieving policy objectives, that it does not make a constructive approach by employers less likely, and that it can advance the goal of equality for disabled people. But the Government's Bill does not embrace the demands that disabled people's organisations are making on behalf of millions of people—demands which are reflected in our reasoned amendment.
  After the evasions of the past, the Minister said last week that it was time for the Government to make a statement on discrimination against disabled people, just as the Americans, with their Disabilities Act, have done in the United States. That is what the Minister claims that the Bill will do, but the statement made by this Bill falls a long way short of the far-reaching and comprehensive statement of principle that a majority in both Houses wanted.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is all about money.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend, who makes an enormous contribution to disability issues, reminds us of the Tory argument of cost. He will be reassured to learn that I intend to return to that later.

  159
  The Bill says that disabled people have the right to equal treatment in employment. Only a week ago, the Prime Minister—no less—told my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that this was not a limited Bill because, as he put it, the Bill
  "carries rights for disabled people when they are unfairly discriminated against in employment."—[Official Report, 17 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 581.]
  The Prime Minister could not have chosen a better example to show just why this is such a limited Bill, taking away with one hand while making limited concessions with the other.
  The whole truth is that the Bill carries rights only for some disabled people when they are unfairly discriminated against in employment. If a disabled person happens to work for a small firm, that person gains no rights at all. If the job for which he or she applies is with a firm employing fewer than 20 people, the right to equal treatment simply does not apply. The Prime Minister highlighted employment because, we are told, that is the centrepiece of the Government's legislation. They have given this area pride of place, while relegating some others, such as education and transport, to the White Paper, and excluding others, such as discrimination by landlords, altogether.
  I did not regard today's rather weak comment on the latter subject by the Minister as falling even into the category of the sort of mild concessions offered elsewhere.
  Mr. Hague: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that it was not a weak comment but an agreement by the Government to include sale and letting, if that was what he was referring to, in the Bill. They will be included.
  The hon. Gentleman has mentioned education. Perhaps he can clear up any confusion which might arise from the Opposition amendment—it does not mention education—and confirm whether it is Labour party policy to include education in any right of access, and also tell us what assessment he has made of the public expenditure consequences of so doing.
  Mr. Clarke: I find it astonishing that the present Minister, of all people, should refer to education when he did not even include it in his consultation document last July. Not once in our debates has he referred to the fact that fewer than one in 1,000 such teachers has access to schools. Nor has he referred to the fact that the Bill does nothing for further and higher education. Just to reassure the hon. Gentleman, I stress that I am happy to support the measures for education in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and I hope that, as a result of today's debate, the Minister, too, will find them acceptable.
  Let us be absolutely clear: what the Government propose in employment will not outlaw discrimination. In relation to large companies, the proposals will merely change the legal rights that disabled people already have. I shall return to that point later. Meanwhile, the Government are saying for the first time that discrimination on the part of small firms is perfectly in order. That is not a great stride forward: it is not a stride forward at all, and it sends out all the wrong signals to employers. Instead of saying, "You must not discriminate against disabled people," the Government seem to be
  160
  saying, "You should not discriminate so long as you can afford not to do so." In the words of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation:
  "Small employers will not be covered by the Act and will therefore be free to discriminate."
  A disabled job applicant or employee will not receive a guarantee of legal protection against discrimination under the Bill—none whatever. He or she will be told, "If you want legal protection, you must work for a large firm." If the job is provided by one of the 96 per cent. of firms that are exempt from the Bill, that is just too bad.
  Mr. Hague: I thank the hon. Gentleman for fulfilling his promise to give way to me twice.Why does he think that the US Congress decided to exempt firms with fewer than 15 employees from the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act?
  Mr. Clarke: I think that the former Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the right hon. Member for Chelsea, will have read at his leisure the excellent book written by Victoria Scott, entitled "Lessons from America". If he has now received the answer, I hope that in time the present Minister will receive it as well. If the Minister and his hon. Friends behind him have any doubt, I advise them to read the responses, which were also about implementation. If the Minister does not understand that now, I do not have much faith that he will understand it in Committee.
  This goes to the heart of our objection to the main thrust of this thoroughly inadequate Bill. What disabled people want is a right to equal treatment, not mere concessions. But the Bill means that only concessions are on offer. The Government have conceded that there should be no discrimination by certain classes of employer, but they have not provided a right which applies equally to all disabled people. They are discriminating between one group of disabled people and another.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman is making a big song and dance about firms with fewer than 20 employees, but they are already exempt from the quota arrangements, so there is no change in the position for them. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point altogether. A report produced by the Trades Union Congress last summer referred to its concern about the lack of job opportunities in the public sector. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some Scottish district councils and Scottish health authorities do not employ any registered disabled people at all? The TUC pointed out that a further 100,000 people should he employed in the public sector to meet the quota.
  Mr. Clarke: Of course I welcome the views of the TUC, and I very much regret that the Government do not. I also very much regret that they do not even take on board the views of the Confederation of British Industry, which described the Government's proposals as "out of harmony". Perhaps just as importantly, the Employers Forum on Disability—not, I believe, a body affiliated to the Labour party—said:
  "There should be no exclusion from the Bill's provisions on grounds of an enterprise's size. It cannot be right for a disabled person to be discriminated against just because an enterprise has fewer than 20 employees. Just as small companies are covered by race and gender legislation, so they, too, should be included in this Bill."

  161
  If the hon. Gentleman and the House have any doubts about the importance of that representation, I point out that among the numerous organisations represented by that august body are Barclays bank, the Benefits Agency, Boots, the British United Provident Association, the City of Westminster, the Inland Revenue, Reuters and many others.
  Ms Mildred Gordon: Are not small businesses the fastest-growing sector of industry today, with about 30 per cent. of employees being employed in small businesses? Does not exempting those businesses from the responsibility of employing disabled people therefore exclude a large section of industry?
  Mr. Clarke: As is so often the case, my hon. Friend is right. Small firms employ 36 persons in every 100. That is one of the arguments that persuaded the Americans to set a timetable, and also one of the arguments which persuaded almost everybody who submitted views to the Minister to agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting that not once in his speech did the Minister refer to any specific representation on that point from any organisation or professional body.
  It is not even that the Bill is the result of several qualifications by employers. In response to the very consultation exercise that I have mentioned, the CBI told the Minister that the cut-offs and exclusions for small firms would be out of harmony with the general thrust of the proposed legislation. They are certainly out of harmony with the needs of disabled people. The Bill makes no positive provision for the vast majority of firms, which employ a third of the national labour force; it tells them simply to please themselves.
  The failure to provide rights equally to all disabled people is the essential difference between the Bill and the kind of measure that we want to see. We want a civil rights Bill which is effective, enforceable and comprehensive. What we are offered is a piecemeal measure which will be effective only in certain areas, which is full of ifs, buts and maybes, and which will lack the clout to ensure that it is fully implemented in practice. In the words of the "Rights Now" campaign, which has worked so hard to achieve a real measure of civil rights for disabled people, the Bill is ineffective, unenforceable and piecemeal.
  The kind of measure that we shall support when the opportunity arises will start from the principle that no one should suffer discrimination on the grounds of disability. That is what the House and the nation want to see. That is what Americans, Australians and Canadians already have, and that is the road down which Britain should go.
  The Bill is fundamentally flawed because the statement of principle on which it is founded is that equal treatment should be provided only by those who can afford it. We had an example this very day at an industrial tribunal in Skipton this morning. A young man suffering from cerebral palsy was considered by his large employer, the Skipton building society, not to be communicating properly, so he was dismissed. In the opinion of the young man and his family, the company was guilty of constructive dismissal and they rightly took the matter to a tribunal. Sadly, the proceedings this morning were
  162
  adjourned until next week until it is known whether the family can afford representation. What kind of equality in human rights is that?
  The Government's basic premise is that disabled people do not have equal rights but instead should be grateful for whatever concessions the Government choose to offer.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Has the hon. Gentleman just made a commitment to a future Labour Government introducing legislation along the lines of the private Member's Bill? If so, has he consulted his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) about the cost implications?
  Mr. Clarke: I have given way generously and I do not propose to do so again, unless it is to the Minister, to whom I am prepared to give way more than the twice that I promised.
  I have had discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East, although they were unnecessary because at the last Labour party conference, on live television, my hon. Friend confirmed that the next Labour Government will proudly present such a Bill.
  People who suffer discrimination because of disability are, sadly, not confined to those with an actual disability. Prejudice, by definition, is not restricted to the precise legal and medical definition in the Bill. Too many of our citizens know that it is enough to have a history of medical problems to suffer discrimination, and many refuse to accept that that should be the case in a modern society, but that is not enough to benefit from the limited legal protection that the Bill provides, as we saw in the case that I mentioned earlier.
  MIND, the National Association for Mental Health, tells us that in its experience discrimination on the basis of a history of a past mental illness is one of the most common instances of discrimination, but such discrimination will not be covered by the Bill. An employer, landlord or service provider may discriminate against people because they appear disabled or because of some condition that they have suffered from in the past, but the law will not act on the victim's behalf unless he or she can prove disability under the Bill.
  Schedule 1, remarkably, runs to two and a half pages, seeking to define who is or is not disabled and who will or will not benefit from the limited protection against discrimination that the Bill is supposed to provide. So narrow is the Government's definition of disabled person that they even need to include in schedule 1 a paragraph asserting that people already registered as disabled will continue to be regarded as disabled under the new legislation—hardly a massive step forward. As the "Rights Now" campaign has pointed out, people with histories of mental illness will be able to claim legal protection against discrimination only if they can show that they have not recovered from that illness—hardly a comprehensive measure against discrimination.
  In the same spirit of half-hearted concessions, the Minister continues to set his face against the creation of a disability rights commission. That is the over-arching and most critical weakness—and my heavens, there are many—in the Bill.
  Employment again provides the best example. With regard to larger companies, the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East again last week, that the Bill gives disabled people

  163
  "the right to complain to an industrial tribunal when they feel that unlawful discrimination has occurred."—[Official Report, 17 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 581.]
  What the Prime Minister failed to mention was that the law at present requires large firms to provide a quota of places for disabled workers—a provision that the Bill will abolish.
  We all know that the quota has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance.There is a case for enhancing and enforcing the quota as Scope, formerly the Spastics Society, recommends. To abolish the quota when introducing its intended replacement, before the new system has even been set up, is hardly a great stride forward for disabled people's rights. Indeed, it is a great step backwards. I have seen no evidence that any of the organisations representing the disabled or any of the professional associations welcome the abolition of the quota system in those circumstances.
  Let us consider the new system at the heart of the Bill—the mechanisms that are supposed to render quotas unnecessary by ending discrimination against disabled workers employed by larger companies. As Scope said, one good thing about the quota was that the onus was on employers and the Government rather than on disabled people themselves. Under the new system, the onus will be on a disabled person to seek redress through an industrial tribunal. There will be no independent statutory body to back such a claim and no legal aid will be available to improve the chances of success.
  In the case of employment discrimination by large firms, the Government's proposals will merely replace one ineffective system with another. The Government passed up the opportunity to bring about real change, not only by excluding smaller firms from their legislation, but by failing to back up the legislation with a body that has real powers. A comprehensive civil rights Bill must, by definition, have at its heart the means for disabled people to enforce their rights. The Bill before us lacks any such mechanism. It is not just an opportunity to create enforceable measures that has been missed: it is worse than that.
  The Government's Bill is designed around the concept of an advisory council because the driving force behind the Government's measure is the spirit of mere concessions, not the assertion of civil rights that disabled persons are entitled to experience. If the Government wanted to give the full force of law to the rights of disabled people, they would wish to do so in a way that would be effective. If they want to throw a sop in the direction of disabled people's rights, they will be happy to create an advisory talking shop and other powerless structures, which is what they plan to do in the Bill. The Minister talks of bureaucracy even as he creates structures without power.
  Disabled people must have the legal means to sustain the rights conferred on them by Parliament. It is not enough to say that this is the law and the courts will enforce it if one can afford to take the risk of raising litigation. The opportunity exists to give those rights the backing of a body with powers designed for that purpose, but the opportunity is not being taken by the Government in their Bill. The national disability council that the Minister proposes would not be such a body: it would be empowered to consult and to advise, but it will not be empowered to do any more than that. It is explicitly and specifically denied that power.
  164
  The Government have said that, under the Bill, the council's responsibility will be
  "to investigate any complaint which may be the subject of proceedings."
  The Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, by contrast, have precisely those powers. They have a remit to pursue people who break the law. That is a major disincentive to people who would discriminate—and that is how it should be. As the Government well know, from the point of view of an employer or service provider who would prefer to discriminate against a disabled job applicant or customer, the prospect of being challenged by a powerful and independent commission, acting with the full majesty of the law, is a good deal more intimidating than the prospect of being taken to court or to an industrial tribunal by one individual, assuming that the individual concerned can afford it.
  The provision of investigative powers to a commission has further implications. The Commission for Racial Equality told the Minister:
  "The Commission's investigative powers have enabled it not only to uncover incidents of discrimination, but also to highlight examples of 'good practice' in its promotional work and have informed the development of its Codes of Practice".
  A commission with powers to investigate discrimination is also in a much better position to fulfil the rest of its duties. An advisory council with no such powers is not directly engaged in implementation of the law. It therefore cannot be active in promoting the rights of disabled people, but must remain on the sidelines while implementing and interpreting the law is left to lawyers and those who can afford access to them.
  The Minister offers locally accessible services of advice and conciliation, which are of course welcome, but conciliation has no force without a legal mandate behind it. A law without the means of enforcement is barely a law at all. It is merely a voluntary code of practice which can be broken with impunity.
  The Government's Bill focuses on employment, but excludes one third of the work force from its provisions. It claims to outlaw discrimination, but lacks the independent and effective body which could enforce equal rights. Instead of a comprehensive approach, based on civil rights, it offers a piecemeal approach designed to head off more far-reaching change while making as few concessions as possible.
  The Bill's faults do not end there. As the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation pointed out:
  "The long title of the … Bill is drafted restrictively, so that it refers solely to employment and the provision of goods and service. This leaves out large areas of social life".
  On transport, the Government have chosen to concede to disabled people a right of access to premises, but they say that vehicles must be dealt with separately. A citizen therefore has the right to go to a station, but no right to get on the train. There is no good reason for such a split.A serious effort to prohibit discrimination in transport could readily include both vehicles and premises in the same measure, as the civil rights Bills that have come before the House have done, and as organisations such as Mencap argue should now be done. Of course, we should be flexible and allow access to be built in for vehicles at the replacement or renovation stage, but we should set a

  165
  timetable for doing so and we should start from the premise that disabled people have the right to catch the train and not just to watch it leave the station.
  In education, too, the Bill fails to deliver. It has nothing to say on that subject, and the Government's White Paper issued at the same time is not much better. The Government will provide a right of access to new schools and to extensions, but not to existing schools, as we know from the Education Act 1993. If the Government were busy building new schools, that might be more significant, but that is not happening and the vast majority of our children will continue to be taught in old school buildings, the majority of which do not even have toilets that are suitably adapted for disabled children to use.
  The Bill has nothing to say about discrimination in the sale and letting of premises. Despite the Minister's statement, there is nothing in the Bill on that. We know, however, that such discrimination exists.
  The Bill also has nothing to say about removing discrimination in the exercise of civic rights and in the fulfilment of civic duties, so nothing will be done about the appalling position whereby disabled citizens have to be carried into polling stations to vote for their elected representatives because the returning officer is not obliged to make polling stations accessible.
  The Government make recommendations about changes to community care. It is a measure of their failure in that area that for the past nine years they have had an Act on the statute book—the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation Act 1986—which could have prevented the release of people into the community who then find that no community care is available. Half of the Act has not been implemented, and nothing in what is now proposed begins to deal with the real crisis that the Government's mishandling of care in the community has caused.
  Supporters of the Government's measure have a good deal to say about cost, and some of them have done so today. That seems to be their chief concern. Last year, the Government produced a wholly spurious figure of £17 billion as the cost of implementing the civil rights Bill then before the House. Those figures were utterly discredited by the "Rights Now" campaign and others, who found numerous examples of double counting and gross overestimates. The Department of the Environment's contribution to that costing admitted that it was a "speculative guesstimate"; yet it accounted for more than half the supposed cost.
  The Government have introduced a Bill of their own which allegedly goes more than halfway to ending discrimination, and which includes a compliance cost assessment of a mere £1.5 billion. The kindest description of that assessment might be "creative accountancy". It would be more useful to have a cost benefit analysis which balanced the cost of improvements against the wider economic benefits of involving disabled people fully on equal terms as employees, customers and citizens.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will, but for the last time.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of community care, and about costs and benefits. Is he aware that discussions between the Rowntree Foundation and York city council have revealed that more than 60 per cent. of the council's budget for disabled facilities grants in 1993–94 could have been saved if the owner-occupied houses involved had been built to accessible lifetime home standards? Is that not one illustration of the fact that anti-discrimination legislation should be seen as an investment rather than a cost or a burden?
  Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has made a constructive contribution, and I am sure that he will continue to do so as he reflects on how he will vote in the Division.
  A recent study by the "Rights Now" campaign calculated that the cost of under-employing disabled people was between £2.75 billion and £5 billion, taking into account the tax revenues forgone and the welfare benefits which, as the Americans and others have already found, could have been saved. Other enormous benefits would accrue from effective measures to improve access to goods and services, but nowhere does the Government's thinking reflect that.
  It is difficult to take Government claims about cost too seriously. I recently asked the Minister for an account of expenditure under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—a measure that I know very well. Although the Act has been on the statute book for nine years, the Government are incapable of providing figures to show what it has cost. Patently unable to calculate the amount spent on an Act of Parliament, the Government still claim to have estimated accurately the cost of a proposed Bill. I believe that the onus of proof in regard to cost and benefits lies with those who oppose comprehensive civil rights, but the Government have adduced no convincing argument so far.
  The Government's Bill is plainly a bad Bill. Its motivation is crystal clear: it is designed to block the passage of one infinitely better, as the Government have been doing for 13 years. Ministers should go away and try again; they should return to the House when they have endorsed the principle of civil rights for disabled people, and when they are ready to support a Bill that is enforceable, effective and comprehensive. Until they do, they will not have the support of Opposition Members, and they will not win the support of the 6.5 million disabled citizens who have waited for far too long.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Just under five hours are available for the debate, and no fewer than 20 right hon. and hon. Members hope to catch my eye, including those who will make the winding-up speeches. I hope that, if hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called early bear that in mind, I shall be able to call most of those who wish to speak.
  5.3 pm
  Sir John Hannam: This is a momentous day for me, and, I believe, for disabled people. We are debating legislation that will actually reach the statute

  167
  book—legislation presented by the Government, with a commitment to eliminate discrimination against disabled people.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was wrong to imply that this Bill resulted purely from the activities and events of last July. It was 18 months ago, in the summer of 1993, that the Prime Minister set in motion the events that led to it. The House may recall that, following a meeting with leading members of the all-party disablement group, he asked the then Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to begin a series of discussions with members of the group to discuss steps that could be taken to remove discrimination.
  Throughout the ensuing months—during the remainder of the summer, and into the beginning of last year—a series of meetings took place at which it became apparent that, while there was no disagreement about the principle that discrimination existed and should be removed, there was basic disagreement about how best to achieve that objective. The then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), articulated—as he had to—the Government's view that progress could best be achieved on a Department-by-Department basis by means of education and exhortation: the piecemeal method, as we called it, which both main parties had used for some years.
  Along with my colleagues in the all-party group—and, as it turned out later, a large majority of Members of Parliament—I believed strongly that a comprehensive anti-discrimination approach was necessary, and that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was the right vehicle for that approach. We and the Government were rather like two trains heading in the same direction but on parallel tracks, quite likely eventually to bypass our common objective. That was what concerned me at the time.
  As one who admires his Government for the tremendous progress that they have achieved in helping disabled people to live with increasing independence, I vowed that I would do all that I could to ensure that the Government managed to introduce their own legislation in the current Parliament—or, failing that, that such legislation would be a manifesto commitment.
  That is why today is a momentous day for me. Even during the dramatic events of last spring and summer when we were fighting to make progress with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, I sensed that the battle within the Government over the principle was being won, and that we were on the verge of a breakthrough. That breakthrough came with the announcement of a full consultation period with the promise of legislation at the end, either by Government or in a private Member's Bill. I argued strongly against the latter course: we all know how difficult it is to get a Back Bencher's measure of such size and importance through all its parliamentary stages.
  At last, however, the smoke screens were being blown away: arguments that comprehensive legislation was not necessary, that the costs were too high—the ridiculous figure of £17.5 billion was suggested at one stage—or that business organisations were against the idea. In fact, the Confederation of British Industry and the Employers Forum on Disability were in favour, as was the Law Society. The Bill is a marked advance on the consultation paper, and is accepted by all disability organisations as
  168
  such. I am immensely thrilled: I believe that it represents a landmark for disabled people, and that it is positive legislation.
  Before I deal with the Bill and the role of my hon. Friend the Minister in it, let me express my thanks and admiration for what was done by the previous incumbent, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea, who held his office for many years. Throughout the difficult period leading to last summer's confrontations, he never ceased to give full support to the cause of serving the interests of disabled people. Although, because of various events, he was not able to deliver the final legislative package, and although timing was not on his side, his heart was in the right place, and he never failed to offer constructive help and advice to the all-party disablement group.
  I strongly support the Bill, and all the documents from the disability organisations suggest that they do as well. However, like most new Government Bills of this nature, it has its deficiencies, especially in comparison with the all-embracing provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The House must recognise those deficiencies, and we must try to improve the legislation. The disability organisations have made that clear in their representations to all hon. Members.
  Mr. Berry: Which disability rights organisations support the Government's Bill in preference to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?
  Sir John Hannam: As we are dealing with Government legislation, and as representations from all the disability organisations sensibly concentrate on that legislation—as does the all-party group—it has not been a question of choosing one Bill or the other. To be fair to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), however, all of the organisations have made clear the division between the two Bills and which Bill they prefer. I am concentrating my attention on the Bill that we are debating today. It is not a question of the House arguing the pros and cons of the two separate Bills. I have supported both Bills, and I shall continue to support the concepts of both.
  Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman suggests that disabled people's organisations support the Disability Discrimination Bill. Is not it relevant to note that every organisation both of and for disabled people prefer the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Can the hon. Gentleman name a single organisation of or for disabled people which does not support the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?
  Sir John Hannam: A letter from the National Association of Citizen Advice Bureaux to Members states:
  "The CAB service welcomes the introduction of measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people. For too long disabled people have had to rely on voluntary approaches. Legislation is desperately needed. However, it is disappointing that the need for legislation is recognised only in a limited number of areas. The CAB service hopes the Government will take the opportunity to introduce further measures on transport and education."
  That is the gist of what we are arguing about today. If the hon. Member for Kingswood can name any Government Bill in this area which has been totally satisfactory to the House in its initial stages, I would very much welcome hearing about it.

  169
  It is right for the House to concentrate on the Disability Discrimination Bill, and to make it more effective as it passes through its stages in the House. Many questions have been asked, the answers to which will—more than anything—determine whether we have got it right.
  For example, will cinemas, restaurants or taxis be able in future to ban blind people or people in wheelchairs? The answer to that—if we are getting the legislation right—has to be no. Will buildings and meeting halls be able to ban certain groups, not because they lack access but because they are considered to be undesirable? The answer must be that they cannot under any circumstances be allowed to continue that policy. Will disabled people continue to be rejected from serving as magistrates or jurors, and will they find that they cannot vote in elections or attend county courts?
  We have heard about the importance of the county court procedures in the provisions in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned. The NACAB briefing points out that, in a survey that it carried out in 1993 of 22 representative schemes in county courts,
  "only one bureau reported any provision for people who are visually impaired, only two were aware of any provision for deaf people, six said that there was no provision for wheelchair users and twelve bureaux reported no accessible toilets in the courts."
  We must make sure that courts are properly accessible and that they provide for disabled people.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Regarding tribunals, if, sadly, there is to be no legal aid, is it not important that some support and help is given to disabled people to enable them to communicate in those circumstances? Is not that particularly important for people with sight and hearing impairments?
  Sir John Hannam: I agree, and I was heartened by the Minister's comment that, following the legislation, a series of regulations and a review of the codes of practice will be put into effect which will outline the intent behind the legislation.
  Another important area is the fire and safety precautions. Disabled people are often excluded from buildings because of fire and safety precautions. There needs to be a full-scale review of health and safety legislation and codes of practice so that provision for disabled people is taken into account.
  The fact that businesses would have to take reasonable steps to remove physical barriers and to provide auxiliary aids is good news, and it was welcomed by the Access Committee for England in its representations to us before the debate. The lack of a right of access to transport and vehicles and the exclusion of further higher education provision from the welcome new right of access to goods and services must be looked at again, especially when we debate clause 12.
  The Minister has performed a Herculean task in translating the consultations with more than 1,000 different organisations into positive proposals and the White Paper promise which declares that the Government aim to set in hand a programme to review the effectiveness of legislation in meeting the needs of students with learning difficulties and disabilities. That could offer a splendid opportunity for a code of practice which would cover not just goods and services, but
  170
  colleges of further education and institutes of higher education. Will my hon. Friend the Minister carry out a review such as is implied in the White Paper in time to put recommended amendments into the current legislation? That would be extremely helpful.
  While on the subject of education, I agree that the disabled students allowance provides an effective package of support for students who are undertaking higher education courses for which a grant is available. Is not it time, however, to resolve the problem facing part-time students who are not eligible? Many disabled students have to be part-time students because of their disability, yet their equipment, personal support and study costs are basically pro rata the same as full-time students. Testing for the allowance results in the parents of disabled students being penalised to the extent of being required to contribute up to £5,800 before any allowance is payable, as compared with £2,065 for parents of non-disabled students.
  Disabled people who take a second degree course and who took their first degree course prior to becoming disabled often find that, when taking the second course or retraining, they are not eligible for the disabled students allowance. I have raised those anomalies in the hope that the review that is promised in the White Paper will look into them, because the Government could remove a lot of discrimination which affects disabled students.
  I come now to the employment proposals. An obvious area of concern and trepidation lies in the abolition of the quota which, for all its weaknesses, provides a measurement with which to work. I personally would rather have a strengthening of the quota alongside the new rights in the Bill, at least until we can be sure that the rights are working.
  Incidentally, I was pleased to receive a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister today which followed on from a point that has been raised about the disablement register. My hon. Friend reassured those concerned that the register will be discontinued, and that the arrangements which are there for those on the register to be accepted for disability recognition purposes for the legislation are purely transitional.
  In any case, I would like an effective monitoring system of the employment of disabled people to be put in place, as well as a rethink—others have called for that—on the exclusion figure for firms employing fewer than 20 people. I was again reassured to hear my hon. Friend state that the figure can be changed by regulation as we see how it is working. I do not see the logic of that figure. It is larger than in other countries with similar legislation, and it will certainly exclude about 90 per cent. of firms in Devon, where we have small businesses predominately.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that there does need to be a figure, whether it is 20, 80 or eight? There is no point in forcing companies to introduce facilities for the disabled if, in doing so, they are driven out of business. [Interruption.]
  Sir John Hannam: That matter was fully considered last year. It was a matter of getting the right figure. [Interruption] I think that that was all that my hon. Friend was arguing about.
  I agree that the object of the legislation and the discussions which will take place is to try to arrive at a satisfactory figure. The Americans went through the same

  171
  process and found that, by setting their own terms, they were able to achieve a massive removal of obstacles to employment without great cost. We must look now at how the measure will work. If it is merely a question of protecting small businesses from unreasonable expense and bureaucracy, surely the Bill contains a safeguard. It uses the term "reasonable adjustment", which would protect businesses from excessive demands on their resources. A protection is built into the Bill and we should consider the figure carefully as the Bill progresses.
  As I understand the Bill, small employers will be required to employ a disabled person only if he or she is the best candidate. If any alteration to the workplace can be readily achieved, they will also be able to seek support from the access to work scheme, which I commend. A small firm can refuse to consider a disabled candidate, even if employing that person would not cause the firm to incur costs.
  We could be sanctioning overt discrimination and excluding disabled people from any commercial or industrial enterprise that is beginning to get under way—something that the hon. Member for Monklands, West mentioned. Most new jobs are created when new firms are in their early stages. Both the Confederation of British Industry and the Employers Forum on Disability question the 20-employee threshold, as do all organisations for the disabled. I hope that we can reconsider the issue, especially as two fifths of all disabled people work in small firms.
  My final suggestion is on enforcement systems. My hon. Friend the Minister dealt at some length with his reasons for the national disability council and the local tribunal system. I understand the pressures on him to avoid setting up an expensive and bureaucratic enforcement system. As the Bill proceeds, however, I hope that he will reconsider the matter. Given the restrictions on legal aid for industrial tribunals and the need for more than just an advisory organisation, we may conclude that something stronger will be necessary to underpin the pillars of this legislation.
  In his down-to-earth manner, my hon. Friend the Minister has achieved tremendous progress by drawing agreement from the various Departments and consulting widely with more than 1,000 disability and other interests. I congratulate him, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who has been backing his efforts to the hilt. Parliament now faces a push-me-pull-you, Dr. Dolittle situation, with two proposed disability anti-discrimination measures. No one can have fought harder than I for the private Member's Bill last year, but now the Government have tabled a Bill that, as the CBI states,
  "marks the start of a new era for the rights of disabled people"—
  something that we can put on the statute book. I will support the Second Reading of this long-fought-for legislation and I hope that the House will also give it its full support.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: It was fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) talk about the Government's opposing factions on this issue. I am sure that he will recall the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), to whom he has paid tribute today, telling him and me, over and over again, that this is a seamless Government. That
  172
  explains why my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), in an excellent speech, said today that the former Minister was very clearly acting for the Government as a whole when he fell under very strong criticism in this House in the last Session.
  For reasons that will be well understood in all parts of the House, I want briefly now to put this debate into historical perspective. It was as long ago as 1979, as the first Minister for Disabled People, that I appointed a committee of inquiry into unfair discrimination against disabled people—chaired by Sir Peter Large—which began the national debate of which today's proceedings are the latest phase.
  The committee reported in 1982 to Sir Hugh Rossi, one of my early successors as Minister, in favour of making it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of disability. Since the committee reported, every attempt to give effect to its recommendations, from both sides of the House, has been met by the Government with prevarication, dissimulation and systematic obstruction. They have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to a grudging acceptance that legislation is today an imperative necessity. Almost by common consent, it is also scandalously long overdue.
  The Government's treatment of the issue ever since the committee of inquiry report has been disgraceful. That is not only my view but that of many Conservative Members as well. In 30 years here, I have witnessed only four personal statements of unreserved apology by Members for misleading the House. The first was from a Member of Parliament who, in the mid-1970s, misled the House over his role in the Poulson scandal. All of the remaining three, including one from the then Minister himself, were for misleading the House in debates on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, starting with the personal statement that Robert Hayward, then the Member for Kingswood, had to make for seriously misleading the House very soon after I drafted and first promoted the Bill in 1991.
  As the House knows, that Bill was ably sponsored by my hon. Friend, the new Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), when he subsequently won a high place in the private Members' Bill ballot in 1993; and it is being sponsored again now, with both considerable skill and total commitment, by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
  The Government quite dishonestly gave the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill a price tag of £17 billion-—a totally bogus, indeed preposterous figure. By misrepresenting the Bill as requiring all existing buildings to be made fully accessible, they added £6 billion to the cost of compliance and by saying, just as perversely, that it required full access to public transport within five years, they added another £5 billion. Many other examples are available of their blatant disregard for easily ascertainable facts in order to inflate the cost of the Bill. Yet they breathed not a word about the estimate by Touche Ross of a loss to Britain's travel industry, due solely to lack of access and facilities for disabled people, of many billions of pounds. Nor did they say a word about all the other benefits of ending the exclusion of disabled people from so much of the economic and social life of this country.
  In his statement on 24 November last, and again today, the Minister heaped praise on the Government for proposing what he called an "historic advance" for disabled people. As a more seasoned practitioner, I most strongly counsel him against any further resort to that

  173
  grandiose claim. In truth, the Government have blocked, for over 13 years now, what would have been a really historic advance, long craved by the disabled people of this country. They want not this Bill but what the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill offers: not second-class rights for second-class citizens but full civil rights and equal citizenship. As the Minister must know, they and their organisations see this Bill's proposals as a travesty of those in the Bill that I drafted, in close consultation with them, more than four years ago.
  The extent of the travesty is spelt out with striking clarity in a detailed comparison of the two Bills in the excellent submission from Scope—formerly the Spastics Society—for today's debate. Does the Minister question that comparison? If he has not yet seen it, I commend him to read it with all urgency. Let him also ponder Scope's admirably concise description of his proposals, in saying:
  "We are looking here at a Bill of ifs, buts and maybes".
  Is it really thought worthy of Britain's disabled people to offer them a Bill so described by so universally well regarded and authoritative a voice from the disability movement?
  The Minister says that he recognises that disabled people want an end not only .to discrimination but to condescension and patronising attitudes towards them. But is it not both condescending and patronising for any of us here to decide what they should want and what they deserve? How can we possibly tell them, without being at once condescending and patronising, that they deserve less than what non-disabled people already enjoy as of right? My answer to that question, ever since the 1970s, has been that unfair discrimination against disabled people is morally wrong and that what is morally wrong ought not to be legally permissible in this country. In fact, it was my answer to that question which led me to appoint the committee of inquiry into discrimination against disabled people 16 years ago.
  I spoke about the Government's grossly distorted estimate of the cost of complying with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. To take the most charitable view of their conduct, their distortion suggests that they are not very good at compliance cost assessments. That calls seriously into question their assessment of the cost of this inadequate Bill. But what no one here or anywhere else can question is the fact that the Government have already arranged to recoup from disabled people much more than the Minister's costing of the Disability Discrimination Bill. As proof, I need only cite the effect on disabled people of the Government's drastic cuts in invalidity benefit.
  As the House knows, that benefit will be replaced on 13 April by a new incapacity benefit, which pays less, is taxable and more difficult to claim. The Government now spend £8 billion on invalidity benefit, which is to be cut by no less than £2 billion even though, in the same period, every other major item in the social security budget, except unemployment benefit, is set to increase. Many disabled people on invalidity benefit now face a cut in income from about £77 to £46 a week. That puts into context the Government's so-called "extra spending" on this Bill.
  I turn now to some of the specific points about the Bill of particular concern to disabled people and those who work with and for them. They complain bitterly, as the
  174
  Minister must know, of his substitution of the National Disability Council—or "talking shop", as they see it—for the Disability Rights Commission for which the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill provides.
  The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation states:
  "The Government's Bill cannot avoid comparison with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, or with equivalent laws addressing race and sex discrimination. Measured against these standards it falls short on three vital counts: it is neither comprehensive, effective, nor enforceable".
  With other major disability organisations, it condemns the fact that small employers—who employ an estimated one in three of this country's work force—will not be covered by the Bill and will remain, as we have heard this afternoon, free to discriminate. How can the Minister justify that when the CBI, the leading organisation representing British industry, opposes the exclusion? Let me remind him again of the report of the Employers Forum on Disability, which states:
  "It cannot be right for a disabled person to be discriminated against just because an enterprise has fewer than 20 employees".
  There is widespread condemnation also of the Bill's failure to cover education and the means of transport. Their exclusion is not only condemned by disabled people but ridiculed by employers who insist that discrimination, not least in the employment field, cannot be solved in isolation. As one big employer with more experience of running a major enterprise than any Minister in the present Government put it to me:
  "To end discrimination in the labour market, you mustn't only protect disabled people there but also achieve full equality of access for them to transport and training, among many other facilities and services".
  In that employer's view, "piecemeal change" in this policy area is an attempt to divide the indivisible and a total waste of both parliamentary time and taxpayers' money.
  I also want to quote here the Royal National Institute for the Blind on the Government's failure to produce an enforceable Bill. It said:
  "Too much legislation has fallen into disrepute through not being enforced effectively, if at all. Parts of the 1944 Disabled Persons Act and the 1986 Disabled Persons Act are notable examples".
  The RNIB explains clearly why it wants no more time-wasting in protecting disabled people from unfair and unmerited discrimination, which it identifies as a major factor
  "in determining that only 17 per cent. of blind people and only 31 per cent. of partially sighted people of working age are actually in work".
  Those figures shout of unfair discrimination against blind people.
  Yet the most withering of all the criticisms I have seen of the Bill is that it will actually increase discrimination against disabled people. The abolition of the 3 per cent. quota, with no more adequate substitute, is widely cited as justifying that charge, as is the Government's
  "complete failure to understand how disability discrimination operates".
  They are the words of "Rights Now"—among whose affiliates is the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People—which also attacks the Bill's
  "pointlessly complicated and over-restrictive definition of discrimination".

  175
  Its submission to the House goes on:
  "The Bill contains a host of defences and potential justifications for discriminatory treatment which are not present in the legislation on sex and race. The accumulated effect of these loopholes will render it almost impossible for a disabled person to challenge discrimination."
  "Rights Now" wants the enactment of the comprehensively all-party Bill which the Government have been obstructing since I first promoted it in 1991—nothing more and nothing less. Britain's 6.5 million disabled people have already been made to wait far too long for its enactment and the bounden duty of this House today is to make 1995 the year of full civil rights for them. Without those rights, they are doubly disabled. The handicapping effects of their disabilities are made even harder to bear by gratuitous social handicaps for which there is no justification whatsoever. "Rights Now" wants the reasoned amendment to the Government's Bill to be approved this evening and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to succeed on 10 February.
  As I have argued, disabled people want not second-class rights for second-class citizens but the same rights as everyone else and equal citizenship. On both sides of the House, let us now make that happen.
  5.37 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me a short time to speak this evening. I promise that I shall not take long, because the subject is important to so many hon. Members.
  First, I declare three interests. I have been invited and have taken on the chairmanship of the International Year of Tolerance. Our committee has decided that our key theme will be tolerance of difference, especially tolerance of disability. It seems to us that the least tolerated group in society these days is people whose motor functions or other impairments cause them significant long-term difficulties. I hope that we may be allowed to debate that matter later in the year to see how we have progressed.
  I also declare an interest in that I chair an organisation called ADAPT, which was begun by the Carnegie trust. It stands for Access for Disabled people to Arts Premises Today. In our three or four years of existence, we have mobilised and enabled the expenditure of £3 million worth of funding, virtually all private, with some support from the Department of Heritage. That work has given me great insight.
  I also chair a new organisation, Blind in Business, which was formed by some young men who suffer from significant sight impairment and who found it tough to enter the world of work. The House will therefore appreciate that my real interests in the Bill relate to access, particularly access for people with physical difficulties, the world of work and tolerance.
  I should also like to put on record the fact that I introduced the Access to Employees' Records Bill—which did not reach the statute book—because I believe that it is lack of information which causes personnel officers to make errors concerning people at work.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: I was interested that the hon. Lady mentioned access, because one of my constituents was denied access to the Tate gallery because she is a wheelchair user and there were already six people using wheelchairs in the gallery.
  176
  My constituent was left feeling extremely humiliated. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not the Government's Bill but that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) which will most succeed in meeting my constituent's needs and the needs of many other people with disabilities?
  Miss Nicholson: I believe that ADAPT will be most successful in meeting that lady's needs as fast as possible, with the support of the Department of National Heritage. For example, one of ADAPT's first targets was the Royal Albert hall, which, when we first started work with the chief executive, provided just six places for disabled people out of 6,000 seats. After considerable persuasion, the management capitulated magnificently and undertook to redesign the hall. It recently won one of our awards both for that superb adaptation and for its future plans.
  I cannot resist telling colleagues that, for the past three years, the awards given by ADAPT have been funded by British Gas. The withdrawal of that modest sum of money coincided exactly with the hyper pay rise given to its chairman and chief executive. I wrote a letter to British Gas on that very note and perhaps we will once again receive that modest sum for more ADAPT awards.
  I am delighted to learn of the constituent of the hon. Member for Homsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and I shall get hold of the Tate gallery immediately and do something about it.
  Private initiative, as ADAPT has proved, has been enormously successful. Half the board of ADAPT is made up of people with physical disabilities and the other half by people who make decisions that affect those who go to the theatre, the cinema, art galleries and public libraries. When we started work we were told that we were attempting an impossible task and that, if it were possible, it should be done by the Government anyway. We were told that we should not even start to try.
  Several critical articles appeared in the press, and we were subject to severe recriminations from others involved in work with disabled people. We were told that the work could not be done; that the Government should have done the work and, if we commenced, that the Government should provide the total funding.
  Our reply was, "That's life. We are going to start anyway." The fact that ADAPT has found £3 million at a time when not much free money is floating around is no, mean achievement. That mixture of maximum private effort and minimum Government involvement means that tasks involving cultural change are completed faster. That is at the heart of today's Bill.
  In terms of the world of work, I should like to pay a warm tribute to the work of the late Ron Leighton, who, was a Member of the House. I was extremely fortunate to, be a member of the Select Committee on Employment when he agreed to consider the question of employment for disabled people. He was a wonderful Chairman of that Committee, because when I put that idea to him he took it up and made it go forward with a will. We produced a report on the subject five years ago and I am glad to note that many of our recommendations form part of the Disability Discrimination Bill. For that reason I pay a warm tribute to Ron Leighton.
  I also pay a strong tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), the former Minister for Disabled People. I believe that his work provides an historical record of the way in which our society

  177
  approaches more positively the problems of disabled people. He carried out remarkable work for many years. I also commend particularly Geoffrey Lord, who was the secretary of the Carnegie Trust for many years, and who is now the honorary director of ADAPT. He initiated the work on access for disabled people to arts premises and public libraries.
  It is a great pity that this vital Bill is being treated in such a traditionally adversarial manner. It, above all legislation, would benefit from a harmonious approach. It will impact upon the lives of millions of people who are citizens of the United Kingdom today and many, many millions more who have yet to be born. When it comes to disability, co-operation is infinitely more fruitful than adversarialism.
  I believe that the Bill and other associated legislation, which has been introduced by other hon. Members on both sides of the House and for which I have a high regard, affects a much vaster section of the population than has been recognised in the debate so far.
  The phrase "the disabled should live with dignity and independence" has become a common one. It is an excellent phrase, because we all wish to live with dignity and some of us prefer independence. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that that phrase should now be extended, because I believe that disabled people, in common with everyone else, want freedom, in particular freedom of choice and freedom of movement.
  In the past, it was physically impossible for those with disability to achieve such freedom, but new scientific and engineering advances now make infinitely greater freedoms—far greater than anything previously possible in the history of mankind—possible for people with physical impairment. Perhaps the Government's greatest gift to those with physical disabilities is to offer those freedoms through judicious expenditure and legislation, by the carrot and stick approach and by energising private citizens and companies to achieve that goal.
  Real freedom rests not just on economic freedom, but on a cultural disregard for difference. I hate the word "disabled" because it immediately sets up cultural barriers which we then have to work so hard to dismantle and pull down. But I do not for a moment take cultural disregard to mean acceptance of the plea of ignorance.
  I was struck by a strong and upsetting example of such ignorance at a recent Ministry—I will not say which one—which launched a scheme for disabled. It took place in a grade 1 listed building. As chairman of ADAPT, I am familiar with such buildings, because we are always told that they are impossible to adapt properly. I think that Pugin would have been proud of us; it is astonishing what one can do if one has the will and even a modest sum of money. Determination is the key.
  When I got to the first floor of that grade 1 starred listed building where the Ministry was hosting the so-called "excellent" initiative for disabled people, I was concerned to discover, as I had anticipated, that there was no lift, while half a dozen people in non-electric wheelchairs were at the bottom of the stairs. I sought out the senior civil servant and asked him what could be done. I pointed out that the initiative was supposed to be for the disabled people and drew attention to the poor people at the bottom of the stairs.
  178
  He was a good person and replied, I believe through ignorance, that there were at least three methods of getting the people in the wheelchairs up the stairs. When I asked him what they were, he said that they could be carried up the stairs, to which I replied, "Oh. Thank you very much". Secondly, he said that it might be possible for those disabled people to walk up the stairs, to which I replied, "Really?" I am afraid that I then left the Ministry. That was an example not of cultural disregard but of ignorance. That is a blight on all our social attitudes to people who are different, which we must examine carefully and rigorously.
  I mean by "cultural disregard" acceptance of difference in the tolerance of normality in our society. We should strive for that, if only because the effects of difficulty of personal movement, for example, are widespread in all sections of our society. In ADAPT, we find that it is just as tough for young mums to get into the theatre with pushchairs and babies as it is for elderly people with zimmer frames and the wheelchaired able-bodied.
  I did some research on sight and hearing in the House of Commons Library recently, and the Library staff gave me figures showing that about 26 million people in Britain wear spectacles. One could say that, 100 years ago, before all those excellent spectacles were available, all those 26 million people would have been, in today's terminology, "disabled" because they would not have been able to see well enough.
  The Library staff investigated hearing for me—a vastly under-researched subject. They extrapolated some figures and gave me the normal cautions about extrapolation of statistics, but, on best guesstimates from the House of Commons Library, 23 million people have a hearing loss significant enough to warrant a hearing aid.
  I feel that the fine, upstanding, generally Anglo-Saxon male in the advertisements is not the norm in terms of physical ability for any of us, except for perhaps a short period in the lives of exceptionally healthy men, and that most people have some type of problem. Nowadays, many problems may be solved by science—with glasses, hearing aids, or electric wheelchairs—but let us not lose sight of the fact that people with physical difficulties are far more widespread throughout society than we may imagine.
  Therefore, I suggest that we should not always listen only to membership organisations that represent people with a specific disability. Some time ago, one of the organisations for the blind told me that not more than about one blind person in 10 belonged to any of the registered blind societies that we know of. I do not know if that figure was correct, but I believe that, here in Parliament, naturally, we hear the views from membership organisations to the exclusion of the great number of people—the greater number of people, I think—who do not belong to those organisations. The difficulty of definition to the Minister, therefore, is vast. How should we proceed, when we are speaking about such an enormous tranche of our population?
  I vastly admire the munificent provisions for the disabled which the Government have made in health and social security, which are so numerous that I shall not name them. However, I believe that, outside that social and health provision, people seek as a priority access to the places that people with normal motor functions have

  179
  access to easily, including Parliament. One of the most difficult places in which to hold a meeting of people with wheelchairs is this very building.
  Those people seek access facilities so that they can be normal like everyone else, and they seek fairness at work, especially in the gateway to obtaining work, which is the job application scrutiny procedure. That is why I am very happy indeed with so much of the focus of the present piece of legislation on accessibility and on work.
  In the spirit of harmony, I shall mention three thoughts that the Minister will perhaps do me the kindness of taking away and considering.
  First, although the advisory body that the Minister proposes will be very helpful, surely we should work towards a more difficult goal—the establishment of an organisation for equal opportunity for all our citizens. If a woman came to me who was disabled and non-white, where would I send her—to three different organisations? That is an extraordinary thought. It is ludicrous. Surely we should have one organisation offering equal opportunity for all our citizens. I would back that with advisory outreaches for people with special needs, such as people with disabilities.
  I ask the Minister to consider that difficult topic. I appreciate its sensitivities because the two organisations that already exist would believe that they were being downgraded. However, the disabled are far larger in numbers than any of us can necessarily recognise in the context of any legislation, and fairness for all our citizens should surely be our goal.
  I would therefore reject the Minister's proposals if he was suggesting the creation of another organisation similar to the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, because I do not want that structure to become entrenched. I would prefer one organisation for any problem of that type.
  Secondly, on the very difficult question of legislation affecting companies, I am unhappy that there is a numerical limit on fair treatment. I believe that we are discussing imposing a social need on companies, and that, if we wish to progress down that path, a social fund to right company discrimination should be created. That means that we need a long-term plan, to be implemented as the country can afford it. Would the Minister care to consider a longer-term plan for disabled matters at work, irrespective of numbers employed in a company, while accepting that it cannot be carried out immediately?
  Thirdly, the Minister's task is the more difficult because the outreach of his work affects all Departments. I ask him to consider tasking the Government to take on a new voluntary commitment—it need not be statutory, but I am sure that it would be carried out in our system of benign legislation—that all Bills that this place passes should be put through the mesh of his Department's basic needs for people with disabilities before final assent.
  I shall give a simple example of what I mean. In ADAPT, we have felt strongly that one of the most important matters affecting disabled people and access to the arts is the way in which organisations that are appointed to distribute the profits from the national lottery may carry out their work. Although the lottery is outside the terms of the Bill, we believe that, taken together, the Bill and the national lottery represent the biggest single opportunity to advance the cause of disabled people's rights that we have ever had in the United Kingdom.
  180
  As those two functions are so inter-related, we want the people who are responsible for making decisions about grant applications for the arts, heritage and general charities to ensure that moneys will be given only when it can be demonstrated that disabled people will share in the improved facilities. That is the type of suggestion that the Minister could take up if he had a commitment, in general terms, from the Government that all legislation should be put through the mesh of his Department to consider how it could affect disabled people for the better. My suggestion would not cost the state a penny more, and what a difference it would make, not only in actuality but in cultural attitude.
  It would always be difficult for any Minister for Disabled People to bring forward a Bill that would satisfy everyone, but I beg the House to approach the Bill in the spirit of harmony and tolerance. The Minister and his predecessor have done a fine job. I want the legislation to succeed; it is the best first building block for the future that the Minister could have brought to this place.
  5.58 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: I wish I could say that it gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate, but I am afraid that it does not. I find myself in the awkward position of not wanting to bury the Bill but not wanting to praise it. It is typically badly drafted, and can be open to a great deal of secondary legislation. Moreover, it is timid, and it certainly does not go far enough. However, I suppose that it is something, and something is better than nothing.
  At least the Bill is a Government Bill. At times last year, other hon. Members and I gave up the idea of the Government proposing legislation, especially after the disgraceful tactics that were used by some hon. Members to get rid of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Now the Government appear to accept the need for civil rights legislation to be enshrined in law to a certain extent—but only to a certain extent. They seem to accept that legal protection against discrimination is needed, but again, only to a certain extent.
  Such legal protection would allow disabled people to take their rightful place in society. It seems amazing that, in this day and age, we should be talking about anyone's rightful place in society, but that issue lies at the heart of today's debate, just as it was at the heart of last year' s debate and of other legislation on civil rights for disabled people that was brought before the House.
  Disabled people want to be given equal treatment to other members of society, not different treatment. That is not much to ask and it is the least that they can expect. The fact that the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to present even this meagre Bill might lead one to assume that disabled people were asking for something outlandish, not basic human rights.
  If one gives the Bill even a cursory glance, one sees that the Government are still not totally committed. That is why I shall support the reasoned amendment. Over the past few days, I have been worried and in two minds as to whether to support the reasoned amendment. I thought that it might be seen as gesture politics and might split the consensus that built up last year during the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I believe that it may do that, and I am sorry. Having read the reasoned amendment, I can see nothing in it to dispute. I wish that the Government had taken it on board and gone further,

  181
  but they have not. The reasoned amendment will be a shot across the Government's bows and, for that reason, I shall support it.
  I contacted a number of disabled people's organisations and a number of disabled people before I took my decision at the weekend. Every one of them wanted me to support the reasoned amendment—that was the bottom line. When I heard disabled people and disabled people's organisations asking me to support the amendment, who was I to say that I could not? After all, the Bill is for disabled people, who have a right to a voice in the debate. They do not have a voice here today, but we can express their opinion.
  I shall now discuss the Bill in detail. I believe that its definition of disabled people will leave out various individuals, such as those suffering from the HIV virus. It could possibly exclude some multiple sclerosis sufferers and those suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis or epilepsy. I do not know why the Government did not take on board the definition in the American legislation for disabled people which speaks of people who are discriminated against by reason of bodily or mental condition. That would be far more satisfactory and I do not know why the Government resisted it. I know that the Minister said that he had not made up his mind on that, and I sincerely hope that he will listen to the arguments and take action to close the loopholes in the definition.
  Even if the Government had got the definition right, which would have taken us forward, as other hon. Members have said, there remains a problem relating to employment. Firms employing fewer than 20 people will not be covered by the Bill, despite the fact that the Bill states that reasonable adjustment will have to be made. Even the Confederation of British Industry has stated that it cannot see why the Bill contained that qualification. If the CBI, which has always supported the Government, believes that, I do not know why the Government have not taken that approach.
  Many small firms in my constituency and across the country employ many people—not as many as large companies, but still a large number. Such firms are often more accessible to disabled people because they are situated in their locality. The 20-employee rule will lead to discrimination on a massive scale.
  The other day, the Prime Minister seemed to think that the issue of transport was included in the Bill, but I am sure that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and the Secretary of State are well aware that that subject is not included in the legislation because the Minister himself has said that he will introduce appropriate provisions. What sort of measures will he introduce, and when will he introduce them? The Bill refers to accessibility to bus and railway stations, but not to vehicles. It seems incredible that disabled people will arrive at railway stations and bus terminals and be unable to get on the buses or trains.
  Last year, I conducted a survey of new train operators. We rang all of them and asked what facilities they had available for wheelchairs and electric buggies. Only one of the new train operators could take electric buggies. The rest had limited spaces for wheelchairs and most of them stated that two wheelchairs could not travel in the same carriage. The majority of the operators could take only one wheelchair per train. My survey related to newer
  182
  stock—with reduced spaces—not older stock. It is therefore clear that something must be done about that problem.
  Another problem raised was that of unstaffed stations. A disabled person may arrive at a station, which is fine, but if there are no staff on hand, it becomes extremely difficult for that person. It will become even more difficult if the privatisation process goes ahead, especially with through ticketing. If a disabled person turns up at a station and wants a through ticket, he will be told that he cannot get one and will have to go to a shop or other outlet to purchase a through ticket. That problem must be given careful consideration—the Bill's failure to tackle it is a grave omission.
  Another grave omission from the Bill is that of education. In a written reply, the Secretary of State for Education said that new schools would have to be accessible from September onwards. He did not know the date from which other schools would have to be accessible—it is more likely to be 100 years than 10 years. That is why I should have liked the Bill to contain the phrase "within a practicable period". I am not saying that there should be a defined time scale, but if the Government had stipulated that access should be given within a practical period, we would know that they were bearing the subject in mind.
  One of the Bill's worst aspects involves enforcement. I know that the Minister has explained why he wants to set up the national disability council—that is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Why should ethnic minorities and women be represented by proper commissions with teeth, while disabled people are not? I do not think that the Minister has given a proper explanation to the House and I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so later. Disabled people will be at the mercy of the legal system and will not be entitled to legal aid. If disabled people are discriminated against, they will be unable to fight their case successfully—a commission could have taken their case up for them.
  The Bill contains numerous deficiencies, but I acknowledge that it is a welcome step in the right direction. However, the Government must not award themselves laurels and then be allowed to rest on them. Disabled people should congratulate themselves on having pushed the Government so far. The Minister said that it was a feeble Bill because he wanted to take people with him. He has said that in the past, but it is an insult to the British people, who do not believe that it should be a feeble Bill and cannot see why disabled people should be discriminated against. The Minister may laugh, but at a meeting of the all-party disablement group he said that it was a feeble Bill because he wanted to take people with him.
  The Minister also said that the Bill constituted an historic advance. It is not an historic advance, but a small advance. An historic advance would be made if legislation on civil rights for disabled persons were introduced. The Bill wastes the potential of disabled people. It should involve disabled people's basic human rights. If the Government could accept that, there would be no further arguments. That is why I shall vote for the reasoned amendment.
  We need proper legislation on civil rights for disabled people, who deserve no less. Disabled people want to be treated as equal citizens, not second-class citizens.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. David Congdon: Over the past year or so, we have had a number of debates on this important issue, during which there have been, rightly, a number of impassioned pleas for disability legislation. I make no apology for supporting such legislation in principle, but I make it absolutely clear at the outset that I give the Government's Bill my unreserved blessing. I believe that it is a big step forward and I shall expand on the reasons later in my speech.
  It is a great pity that the Labour party has tabled a reasoned amendment which declines to give the Government's Bill a Second Reading. If we were persuaded by the Opposition parties' arguments to vote for the amendment and against the Bill's Second Reading, the Bill would fall and we would be back to square one, facing the perils of private Members' Bills and the difficulties that we encountered last Session.
  In view of the genuine attempt to build a broad coalition across the Chamber in support of the legislation proposed by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), I was disappointed by the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke): it was churlish and did nothing to persuade me to vote with the Opposition parties.
  I agree—as I hope other hon. Members do—with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who said that discrimination is morally wrong. Of course it is; that is why we are having this debate and why we had earlier debates. All hon. Members want to make progress in this area and put a significant measure on the statute book.
  I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last Session. I wished to serve on that Committee because I supported—and still support—the underlying principles of that legislation. However, having read widely on the subject, I recognised that there were concerns as to whether that legislation was affordable and workable. I hoped that the Government would move amendments in Committee to make that Bill acceptable and to put it on the statute book last Session.
  I was very disappointed—I shall resist the temptation to say more than that—that the Bill did not make progress on Report. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) was put in a very difficult position. He has always been committed to the principles of such legislation and I pay a warm tribute to his work over the years in looking after the needs of the disabled.
  It is fair to say that, until a few months ago, few of us believed that the Government would introduce their own Bill. Before the summer recess, we were given the impression that, although the Government were engaged in consultation, there were likely to be separate private Members' Bills dealing with different aspects of this important subject. I was very pleased when the Queen's Speech made it clear that the Government intended to introduce legislation on this subject.
  Unlike a private Member's Bill, Government legislation stands a real chance of making it to the statute book. That is a key reason for supporting the Government's Bill tonight. We can all engage in gesture politics and say, "We will not accept this; we will go for broke and the civil rights legislation." Hon. Members can
  184
  make a lot of headlines and receive a lot of credit from voluntary and lobby groups by doing that, but at the end of the day, there is no legislation on the statute book. I would rather put legislation in place and, if it does not work, I will knock loudly on the door and press my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to strengthen it.
  I pay tribute tonight to my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who spoke on behalf of the Government. I was impressed by his determination to make progress on this issue after the summer recess and by his presentation to the all-party disablement group. I thank him for trying to put this important Bill on the statute book.
  I wish to compare the Government's legislation with the private Member's Bill from last Session. Many people in disability lobby groups are disappointed that the Government have decided not to introduce a full-blown civil rights Bill. Those groups are also concerned about the establishment of a national disability council rather than a commission. I can understand their concern, but I believe that we should give the national disability council the benefit of the doubt.
  I do not want to get into a fierce debate about it tonight, but I do not believe that the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality have been sure-fire successes. In the early days, they created much resentment—the last thing we want to do is to create resentment in disability matters.
  I was impressed by the Minister's arguments in his speech to the all-party disablement group when he talked about using the legislation to change attitudes. I stress that it is a sign of failure when one has to resort to the courts to resolve difficulties. I hope that the Bill will lead to a change in attitude and performance by employers and others.
  We have heard a lot about employment rights this evening. I have no doubt that too many employers engage in discriminatory practices—they might not even recognise that they are discriminatory and come up with all sorts of excuses for not employing someone. Therefore, I welcome the right to non-discrimination in employment proposed in the Bill.
  I share some of the reservations that have been expressed about the Bill's exemption of small employers. However, the Bill provides powers to change the figure through regulations. I hope that the figure in the Bill will be lowered if it is demonstrated that smaller employers are discriminating against disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) reminded us that 40 per cent. of disabled people are employed by small companies—an important point to bear in mind.
  I turn to access to goods' and services by disabled people. I must admit that I thought that the changes to the building regulations which were introduced a few years ago would lead to greater change. I am glad, therefore, that the Bill provides rights of access for disabled people. It is difficult for them to gain access to too many shops, restaurants and public buildings.
  Of course it is important to ensure that the costs of adapting buildings for disabled access are within reasonable bounds, and the Bill goes a long way towards keeping those costs at manageable levels. I am very pleased that the compliance cost assessment was published before today's debate—I shall not comment on the previous compliance cost assessment for the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Kingswood.

  185
  This legislation attempts to put sensible bands on those costs, and I was disappointed by the somewhat hostile reaction to that provision in a recent leader in The Daily Telegraph. Based on 750,000 businesses using cost limits of £500 or £1,500 per business, the compliance cost assessment showed a likely maximum cost of between £375 million and £1,125 million. The figures could be far less than that because buildings can be adapted fairly easily.
  The measure which makes it illegal to refuse to serve disabled people is particularly important. However, I flag one concern on which the Minister could perhaps comment in his winding-up speech—clause 14(3), which relates to circumstances in which less favourable treatment of disabled people is justified.
  One of the conditions under which discrimination can be justified is if there is a danger to health or safety. I am no lawyer—that could be an advantage or a disadvantage in today's debate—but I am worried about the classic situation which I have raised in previous debates when someone wants access to a cinema where there is room but the manager says, "I am allowed only one or two disabled people in wheelchairs because it might lead to difficulties in the event of a fire." We need to address that, too often it could be used as an excuse to deny disabled people access, and we must avoid that.
  In the White Paper, the Government rightly make great play of the Education Act 1993 with the extra powers which it gives parents and, we hope, results in better access to schools for pupils with disabilities. I had assumed that the earlier Education Act 1981, which was the hallmark Act in terms of education for children with special needs, would have done just that and that there would not be many schools today from which young people were excluded because of a particular disability. I certainly urge the Government to look at that aspect very closely. If the biennial review which is included in the Bill for examining schools and their degree of access shows access that is not being achieved, they must introduce further measures.
  It cannot be right to deny youngsters the opportunity to go to a suitable school simply because no one will put in a ramp or a lift. Lifts are slightly more difficult than other pieces of equipment to install, but some schools—particularly primary schools—do not need them. An imaginative approach and the will to open up schools to youngsters with disabilities are needed. Too often, physical access is used as an excuse, and a disabled youngster ends up going to a special school. I commend to the Government the earlier report produced by the Spastics Society in conjunction with Coopers and Lybrand which suggested that 75 per cent. of schools could be adapted at a relatively small cost. I urge Ministers to think again on that matter.
  I very much welcome the Bill. As I said earlier, a few months ago I did not believe that the Government would introduce such a Bill and I welcome their determination to get it on the statute book. I hope that it will be scrutinised carefully in Committee to make sure that any alleged loopholes are plugged. It is a major step forward and it is a pity that it was not recognised as such by the hon. Member for Monklands, West.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) referred to his difficulty in voting for the reasoned amendment, despite his many reservations about the Bill. I remind him that he would have no such difficulties if he came back to the Chamber on 10 February in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who is proposing precisely the legislation that it appears from his speech he requires.
  I shall confine my remarks to two age groups in which I take a particular interest, as well as a general interest in the disabled—the young and the old. I shall discuss them in reverse order. In a number of respects, the Bill fails to protect them in matters that touch importantly on their rights and their quality of life.
  I refer first to the older members of society. I see in the Bill opportunities lost to make inroads into agism, which is another cause of discrimination in society. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) told us that there are 6.5 million disabled people in Britain, 63 per cent. of whom are over 60. In other words, the majority of disabled people are over 60 and they all have the right to live their lives to the full without discrimination. They also have the right to work. One might ask, "Are they still seeking work at that age?" Certainly, any man over 60 is entitled still to be seeking work. If the pension age is to be equalised at 65, many women may also need to work, given the changing patterns of work and concern for their pensions in old age.
  There is less concern generally about the disabilities of older people. People tend to express more concern about disability in the young; they simply accept disability in older people as the natural process of aging. Thus, the Bill is open to criticism in that the definition of disability that it offers is too narrow. It refers to long-term impairment that restricts a person's ability to carry out day-to-day activities, but the aged are disabled by their very age, which affects, for example, employers' perceptions of them.
  The protection of the Bill should, therefore, extend to those who are perceived to be disabled, although they are not physically or mentally disabled. For example, when an employer makes a judgment that an older person is disabled from carrying out the requirements of a job merely by reason of age, that employer is making presumptions about older people.
  The concept of reasonableness referred to in clause 5 is of great concern to those who have an interest in the rights of older people. Reasonableness on the part of an employer when judging whether a person is fit to do a job is too vague and subjective, particularly with reference to older people.
  Also with reference to employment, clause 7, to which a number of hon. Members have referred, and which exempts businesses with fewer than 20 employees, works to the detriment of older people. Those are precisely the businesses, often locally based, in which older people commonly seek employment.
  The Minister mentioned that 83 per cent. of disabled people are covered by the Bill. I very much doubt whether 83 per cent. of older people are covered by the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe told us that two fifths of all disabled people are known to work in businesses employing 20 people or fewer. One

  187
  may deduce that that applies to at least two fifths of disabled older people, and I would guess rather more. Therefore, as a number of hon. Members have said, the exemption in clause 7 should be narrowed, removed altogether, or replaced.
  On access in general, I also refer to the exclusions from transport and education, which are clearly in the Bill. Both are extremely important to older people, but I shall concentrate on transport. The Minister's gradualist approach ignores an important consequence of Government public transport policies. Perhaps Conservative Members do not use buses, but if they visit any conurbation such as Merseyside, they will see clapped-out buses dashing around competing for business. Most are inaccessible to the disabled.
  As a consequence of privatisation, buses are in use longer and not replaced so frequently. They remain in service, with all their inaccessibility to older disabled people in particular. Incidentally, the British bus production industry has been decimated as a by-product of Government policy. Many older disabled people will be dead before they see the benefits of the Government's gradualist approach to public transport accessibility.
  There is a wide variation among local education authorities as to the number of pupils aged five to 15 who are referred to segregated special schools. Figures for January 1992 from Barnardo's show that in Barnsley and Cornwall, one pupil in 200 was referred to a segregated special school, whereas the figure for Lambeth, Hackney and East Sussex was five times higher. That is a prima facie case of discrimination based on residence. Does that matter? Yes. I concede that segregated special education should be available by choice, but disabled children should also have the choice to be educated in mainstream schools.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East referred to the Education Act 1981, which is engraved in my memory because I was an education chairman at the time. That legislation was introduced with the mantra, "within current resources". It never was resourced, and that has been much of the problem with special education provision ever since.
  Children who are denied mainstream education are deprived of experiences that would help them to live a fulfilling life and play a full part in society. Research suggests that deprivation affects their self-concept. They are certainly deprived opportunities of socialisation. They must frequently travel long distances to attend special schools, which further prevents them participating properly in their own communities.
  That denial also affects society in general—non-disabled people. Many hon. Members present know the story of the individual who looked down pityingly on a disabled person in a wheelchair and said, "Man, you've got problems." The disabled person looked up and said, "No, but I think you have." The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) referred to cultural disregard. Some people have a problem accepting the existence, role, rights and abilities of disabled people. I remind the House of my earlier remarks about perceptions of the older disabled.
  In respect of exclusions affecting special education, the Bill works against the spirit of the legislation stated by the Minister, of altering society's perception of disability. He referred to the Education Act 1993, but the provisions that he cited have insufficient bite to justify the Bill's
  188
  omissions. It should contain targets and timetables for local education authorities to make incremental improvements to existing education premises and their facilities for the disabled.
  There may be difficulties, but faith can move mountains sometimes. Sadly, there were many cases of thalidomide children on Merseyside. The much-maligned Liverpool city council managed to adapt a mainstream comprehensive school on the city's inner ring road, to cater for all those thalidomide children. Impressive achievements can be made with will and determination.
  The Bill's major weakness is the proposed national disability council. It will be advisory and will be charged to produce codes of practice, to consult and to provide costings—but it will have no powers. That is unlike the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, which presumably it is supposed to mirror. That is illogical.
  In the play by Euripides, Hippolytus gave the ultimate excuse for hypocrisy:
  "My tongue has sworn, but my heart is unsworn."
  I hasten to emphasise that I do not accuse the Minister of duplicity. I accept his sincerity, in stating his commitment to changing social attitudes through the Bill. I commend him for that aspiration, but I shall turn my quotation from Euripides on its head. Although the Minister's heart may thus be sworn, his tongue does not speak with sufficient strength to underpin his sincerity. There is insufficient force and detail in the Bill to do that. For that reason, I shall certainly enter the Lobby to support the reasoned amendment. I look forward also to returning to the Chamber on 10 February to support my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Mark Robinson: I was grateful for the little lesson in the classics from the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), and I am glad of the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill. I have long had an interest in the subject, as honorary president of Mencap in Frome and as honorary vice-president of Action Aid for the Disabled in my former constituency of Newport, West. I follow also the activities of the all-party group, so I was pleased to hear strong support for the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) earlier this afternoon. It served to underline my view that this legislation is a positive step forward for disabled people. Indeed, had it been on offer more than 12 months ago, I believe that it would have been welcomed by the Labour party—although its members might not care to admit that today.
  I find it extremely disappointing to note that the Opposition seek to oppose the Bill's Second Reading by means of a reasoned amendment. That amendment would not just deny the Bill a Second Reading, but it would do so on grounds that are good debating points for Committee but rather short of substance when it comes to opposing the entire legislation.
  For all the emotion that emerged in the debate on the private Member's Bill last year, there has been steady progress in recent years in advancing the rights of, and opportunities, help and benefits for disabled people. Education has played an important part in that process. There has been great progress in the way in which public services, architectural designs and a range of other

  189
  activities are provided for disabled people, in the community and in the workplace. I think that, confronted with the achievements of the past two decades, people 20 years ago would have been dubious about the possibilities of making so much progress.
  This Bill carries the process forward. As the Minister said, it should not be seen as an isolated measure; it is part of a package outlined in the recent White Paper. There is much to be said for introducing legislation such as this in a properly staged and managed way. It makes sense to secure progress in a structured manner. After all, it is not just a question of forcing the public and businesses by means of legislation to uphold certain standards of conduct. It is also a question of educating people, so that the proper treatment of disabled people gains ever wider acceptance in the community—that is happening already.
  Hence there is a case for concentrating on larger employers with the resources to deal effectively with such legislation. The United States Congress, after considerable thought, decided to exempt companies with 15 or fewer employees. I believe that we were wise to follow a similar path, at least for the time being. We can always return to the issue if the need arises.
  Mr. Berry: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the relevant clause would allow the figure to be increased as well? It has been suggested that it might come down from 20, but it might also go up.
  Mr. Robinson: There is always the opportunity for the Government to change their mind. The figure might change in Committee: who knows? The important thing is to establish the principle, which is what the Bill rightly does.
  A new law can easily be brought into disrepute if it is quickly found to be unenforceable. We must therefore ensure that this legislation is practical, sensible and readily accepted in the workplace.
  It is also wise to provide a measure of flexibility if the responsibilities demanded by the Bill are to be properly implemented. When I visit new buildings or projects in my constituency, one of my first questions is always, "What facilities have you got here for disabled people?" I am rarely disappointed; usually a lot of thought goes into ensuring that the facilities in public buildings, voluntary sector buildings and businesses are appropriate to the needs of disabled people. Of course, people will always have different definitions of what should be provided, but in the main progress is positive.
  The comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) about the desire for access expressed by disabled people struck a chord with me. Arriving at a public place or in the workplace and being forced into a stressful entry always entails a degree of humiliation. As one of my constituents said at the well-attended Mencap annual general meeting in Frome last Friday night, disabled people feel demeaned and second rate when they are denied. That applies across the board—to access, to attitudes and to the constant fear of being talked down to or patronised.
  A great deal of what happens to disabled people is demeaning but could not possibly be put right by any discrimination legislation. We must not be misled into thinking that passing legislation will provide all the
  190
  solutions, and we must not allow it to turn into an excuse for not doing more. There must be a concerted drive, beyond this or any other legislation, to educate people about the disabled, demonstrating to them that disability does not disqualify a person from leading a perfectly normal life. That sort of education goes well beyond legislation. It extends to attitudes at work, in schools and in public offices.
  Some time ago I was delighted to visit a project under way at St. Arthur's school in Wincanton in my constituency. The project is known as the Monday club—[Laughter.] I thought that hon. Members might find that strange. I certainly raised my eyebrows when I was told I was to meet the Monday club without knowing exactly what that would entail. In any case, in that project students work with disabled people for one hour a week. The reaction among the teenagers was highly encouraging. When I spoke to them individually, they all admitted that their attitudes to disabled people had been altered by their experience with the project. Such work in schools is immensely valuable in the process of changing attitudes right across the spectrum.
  I give a warm welcome to the Bill. I am certain that it will emerge from Committee further improved. That is why I hope, once it has got through its ritual denunciation, that the Labour party will work constructively with the Bill once Opposition Members have had their pound of flesh in the Division Lobby tonight.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: There are 500,000 disabled people in Wales, for whom this legislation is very important indeed. No doubt they, like many hon. Members, would like it to go quite a bit further. If the legislation moved in the direction of the provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which we shall have the chance to consider in a couple of weeks' time, it would be relevant not just to disabled people but to countless thousands of others for whom the facilities to be provided are of direct significance.
  I am glad to speak in this debate. I should be even more pleased if the Government had adopted the anti-discrimination legislative approach incorporated in a number of Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bills which I have sponsored in recent years. The Bill does not meet the objectives spelt out by the Government in their consultation paper, on page 9 of which we read:
  "The Government accepts that measures to end discrimination must be comprehensive."
  Regrettably, the Bill is not comprehensive, although it is a step in the right direction. Paragraph 1.9 on the same page states:
  "The Government is introducing wide-ranging anti-discrimination legislation".
  But this Bill is fairly narrow. That is not to say that the parts of it which bite are not worth having, but it would have been far better if it had adopted the general approach of the other Bills that have been introduced on the same subject.
  We need comprehensive legislation. The principle of non-discrimination should be inviolate. Either we believe in discrimination or we do not. If we do not, we should legislate against it. If we believe that it is applicable in law in some areas, it should be applicable in all areas. Discrimination should not be allowed or tolerated in any circumstances. It is just not good

  191
  enough to say, for example, that it will be outlawed for 83 per cent. of employees, but allowed for the remaining 17 per cent.
  The position of companies employing fewer than 20 workers is unsatisfactory. As I understand it, the legislation in Australia and New Zealand has no such exclusions. Some hon. Members argued the American case, and one can equally argue the experience there. If a worker in a company employing 20 people has his or her rights with regard to disability safeguarded, what happens if suddenly there is a redundancy in the company and it then employs fewer than 20 people? Does that person lose his or her basic human rights, as recognised in the Bill, by virtue of the fact that there has been a redundancy? That seems totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
  A letter from the Employers Forum on Disability—I dare say that other hon. Members have also received a copy—tells us:
  "There should be no exclusion from the Bill's provisions on grounds of an enterprise's size. It cannot be right for a disabled person to be discriminated against just because an enterprise has fewer than 20 employees."
  That is something that we should take good note of.
  In rural areas, such as the constituency that I represent, the vast majority of companies have fewer than 20 employees. That means that disabled people will have fewer civil rights in rural areas of Wales, Scotland or, indeed, England than in urban areas. That cannot be right. It cannot be conceptually right and it should not be the way in which we make progress on these matters.
  I will deal now with some of the other problems of the Bill. On definitions, clause 5(4) contains the words "unsuitable for the employment". No definition is given of "suitable" or "unsuitable". It is totally open-ended.
  Clause 5(1)(b), refers to an employer. It means that there can be an exclusion if
  "it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to hold that opinion."
  That is a terribly subjective provision and cannot be a reasonable basis on which to make law.
  I am also concerned about the position of those who may have long-term disabilities, perhaps HIV. Schedule 1 on page 27 of the Bill states that if a person has a progressive condition but
  "does not have an impairment which has a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, he shall be taken to have such an impairment if that is the expected effect of that condition."
  In other words, if the expected effect of a condition in the fulness of time is disabling, that can be considered as a reason to exempt that person from the provisions of the Bill.
  Again, that cannot be right. Steps should be taken to ensure that people who are currently—and will be for the foreseeable future—capable of undertaking work should not be discriminated against because of some long-term effects. After all, we all get older and eventually become less able than we were when we were younger.
  192
  For some people, the situation is even more serious. The Alzheimer's Disease Society states:
  "In its presents form the definition excludes from protection against discrimination, those people who can be identified by predictive genetic testing as being at risk of becoming disabled due to genetic causes."
  Therefore, if science moves forward and more people can be predicted to have the potential of being disabled in 10, 20 or 30 years' time, they will fall outside the purview of the proposed legislation. Again, that cannot be right. We are told by the Genetic Interest Group in a letter from its director, Alastair Kent:
  "Our concern is that the Bill as it stands unfairly discriminates against people who have a genetic disorder but who are at present healthy—in other words, people who are pre-symptomatic for a genetic disorder."
  I am sure that the Government have not thought through the implications adequately. If the Bill proceeds to Committee, I hope that they will look carefully at the implications and at conditions which may not currently exist but which can be predicted, because if people choose to predict them they can be used as a basis for discrimination.
  On goods and services, the time scale of 15 years is too long. Questions need to be raised about the financial limits indicated in the Bill. Will the services include insurance services, particularly for those with learning difficulties? Will they include the needs of deaf people, for example, telephone systems, entryphones and emergency systems? Will services be included for blind people such as information in Braille? Will they include services to help with the difficulties that blind people experience with their guide dogs, for example, in taxis or restaurants?
  I believe that all those areas must be clarified, because without general anti-discrimination legislation it becomes questionable as to whether loopholes might be created. I am concerned that a loophole might be created with regard to certain health and safety considerations and whether it will be a let-out for people who should be applying the legislation.
  I deal now with education, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. It should most certainly be within the purview of the Bill. If the Education Act 1993 meets the objectives of anti-discrimination, there is no problem in having it built into the Bill. If it does not, it most certainly should be written into the Bill to ensure that people who need that safeguard are not left out, that they do not fall between two stools. No child should be denied access to mainstream education. I believe that it is discrimination if that access is denied. As I understand it, the disability allowance would not be available for disabled part-time students. To that extent, discrimination is built into the Bill if it does not take on board the position of those students.
  A number of hon. Members applied themselves to enforcement. The main difference between the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and the Disability Discrimination Bill is that in the latter all that we have is access to the industrial tribunal system and some conciliation systems on a local level. No doubt those are very much to be welcomed, but the problem with industrial tribunals is that there is no legal aid.
  That means that a well-off disabled person—I suppose that there are some—will have access to legal redress, while disabled people who are poor will be

  193
  prevented from getting their rights. That cannot be right. If we are talking about principles of anti-discrimination legislation, the Government should look again at that question. It must be addressed or the Bill will be seen as a toothless charade and the Government will lose the opportunity to do something really worth while.
  There are a number of other problems in the Bill as it stands. There are problems for those with learning difficulties. Clause 14(3)(a)(ii) says that the conditions are that
  "the treatment is reasonable because the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement or of giving an informed consent".
  That is an extremely demeaning approach. Does a disabled person with learning difficulties lose his or her rights because he or she is incapable of giving an informed consent?
  The whole approach in the past has been to ensure that there can be representation on behalf of those people to ensure that their wishes are taken on board. Exemption will take their rights away from them. That is nothing less than a specific discrimination against people with learning difficulties which has been built into the Bill. It surely cannot have been the Government's intention, but that is what we face, and Mencap feels strongly that that provision should be deleted.
  There are other specific problems. Why are the voluntary organisations exempted, particularly when they may be the contractual suppliers of services to the public sector? In those circumstances, the rights of disabled people should be built into the legislation.
  Schedule 1 requires registration, but in recent years there has been a move away from the stigma that goes with registration. To that extent, we are missing an opportunity. The Bill also refers to "clinically well-recognised illness". What on earth does that mean? If it cannot he defined, how will the courts be able to apply the law?
  I hope that the Government will approach the Bill's Committee stage with an open mind to accepting drastic amendments. I hope that the Bill will be amended to adopt lock, stock and barrel the provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. However, it seems possible that the long title has been drawn in a way specifically to avoid that. That is why I shall be voting against the Bill today. If it is not amendable in that direction, there is a serious problem.
  Massive parts of the civil rights approach need to be transplanted into the Bill to make it acceptable. The Government have come some considerable way in the past two years, under pressure from all sorts of directions, to recognising the need for legislation. I now implore them to make the Bill comprehensive, enforceable and unambiguous. Then, and only then, will it achieve its objective of anti-discrimination legislation.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has a long and honourable record in the House of speaking for the disabled. I support his remarks on those groups who suffer from genetic disorders. I, too, have received such representations.
  194
  The hon. Gentleman described the Bill as a step in the right direction, but it is a great deal more than that. It is a massive move forward. It is a landmark Bill and this is an historic day. There has never been a day like this when the Government have put forward a Bill that will do so much for the disabled. The Opposition are mistaken in opposing it.
  There has never been a Bill like it, certainly not in peacetime. The 1944 legislation was introduced during the war. The civil service exempted itself from that. I hope that it will not exempt itself from this Bill. I see that there are more civil servants in their Box today than there are Opposition Members on the Back Benches, which shows the complexity of the Bill.
  The Government should be congratulated on introducing the Bill. I am sorry that the Opposition will seek to divide the House. They are mistaken to do so. They are churlish not to acknowledge the Government's tremendous record. In financial terms alone the Government's spending on the long-term disabled has trebled in real terms since 1979 to a current figure of £17 billion per annum.
  The number of those who claim the various benefits, such as the invalid care allowance, has risen from 5,000 to 200,000. When the mobility allowance was introduced by the Labour Government in 1976, it was phased in over four years, during which time there were only 5,000 recipients; compare that with the 320,000 people who benefit today from the disability living allowance.
  The Opposition are churlish in their approach. They seem to have committed themselves to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which would cost many billions of pounds. I do not know whether they have come forward with an actual cost, but the Government's sensible and wise Bill has been costed at a modest figure which can be accepted.
  I am surprised that the Opposition spend so much time attacking the provision exempting small firms with fewer than 20 employees. That has always been so with the quota. When Labour was in power it made no attempt to alter it. There is a perfectly logical reason. Some firms may employ disabled people in proportion to their size, but small firms cannot employ half a person.
  The Employers Forum on Disability says that 60 per cent. of small firms of 10 people or fewer already employ a disabled person, so that is not where the problem is. The problem is much more with larger organisations, particularly in the public sector. The TUC produced an interesting paper showing than an extra 100,000 people could be employed, and quoted 42 health authorities and local authorities which employed no registered disabled person.
  The Bill is a triumph for the Government and a personal triumph for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and his wife, Norma Major, have a great record of campaigning for the disabled, particularly for Mencap, in their constituency and now nationally. Mencap is one of the many organisations which have commended the Government on the Bill's objectives.
  I congratulate the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), and the present Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on their work in making the Bill possible. I also thank them for speaking to members of the Conservative disability group committee on what I think is a unique telephone

  195
  conference hook-up. Members of that committee are based all over the country and cannot travel at all easily. Both my hon. Friends have helpfully participated in those unique hook-ups.
  That committee was also well received when it visited Ministers to discuss the arrangements that their Departments make for the disabled. We have had a number of such visits, including to the Department of Transport, whose arrangements are outstanding. In particular, Anne Frye has an outstanding record in making provisions for the disabled in that Department.
  In the Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), the Minister of State, has made an outstanding contribution. Just a week ago a delegation visited the Department of the Environment to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who has been responsible for an outstanding consultation paper which has just been published. Within the Department of Employment the placement, assessment and counselling teams, PAD's, have an excellent record in placing more and more disabled people in employment.
  Mr. Barnes: I offer my services as promoter of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which I shall be introducing on 10 February, to the Conservative disability network which has had discussions with Ministers on the content of the Bill so that we may debate the alternative provisions contained in that comprehensive legislation.
  Mr. Thurnham: One of the major deficiencies of that Bill was the lack of consultation with interested parties. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what people had said about the Bill he would know that it is impractical. For instance, the proposals on small firms are impractical. The Labour party always seems to favour a bureaucratic solution. It was Mr. Leo McKinstry, a former Labour councillor and adviser to two Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, who, only the other day, among a number of interesting points that he made, said:
  "That's what Labour is good at: creating bureaucracy."
  That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman's Bill would end up doing. It would also be a lawyer's beanfeast.
  One of the Government's most commendable actions is that of setting an example. I should like the code of practice for civil service employment to be extended much more widely throughout the public sector. Organisations such as the BBC fall far short of what can be done in the public sector. It employs only 0.3 per cent. under the old quota arrangements. Most hon. Members would agree that the BBC could set an example and employ more than its quota.
  I ask Ministers to extend the civil service code to the public sector, where a great deal more can be done. The Trades Union Congress paper was especially interesting in that respect. I recommend hon. Members to consider how an additional 100,000 jobs could be created in the public sector. That is where the deficiencies exist. They do not lie with small firms, many of which are employing more than their quota.
  I have had discussions with Department of Employment officials in my constituency. They say that, when they try to place someone with disabilities in a job, they do not at first go to the town hall or health authority; they go to private employers, who they know have a record of doing
  196
  what they can to employ disabled people. The Government should set an example not just in the civil service, but throughout the public sector because there is no doubt that a great deal more can be done, with 12 local authorities and 30 health authorities not employing any registered disabled people. Those organisations will say, "Ah, we employ disabled people who are not registered," but that applies across the board. There is something wrong if they are not already employing people who are registered disabled.
  It is more than 12 years since my wife and I adopted Stephen, who is severely mentally and physically handicapped. During those 12 years, we have noticed a great improvement in the general facilities and equipment which are available. In so many ways, access is a great deal easier, pavement kerbs have been dropped, and one can go so much more readily into hotels and restaurants. Of course, he enjoys going on holiday and travelling a great deal. Sun Rise Medical is just one of many firms that produce far better wheelchairs than were available years ago. From personal experience, I can say that attitudes and conditions have much improved.
  The Bill is exactly the right way forward for the country to gain a much more ready acceptance of our aims. It will avoid the backlash and negative reaction that could have resulted from some of the Opposition's proposals. I ask the Opposition to think again before dividing the House this evening on such an excellent Bill; it should be commended by every hon. Member.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I should like to start by saying how much I agreed with everything said by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). He has pinched about half my speech—you might say mercifully, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and that will shorten the proceedings somewhat.
  The Bill should be entitled "Disability Discrimination (Exceptions) Bill" because it is far more remarkable for the areas of personal and civil activity that it excludes from its coverage than for those that it includes. It is in the nature of that exclusion that the real trouble with the Bill lies.
  After so many years of struggle over the issue of civil rights for disabled persons and, in particular, after the disgraceful talking out last year of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), it is tempting to accept the Government's Bill at least as a gesture towards public opinion. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it may need extension and improvement, but it is a start in the right direction. As it stands, however, it will be an immense obstacle to progress. In the words of one outstanding campaigner, Rachel Hurst:
  "This Bill will set hack the cause of disabled people by 20 years."
  It is important that the Bill is fundamentally amended and that the many Conservative Members who support disabled persons' campaigns realise why it should be amended to incorporate much of the purpose of my hon. Friend's private Member's Bill.
  I refer for brevity to the explanatory and financial memorandum at the start of the Bill. We are told in the first paragraph:
  "The Bill introduces a right for disabled people not to be discriminated against when applying for employment or when employed".

  197
  That is simply not so. The second paragraph states:
  "The Bill also introduces a right of access for disabled people to goods, facilities and services, which will require service providers to adapt their policies"
  and so forth. That is simply not so. In both cases, greater accuracy would be served if the word "some" were inserted; the Bill would then read: "a right for some disabled people not to be discriminated against in employment matters", and "a right of access for disabled people to some goods, facilities and services".
  The exemptions in the Bill amount to the exclusion of about 96 per cent. of businesses in the United Kingdom from the parameters of the legislation. There is some dispute about the figures and about the proportion of the work force involved, but a substantial proportion of the work force is left out of the Bill's provisions.
  As has been pointed out, the Government's policy has been consistently to encourage the growth of the small business sector as a proportion of our economy. The Bill sets the smaller end of that sector, businesses with 20 or fewer employees, on one side. There is not even talk of phasing in. The under-20 sector, if I can call it that, makes no contribution in the Bill.
  The Bill makes specific the figure of 20 and we have had some brief exchanges about that. I think that the Minister was trying to imply that it could be increased by order, but of course it could also be decreased. The exceptions in the Bill include huge swathes of civil and social activity, most notably all existing education provisions—as far as I can tell—and all means of transport. Numerous smaller exceptions exist which, added together, further debilitate the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned a number of those exceptions, but, in addition, clause 14(3)(b) contains a qualification to the excellent clause 12(1)(a). Clause 14 states:
  "a provider of services is justified in treating a disabled person less favourably"
  if that treatment is
  "necessary in order for the provider of services to be able to provide the service to other members of the public."
  That caveat could be ruthlessly exploited in terms of, for example, queues that were holding up a service in a particular place.
  Clause 14(4) makes it clear that the regulations will exclude insurance services. I noted that the Minister said that the Government were talking with the insurance and financial services sector to try to do something about that, but the clause specifically seems to presage the exclusion of insurance services from coverage by the Bill. That is one of the elements of discrimination that is most frequently cited by disabled people and their organisations. The Leonard Cheshire Foundation document, which I assume all hon. Members have received, has numerous examples of strong complaints about that.
  Clause 28(3) excludes from the Bill
  "any act done for the purpose of safeguarding national security."
  That could cover a multitude of sins. On top of such specific exceptions, the Bill contains dozens of references, hints, nudges and indicators of how the regulations will further undermine what purports to be the intention of the Bill.
  198
  What the Minister announced on television as a revolution in favour of disabled people proves, on examination, to be a squeak of good will, strangulated by the Treasury and by the fear of incommoding businesses and public services. I do not underestimate those sectors; they obviously must be taken into account. With appropriate phasing and funding, the revolution could be achieved. Employers are by no means universally hostile. Last autumn, Mr. Robin Gilbert, the Confederation of British Industry director of employment affairs, said:
  "we need a new and effective framework of law in this area which opens up opportunities for people with disabilities so that they can make a fuller contribution in the workplace and as consumers".
  He is not the only business person to have the breadth of vision to understand that a significant shift of access to employment for disabled people will ultimately pay for itself in national terms, as well as achieve its main purpose of enhancing the lives of up to 6.5 million of our fellow citizens.
  Earlier, I mentioned education and transport. It seems clear that, in the mind set of perhaps a majority of people, disabled people are odd, discomfiting or somehow insufficient, a view that much of this Bill and all of the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood seek to tackle. That mind set is formed in youth at school, or at least it is not corrected at school.
  There can be little doubt that anyone is disabled by virtue of exclusion from a school or college because of, for example, mobility difficulties. The exclusion in clause 12 of virtually all education services from the Bill's provisions is astonishing, contrasting starkly with the treatment of the same sector in the private Member's Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood. The second half of clause 12 of the Government Bill is totally exclusive, whereas clause 12 of my hon. Friend's Bill was totally inclusive. That, I feel, symbolises the difference between the two Bills.
  The Minister claimed that the policy of "mainstreaming" in schools pursued by Government and local authorities—and by many schools themselves—was addressing the problem, and there is no doubt that much good work and many better intentions have emerged. Colleges in particular, largely impelled by the need to secure student fees from almost every possible source, have done a great deal to improve access.
  I remember with horror having to lift a wheelchair user and his wheelchair—with the help of three of my students—up four flights of stone stairs to gain access to certain classrooms in the college at which I then taught. Much begging-bowl work had to be done with local businesses and others to get a lift put in; but such problems are slowly improving. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) spoke extremely well about the need for access provision for, in particular, part-time students, so I shall not rehearse those arguments again.
  Under section 21 of the Education Act 1993, local education authorities are obliged to survey schools for such purposes on behalf of the Department for Education. In my own LEA, Lancashire, the vast majority of schools are not adapted for disabled access. Over the past few years just over 100 have been so adapted—out of a total of just over 700—but in almost all cases that has been done to cater for the needs of individual statemented pupils with specific difficulties. Although every effort is

  199
  made in the process, it cannot be guaranteed that the adaptation will suit a subsequent student with a different special need.
  The severe constraints on LEA spending in recent years have made progress in that direction very problematic; this year's swingeing cuts are making it impossible. Lancashire, for example, has had a total cumulative shortfall of £75 million in its education standard spending assessment over the past three years, and simply cannot sustain a realistic adaptation programme. It is all very well to plan full access for new schools, but—like other authorities—Lancashire has hundreds of Victorian schools with flights of stone steps and inaccessible toilets. At the present rate at which my LEA is allowed to replace those schools, replacing them will take just over 800 years—although I do not suppose that that will bother any of us.
  Many—probably most—schools remain at least partly inaccessible to disabled people. Of course that cannot be corrected overnight, but a framework in law that would ensure its correction over a finite period should be enshrined in any legislation. It should, for example, be possible to ensure that all school premises that are entirely on the ground floor are made wholly accessible in quite a short time, and SSAs, credit approvals and grants should allow LEAs and other authorities to achieve that.
  Schools and colleges that are multi-storey or have scattered campuses should be set a more generous target, with phased funding. Until that is achieved, or at least projected, for many parents of young people with disabilities choice of school, or even preference, will remain a cruel myth—and I have not even mentioned the continuing revenue consequences of what we are discussing.
  The example of my constituent Nicky Crane is a case in point. Nicky is a multiply disabled 12-year-old whose parents insisted that he be "mainstreamed" in his primary school. An heroic effort by Tarleton county primary school enabled him to achieve that, and to be astonishingly well integrated in the school. During the search for a secondary school place, Nicky stayed for an extra year at the primary school. The nearby high school is multi-storey, and the Cranes' demand for a place there for their son put both the school and the LEA in terrible difficulties. I know that it is not the Minister's function to deal with the details; I am simply trying to describe the huge problems caused to people such as the Cranes by disability discrimination.
  The costs of the boy's proper care and teaching, in terms of capital spend and the on-going revenue implications, were enormous, and the situation has now reached deadlock. Naturally the parents dug in their heels, and in the interim the boy's progress has been halted or even reversed. I am talking not of an urban area but of a rural area where provision is scattered, and there is no other reasonable choice of secondary school. I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for Caernarfon said about the special difficulties that the Bill poses for rural areas.
  If such bitter, even tragic, struggles are not eventually to be scattered across the country, we shall need a framework of law involving realistic proposals for funding and timing. It is not acceptable for disabled students to be seen simply as a financial problem. Attitudes to disabled people that are revealed in discriminatory employment practices and automatic
  200
  exclusion from some services have much of their origin in attitudes learnt in childhood; the Bill should try to tackle that, but it does not.
  The means of access to vehicles is also excluded from clause 12(5)(b). The Minister may know of the number of trains that are currently inaccessible to most physically disabled people. One side of a station close to where I live, Burscough Bridge, is currently inaccessible to people with mobility difficulties; unfortunately, the waiting room and ticket office are sited on that side. Clause 12(3), which deals with infrastructure, might well cure the problem, which is welcome, but a second problem remains: the platforms at Burscough Bridge are several feet lower than the steps on to the trains.
  It is a moot point whether that problem comes under "access to ‖ place" or access to
  "the use of any means of transport",
  but no doubt that can be examined in Committee. I do, however, have a wonderful photograph of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—who, although he is not the tallest of men, is physically fit and active—trying to step on to a train at Burscough Bridge. He has one foot on the step of the train, and it is above the level of his waist. I have seen elderly people sitting on the carriage floor swinging their legs down to try to reach the platform. Nothing in the Bill tries to tackle that problem, which exists throughout the country.
  I have tried to illustrate with examples some of the problems experienced by disabled people in my constituency—problems that I have observed for myself. The Bill specifically rules out solutions to those problems. Despite its "curate's egg" nature, it is a massive con trick that will not fool those who are most desperate for proper and inclusive legislation. Its language is reassuring and accommodating, and the Minister has presented it with charm; but the actuality of what it sets out to achieve is pathetic. It could constitute a monumental barrier to essential progress in the achievement of civil rights for disabled persons—and, indeed, its timing suggests that it is intended to constitute such a barrier.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) said that the Disability Discrimination Bill was a con trick, while the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—who opened the debate for the Opposition—said that it was weak and narrow. I believe, however, that the Bill is both broad and practical.
  I support the Bill for three reasons. First, it continues the strides made by the Government on behalf of the disabled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said, it is a landmark Bill and, as a consequence, it should not be belittled. Secondly, the Bill is fully in line with what I believe conservatism is all about—helping those who are less able to help themselves, but rewarding ability. The Bill enhances opportunities and rewards merit, and the two are not mutually exclusive. Thirdly, the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) said, is a practical measure to get legislation passed for the disabled.
  I have been concerned that a myth has been growing during the debate about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which was promoted by the hon. Member

  201
  for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). In no way do I deprecate anything that the hon. Gentleman has done on this subject, and I commend the motives of the actions which he has taken in the Chamber during the past few months. Following on from a discussion that the hon. Gentleman and I had in the Chamber today, I would like to quote what the hon. Gentleman said on 29 April during a debate on a motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) to allow more time to debate the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I shall quote three extracts from the hon. Gentleman's speech which put the matter into perspective.
  He said:
  "As supporters of the Bill, we went out of our way to table amendments to address the concerns that the Government had raised".
  All that was right and proper. He later said:
  "However, the key point about costs is that the Bill specifically ensures that, if any provision would cause undue hardship to an enterprise, firm or business, that provision would effectively be waived. Undue hardship specifically relates to the cost of adaptations that might be necessary."
  Again, that is fair and reasonable. Later still, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "As we have specifically said … the timetable for those changes should not be set out in the Bill but should be for the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval".—[0fficial Report, 29 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 510–527]
  My point is that we should get the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill into perspective. Some of the arguments made by Opposition Members might make one think that it is an all-embracing Bill, yet some of the criticisms which hon. Members make about the Disability Discrimination Bill also relate to matters enshrined in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
  Mr. Barnes: The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is wide-ranging and comprehensive, but it is obvious that all the rights contained in it cannot be put into practical application overnight. Therefore, it contains provisions for a commission to operate a dynamic role over time to extend and develop the measures. The Bill is not restrictive and limited in the way in which the Disability Discrimination Bill, which the hon. Gentleman supports, is.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear what I just quoted. There were many let-out clauses in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and many of the issues were completely unenforceable.
  Some hon. Members have spoken about clause 7, which deals with the exemption for firms with 20 employees or fewer. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) said that clause 7 could be discussed in Committee. I believe that that is so. The question whether the criterion is the number of people employed or the turnover of a company should also be discussed.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that Australian and New Zealand legislation specifies no limit whereby firms might be exempt, and hon. Members may recall that the United States has a limit of 15 employees. I would remind the House, however, that the legislation in Australia and New Zealand is substantially weaker than that proposed by the Government today. I
  202
  believe that this Government, and all Governments, have a duty of care to ensure that the safety net for those who are unable to help themselves is of a fine enough mesh that no one slips through. I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East said, that it is indeed a landmark Bill.
  I would have preferred the Bill to be retitled Opportunities for the Disabled Bill, rather than what I would call the politically correct Disability Discrimination Bill. The civil rights lobby fails to recognise that positive discrimination—however well-meaning—is wrong. People want to be employed because of their ability, rather than because of their disability. [Interruption.] I suspect that hon. Members agree with that, and the hon. Member for Kingswood is showing assent.
  In a debate on this subject last year, I made the point that I have a researcher who suffers from a disability. I make the point again that he would want to be employed because of his capability, and not because of his disability. Positive discrimination, or the politically correct term "affirmative action", merely promotes resentment among the work force and, far from changing prejudices, reinforces them. Political correctness has worked against my researcher. He now works for a lobbying company since being employed by me.
  Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman should choose his words carefully.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am choosing my words carefully—for my researcher's sake and not for mine. For fear of the media, the lobbying company told my researcher that he could not keep his House of Commons pass.[Interruption.] As a consequence, he is now unable to use the parking facilities for the disabled here. When I met him—[Laughter.] I am amazed that hon. Members find this funny. When I met him yesterday in Central Lobby, he was exhausted because of his enforced walk on sticks. I believe that that makes a mockery of the so-called anti-sleaze campaign being waged by the Opposition.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I do not make light of the difficulties with which the hon. Gentleman's researcher must cope. The point that I am making, and which the hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of, is that—as far as I know—lobbying companies do not issue passes for this place, and at no time should they do so.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I issued the pass because he was my researcher. However, the lobbying company—his employer—was featured on a television programme on Sunday called "On The Record." He himself was not featured.
  Mr. Pickthall: Who is this person's employer—the hon. Gentleman or the lobbying company?
  Mr. Fabricant: The researcher works for the lobbying company, but in his spare time he also works for me. [Interruption.] That is right and proper. I have no connections with the lobbying company whatsoever, and the researcher does no work for me that is relevant to his lobbying company. There is no problem or conflict of interest whatsoever.
  When the lobbying company was approached by the BBC, it ordered him—wrongly, in my view—either to give up the pass that I had issued him or to give up his

  203
  job. That was absolutely wrong. He still works for me in his spare time, but he has lost his pass. That is political correctness working against disabled people. It is McCarthyism.
  Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman is making a case for the Bill.
  Mr. Fabricant: It is indeed a case for this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Civil Rights Bill."]
  I accept that an advisory body in the shape of a national council for the disabled could be a good thing, but I have some reservations. It must be made clear that the council will not become yet another costly and unwieldy organisation that spends its time meddling in our day-to-day affairs. In an era of deregulation, it is good that the Government are not imposing unfair burdens on businesses and that is why I welcome clause 7.
  Sadly, ensuring that disabled people are not denied opportunities open to others cannot happen overnight. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, a change of attitude is necessary. It will come about, not through the passing of politically correct measures that impose impossible burdens on business, but by creating a climate of persuasion, through education in schools and at the workplace. The hon. Member for Kingswood recognised that when he produced his Bill, as I pointed out when I quoted some Hansard extrats from earlier this year.
  The practical measures proposed in the Bill should do much to continue to change attitudes towards the disabled and to enable them to live still more valued and creative lives in our community. For that reason, I commend this constructive Bill to the House.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Roger Berry: I welcome this debate and the fact that the Government now recognise the strength of feeling in support of equal rights for disabled people.
  What has happened, since the Government killed off the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last year, to bring forth, first, a ministerial statement, then a consultation document, a change of Minister and a White Paper and now, the Bill? The Government realised the strength of feeling in support of equal rights for disabled people, and the credit for that must go to all the people and organisations that raised public awareness on the issue. I pay special tribute to the "Rights Now" campaign and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People.
  I welcome the Government's recognition of the gross injustice of discrimination against disabled people and the need to do something about it. I also welcome their recognition of the fact that education and persuasion on their own are not sufficient to deal with the issue, and their agreement that legislation is workable and necessary. I do not welcome the Bill, however, and I am not being churlish—an accusation that was levelled at some of my colleagues.
  There are massive differences between the Government's Bill and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Essentially, the problems with the Government's Bill are that it is not comprehensive and will not be effective or enforceable. Reference was made to the position of the all-party disablement group. It is true that the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam),
  204
  with whom I have worked closely on the issue for some years as one of the co-chairs of that group, expressed support for the Government's Bill. I must place on record, however, that the view of the all-party disablement group, of which I now happen to be secretary, is more accurately reflected in our submission on the Government's consultation document. The overwhelming majority of members of that group, of all political parties—I stress that—supported the civil rights approach.
  Many hon. Members have dealt with the first problem, so I shall be brief. The Bill is certainly not comprehensive; it fails to deal with discrimination in a number of respects and provides for exemptions. Hon. Members have mentioned education and transport because, last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that they were covered by the Bill. The Minister's device of saying that when the Prime Minister referred to education and transport, he merely meant that the employment provisions of the Bill would apply to those sectors, was ingenious, but it did not fool anyone because the Prime Minister's full answer to the question can be read in Hansard. He dealt with the employment provisions before he identified education and transport as sectors in which the Bill dealt with discrimination.
  Clause 12 excludes education and means of transport. I never carelessly charge that the House has been misled and, naturally, if the Prime Minister had implied anything contrary to clause 12, he would have been incorrect. Clause 12 excludes education, the means of transport and some other areas.
  I am pleased that the Minister said that exclusions relating to the renting and purchasing of property will be reconsidered, but clause 12 excludes other things, including civic rights, and contains a general provision to enable whatever exclusions the Minister might want. The Bill is not comprehensive if it provides for exclusions.
  The employment provisions also show that the Bill is not comprehensive; on the contrary, it is discriminatory. Companies that employ fewer than 20 employees are to be let out. Why? I cannot understand it, nor can the Confederation of British Industry or those who responded to the Government's consultation document.
  The red book that I have here—a red book that I find more interesting than the other one to which reference is often made—contains important information about what those consulted on the Government's measures said. In answer to the question, "Should small firms be excluded?" 84 per cent. of consultees said no. That percentage was exceeded only by the percentage of employers who said no—91 per cent. Frankly, I cannot comprehend why the Minister chooses to ignore that response.
  Clause 7 deals with exemptions for small businesses and subsection (2) states:
  "The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1)"—
  which refers to 20 employees—
  "by substituting, for the number of employees for the time being referred to there, a larger or smaller number."
  I hoped that the assumption was that the Minister wanted to apply the measures to all firms and that we might start at 20 employees and work down, but the Bill allows him to start at 20 and work up. It is bad enough that one third of employees are to be excluded, but the Minister is giving himself the power to exclude the majority.
  The Bill defines a disabled person as someone who has
  "a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his"—

  205
  or her—
  "ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities."
  The Government are saying that discrimination is okay and acceptable if impairment is not substantial, and it is fine if it is based on short-term impairment. Discrimination on the basis of past, perceived or expected impairment is also acceptable. I do not believe that that is so, and that is why the definition of disablement needs to be amended for the purposes of the Bill. It should not be lawful to discriminate against someone who has a previous history of mental illness, or is HIV positive and perceived, or expected, to be impaired.
  Enforceability is a key issue because the new rights—however limited—will be effective only if they are enforceable. Rights that cannot be enforced are frequently worse than no rights at all, simply because they obscure the true nature of discrimination—one gets the impression that measures are being taken to deal with discrimination, which we all recognise exists, but the situation is not significantly improved if one cannot enforce them and it could be made worse.
  Mr. Fabricant: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If he uses that to argue in favour of his original Bill, rather than this Government Bill, however, does he not accept my earlier quotations, in which I proved that his Bill contained so many opt-outs that it suffered the same deficiencies—his term, not mine, as that is what he implies they are?
  Mr. Berry: Of course I agree with the quotation which the hon. Gentleman cited earlier, because I uttered the words in the first place.
  One of the fundamental differences between the Government's Bill and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is the fact that the national disability council proposed in the Government's Bill is no substitute for the disability rights commission because it will not have similar powers to investigate and enforce to those of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Campaign for Racial Equality. Under the Government's proposals, disabled people will find it extremely difficult to enforce their rights. Legal aid is not available for tribunals and is pretty difficult to get for anything else.
  On enforcement, we must ask why disabled people are treated fundamentally differently from people who suffer discrimination on grounds of gender and race. The Government say, "Well, it is too bad. In any case, we are not happy about the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Campaign for Racial Equality." The White Paper says that the purpose of the national disability council is
  "to advise the Government on the progress being made to tackle discrimination against disabled people"
  and
  "to advise the Government on measures to reduce or eliminate discrimination".
  I should have thought that the Government had received all the advice that they need. Organisations of disabled people and many others have been offering advice for years and years. They want the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. If the Government want advice on what disabled people want, they should listen to the "Rights Now" campaign, which represents every major organisation for disabled people—some 50 organisations,
  206
  which I do not have time to list. They should listen also to the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, which represents another 100 or so organisations and 300,000 individuals. It is understandable why those groups feel that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is the correct approach.
  When the Government consulted on their proposals last summer, a number of us asked why they did not consult on the civil rights Bill as well. They refused to do so. Nevertheless, the responses to their consultation document—the red book—show overwhelming support for the civil rights Bill. Of those who mentioned the civil rights Bill, 98 per cent. supported it. Why would the Government want to set up a national disability council to tell them what they already know—that what disabled people want is proper anti-discrimination legislation?
  Support for that civil rights approach has come from every organisation of and for disabled people, the 98 per cent. of those who refer to civil rights legislation in the Government's consultation exercise, the all-party disablement group and a clear majority of Members of Parliament. I remind hon. Members that not a single vote was cast last year against the civil rights Bill. Not only did it pass Second Reading by 231 votes to nil, but at no stage on Second Reading or in Committee was a vote cast against a single clause. We all know how the Bill was blocked. It was not because we lost the votes or the arguments.
  Hon. Members must determine their position on the Government's proposals and the reasoned amendment. I hope that they will support the amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and support the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 10 February. By their actions today and on 10 February, hon. Members can help bring about civil rights for disabled people. If not, we shall demonstrate that, collectively, we are part of the problem.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I welcome the Government's frank recognition that discrimination against disabled people in our society is extensive, utterly unacceptable and demeaning to us all and that the Government should act to eliminate it.
  To exclude people with impairments and disable them from playing the full part that they might is to disable our society and ourselves. It diminishes, or should diminish, our self-respect, for we are members—limbs—one of another in our body politic. By discriminating, we maim our humanity, with incalculable consequences. We also rob ourselves of our economic potential with consequences that are, at least approximately, calculable, although they should be calculated on a proper cost-benefit analysis rather than a one-sided, solely negative compliance cost basis.
  Our public debate and the Government's view have developed a long way in the past year or so. The credit for that must go, above all, to the disabled people who have carried the banner of the "Rights Now" campaign. They, with other committed supporters—it gives me pleasure to mention the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), whose speech I follow—have insisted that, in Parliament and Government, we should face our responsibilities.

  207
  I also acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) needed no persuasion on that. His task, on which he was determined, was to persuade others. Since my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People succeeded him in office, he has acted with alacrity and skill to gain acceptance in the Government of much that needs to be done.
  I welcome, therefore, the determination that the White Paper and Bill express to end unjustifiable discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services, as well as to monitor and ensure that good advice is available to the Government. If the Bill, even as it stands, becomes law, disabled people's prospects will be significantly improved. I hope, however, that in its passage through Parliament, it will be amended to carry us further forward.
  My hon. Friend states in the White Paper the Government's "one central objective" as being
  "the elimination of discrimination against disabled people".
  That is exactly as it should be; but the Bill fails to meet that objective in a range of important ways—notably, by offering too little on education, transport, and civic rights and duties.
  I welcome the enlargement of the Bill's scope to include the sale and letting of property, which my hon. Friend the Minister announced this afternoon. What we need, however, is a resounding new clause at the head of the Bill to establish a general duty not to discriminate unjustifiably against disabled people in any sphere whatever.
  We must improve the definitions in the Bill. The Government have made a morass in schedule 1, where they set out on the impossible task of specifying the meaning of disability. Rather than attempt to enumerate or describe the conditions and contingencies that amount to impairment, my hon. Friend should have accepted the broad definition used in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which draws on the hard-won experience of other countries, notably the United States of America, which are ahead of us in this matter.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends used to intimate, as an objection to anti-discrimination legislation, that it would provide a field day for lawyers. Schedule 1, by using expressions such as "clinically well-recognised illness" and
  "circumstances in which … an effect which would otherwise be a long-term effect is to be treated as not being such an effect",
  will be a positive paradise for lawyers and, by the same token, infernal for disabled people.
  I am particularly concerned that the definitions in the Bill will not protect from discrimination people who have a history or reputation of mental illness and people who are HIV positive.
  Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern, which was powerfully expressed by the Huntington's Disease Association, a body with which I have had some involvement over the years, the Alzheimer's Disease Society and the Genetic Interest Group, representing more than 100 charities, that paragraph 7(2) of schedule 1 specifically excludes from protection against discrimination people who do not yet show symptoms of a disease but are likely to do so in time because of genetic factors? The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) touched on that subject.
  208
  Does my hon. Friend the Minister recognise that that provision will discriminate appallingly against people who have to expect eventually to suffer from a terrible disease such as Huntington's and whose life is difficult enough without being exposed to discrimination in the labour market? Does he realise that that provision will powerfully discourage people from undergoing predictive tests? If those tests produce the feared result, people will at least be able to receive the appropriate medical treatment and plan their lives in the light of the knowledge that the tests provide.
  I very much regret that, at this stage, my right hon. Friends do not propose to bring businesses employing fewer than 20 people within the requirement not to discriminate. The concept of reasonableness in the Bill provides the necessary safeguards. It simply cannot be right that people's basic rights as citizens and members of our society should depend on who happens to employ them. It is unimaginable that we would say to an employer who wanted to operate a racist recruitment policy, "Okay, since it is only a small business, you can indulge your prejudice," and that we should enshrine that in law. We should insist no less on basic decency where disabled people's employment is concerned.
  I note that it is provided that the threshold of 20 may be changed by regulation. If the Department of Trade and Industry were to pluck up its courage, perhaps we might match the Americans at 15. That, too, would not be good enough. We should straight away match the Australians, and I believe the New Zealanders, who do not allow discrimination in employment in businesses of any size.
  I am willing, of course, to contemplate reasonable phasing-in periods. The access-to-work scheme, properly funded by the Government, should also be permanent. We must, however, be determined on this matter of a threshold, because it is in smaller businesses—the most rapidly growing sector, as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) observed—that discrimination is most often found. It is simply wrong to establish in the law of the land that unreasonable, unjustified discrimination may be condoned anywhere.
  It seems that the Government find it peculiarly difficult to reconcile themselves to establishing a disability rights commission with the role and powers to match those of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. It really is time that those bodies were redeemed from the demonology of my right hon. Friends' imaginings. They do important good—not by means of for ever meddling and bullying, as certain folklore tells us, but because, by their very existence and by virtue of powers which they rarely use but hold in reserve, they guard against discrimination. A national disability council, such as the Government propose, with powers to advise and draw up codes of practice, but with no powers to investigate and enforce, will be quite insufficient.
  All too often, disabled people, whose means are most often less than those of the generality of our fellow citizens, will not be able of themselves to sustain the legal rights created for them in the Bill. There will be no legal aid to assist them in taking cases to industrial tribunals. If this proposed law against discrimination is not to be hollow, it is imperative that a disability rights commission is created with power truly to champion disabled people,

  209
  individually and in class actions, which, notwithstanding my hon. Friend the Minister's view, could be of great value.
  Everyone wants to proceed by good will and conciliation, but we cannot sufficiently depend on that. Powers of enforcement would need to be used only occasionally, but their latent existence is indispensable if we are to overcome prejudice.
  My last contention is that the Bill should incorporate provisions to amend the National Assistance Act 1948 to remove the bar to local authority social services departments making cash payments to disabled people, so that, if they wish to do so, they can manage their own budgets for personal and domestic care. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has agreed in principle to remove that obstacle to independent living, but, presumably for reasons of bureaucratic demarcation, the Bill does not so provide.
  I recognise, of course, that the detail of a model scheme needs to be worked out carefully, but good progress has already been made. At the request of a number of us, members of the Association of Directors of Social Services submitted a scheme to my right hon. Friend last summer. Disabled people should not have to wait for that provision another year. We should use the legislative opportunity of this Bill to remove the block in primary legislation and the details can be established in secondary legislation or by whatever other means is appropriate.
  I shall not support the reasoned amendment and I shall vote for the Bill on Second Reading. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is the model of legislation that I wanted the Government to adopt. It provides the clear-cut affirmation of values and the comprehensive principle that we should assert. However, I accept absolutely the good faith and good will of my hon. Friend the Minister. The Bill contains much that is good and important. We should use it, in a spirit of cross-party co-operation, as a platform on which to build. I will certainly seek to have it amended to improve its definitions and its scope and to incorporate the necessary powers of enforcement.
  If the Bill were defeated tonight by Conservative Members supporting the reasoned amendment declining to give the Bill a Second Reading, and if the Government were then, regrettably, not to support the private Member's Bill, there would be no legislative advance for disabled people. Without in any way abandoning our ideals, let us be practical and constructive.
  8.5 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). In a previous incarnation as a Government Whip he helped me when I piloted my Bill, now known as the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, through the House. I welcome the balanced approach that he demonstrated tonight.
  I welcome the Disability Discrimination Bill. It is gratifying to see that the Government have attained a degree of enlightenment over the plight of the disabled, albeit as a direct result of democratic pressure within the Chamber and from outside. I hasten also to say that despite the fevered imagination of some that a deal has
  210
  been done with the Ulster Unionists to extend the scope of the Bill to Northern Ireland, that has not happened. I welcome, however, the Minister's announcement to do just that.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) rebuked hon. Members for their adversarial approach to the Bill. The reality is that it is the job of the Opposition parties to test Government proposals and to push them. Because of the legislative method that has been adopted for Northern Ireland over the years—we have had no opportunity to explore, test or amend Bills—some bad legislation has, unfortunately, been introduced. If such an adversarial approach was not taken to the Disability Discrimination Bill, it, too, would run the risk of being bad legislation.
  Mr. Barnes: The Government's last-minute concession to extend the scope of the Bill, once it is in Committee, to Northern Ireland may have something to do with the pressure openly exerted by hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland, because four of those hon. Members, who represent different political parties and between whom there are often considerable disagreements, have sponsored my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. It commands the support of three other political parties of Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept that. If hon. Members remember my intervention during business questions and on other occasions, they will recall that that pressure was exerted openly. Perhaps I am in a unique position tonight because I represent the commonality of political interests in Northern Ireland.
  The House will be aware that, for many years, I have been at the forefront of the campaign for disability rights. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has said, I am a co-sponsor of his Bill, which will be discussed by the House soon. That Bill would solve most of the discriminatory problems faced by the disabled, but the Disability Discrimination Bill will not do that. Given my professional background, I might ask,"Who doth hinder the union of the two?", because we might do better to unite those Bills if we are truly concerned about the interests of those with disabilities.
  The call for comprehensive legislation on the issue is clear. I am not usually known as a supporter of quangos, but I call in support of my position the Government's own human rights watchdog in Northern Ireland—the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights. Among the recommendations in its recent comprehensive report on disability, the committee comments on the preparation for the Bill. It has done much research in it, some of which is unique. The committee says:
  "the Commission has become convinced that the proposals in the government consultation paper do not represent an adequate response to the issues revealed by the research. In effect they do not meet the concerns identified by the research team in respect of, for example, education, employment and mobility. The rights predicated in the paper seem unenforceable in practice—since legal aid would not be available and there is no provision for an effective enforcement agency."
  There we have it—an honest opinion by, I believe, an independent Government body.
  The report commends the former Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill introduced in the previous Session by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), which is being

  211
  introduced again by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East. I have received a similar message from people involved in disability action in Northern Ireland.
  As I understand it, the Bill fails in several aspects. I acknowledge that it is complex in many ways. 1 was amused when the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) commented that there were more advisers in the Box than there were hon. Members on the Back Benches. He would have been more accurate if he had looked at those on the Conservative Back Benches at the time, because throughout the debate the Opposition have normally been running ahead of them and we are now just about equal.
  Clause 7 states that the Bill will not apply to small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. That has been mentioned before, but it is doubly unfortunate in the Northern Ireland context, for I understand that about 90 per cent. of companies in Northern Ireland have fewer than 10 employees. That fact makes nonsense of the provisions in the Bill. It is not the size of a firm or, for that matter, the turnover of the firm, that matters, but the fact that someone who is able to work in a specific post is disqualified from doing so—and sometimes not even interviewed for a post because he or she may have some disability.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) referred to the second issue to which I shall draw the House's attention—genetic testing. I am worried about genetic screening and access to that information. The narrow definition of disability will discriminate against those people who can be identified by predictive genetic testing as being at risk of becoming disabled as a result of genetic causes.
  I understand that the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who will reply to the debate, may have some anxieties, as I have, at another level about genetic testing, but it appears to me that the information from such tests, were it to be made available, might also be used to discriminate against a person applying for insurance cover, for example. Legislation that takes into account the rapid developments in genetic engineering must be included in the Bill.
  One of the objections to the earlier Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was its cost, the estimates of which escalated beyond human comprehension. Many of the objections revolved around transport costs—the costs of new coaches, buses and so on. I understand that one of the figures quoted was that an increase of about 25 per cent. on the usual cost of a bus would be required if we were to provide an integrated transport system by road for people with disability—and age can also be a disability if one wishes to hop on a bus.
  The issue is interesting. I spoke today to a Northern Ireland coach company, Robert Wright and Son of Ballymena, and I can give the House at least some good news. That company is in the process of finalising its plans and announcing that it will manufacture other low access coaches, which can carry as many as 70 people at a cost of only about 5 per cent. in excess of current bus prices. I believe that there is a message there for the Department and others: that we should make urgent progress down the road in renewing our coaches at a level that is economically viable, and which will facilitate people with disabilities.
  212
  Other anxieties have been mentioned today. In the Bill and the accompanying paper, "Disability—on the Agenda", the Government have relied on good will and on what is "reasonable" to make the legislation work. Will the Minister accept that legislation ring-fenced with exceptions is no solution? That applies to the problems with education.
  I understand, for example, that in the North Antrim area where, a few years ago, there had been an increase in the number of young people being integrated into normal education, they are now being siphoned off into special care schools because the problem of access has not been properly tackled. I believe that that is contrary to the education provision. It is certainly contrary to the intentions of those of us who have campaigned for the right of people with disabilities to be integrated into mainstream education.
  Among Government Departments, the Department of Health has not been a star performer in employing people with disability under the quota system. It has been recognised that the quota system failed to have an effect on discrimination against disabled people. Surely that points to the need for a foolproof system of policing the proposals.
  Although I welcome the step that has been taken along the road, there remains a long way to go. If anyone says, "We have been doing the best we can," I am always mindful of the colleague with whom I was an assistant minister as a young man. On one occasion, in the General Assembly, a convenor pleaded, "We have been doing the best we can," and Dr. Martin went to the rostrum and said, "Moderator, their best is not good enough." If this is the best that the Government can do, I hope that they will hasten to marry the two Bills together, even in Committee.
  8.17 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on introducing the Bill. It builds on substantial work that the Government have done for disabled people for a very long time, starting long before the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was even invented.
  It is worth noting that spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers has increased to £17 billion in the past year; that is almost as much as we spend on national defence. Therefore, no one could say that there is not a whole-hearted and deep commitment by the Government to support the wishes of the disabled.
  Although the Opposition, by and large, have been very grudging about the Bill, I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who described the Bill as
  "a welcome step in the right direction".
  Coming from the hon. Lady, that is significant, because she and I have not always agreed, and we shall probably disagree about many issues for some time.
  None the less, I welcome a lower tone, greater calm and, on the whole, a desire by many people to ensure that the Bill can be workable. I have spoken to many disabled people who freely tell me that the Government's Bill is a good Bill and an excellent start in the process to right

  213
  many wrongs which have not been dealt with so far. As one disabled person said to me only yesterday, "It has great merits—there is no question of that."
  The Bill strikes a balance between justifiable aims and what is possible in terms of provision. It is a courageous effort when we bear in mind the fact that the interests of disabled people have, in the past year, been clouded by highly charged emotion, aspirations and political activism that has tended to cause disarray and concern among disabled people. In Sutton, disabled people have been alarmed and unnecessarily frightened at the idea that we are not trying to help them.
  It is significant that the Bill has been put together on the basis of extensive consultation. All told, more than 1,000 people or organisations have responded in writing. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has received scores of interest groups and has travelled across the country to meet others. Above all, he has listened and taken careful note of the views of enablers—businesses, Government agencies and local government—in his efforts to improve provision for the disabled. He is, rightly, deeply conscious of the financial burden that such groups will bear. It was never realistic to expect them to finance to the tune of £17 billion the changes proposed in the private Member's Bill.
  I voted for and supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on Second Reading. But I did so because I supported the spirit of it. What had not been made clear at that time and only became clear afterwards was the burden of costing that outweighed the Bill's possible advantages. The Government's Bill is expected to limit the costs to about £1.5 billion, which will be phased in over 15 years. The cost to an average business could range from £500 to £1,500 over that period.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend has argued in favour of a lower tone and against political activism. Does she also agree that fair-minded analysis is important and that, as well as the cost that a measure may carry, we should also look carefully at its economic benefits?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is always important to look at both sides of the equation. I hope that, as the Bill progresses to its Committee stage, that will happen.
  The greatest chance of success is to develop policies that encourage individual effort—going with the grain of the market rather than imposing untenable requirements. In my constituency, the Sutton alliance of disabled people—an energetic and articulate group—appreciates the consultations that have been held so far. I have worked closely with that group, which has given the Bill careful thought and come up with some useful ideas.
  One proposal that the group could have made could be integrated at a later stage: easier access to information on where disabled people can go for support and advice. Only this evening a disabled Sutton constituent came to visit the Houses of Parliament. She had no idea whether she could park her car outside Members' Entrance. Only after extensive phone calls did she tumble to the idea of calling her Member of Parliament. We should work far harder to ensure that the disabled community understand where help can be obtained.
  214
  The Bill cannot hope to satisfy everyone—no Bill can ever do that. I am sorry that the Opposition were so grudging that they could not give the Government any credit. Why? I think that it was because the Bill does address the deep concerns of disabled people. The Bill recognises the distress, frustration and humiliation experienced by them. They should not have to tolerate being treated as third-rate citizens—as, at best, an inconvenience, or, at worst, imbeciles.
  When it is clear that reliance on common decency fails, a statutory framework can undoubtedly help to remedy the wrongdoing. The Bill breaks new ground over and above the consultation document, and I shall mention three ways in which it does so.
  First, our society is the poorer if able-minded but physically disabled people are unable to work because we are unimaginative about how to assimilate them into the working environment. By making it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled person, we will make the employer think all the more carefully about the talents of that disabled applicant. Although the provision applies only to companies employing 20 or more people, we must remember that it will account for 82 per cent. of the businesses in this country, leaving just small and potentially vulnerable companies out of the equation.
  I support the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber that we should keep an open mind as to whether the 20-employee limit is appropriate. If it is not suitable, we should reduce it to a lower level and learn from the experiences of companies in Australia and New Zealand.
  It is not unreasonable to expect companies to make reasonable adjustments to working conditions to facilitate disabled people. Such measures need not be draconian, and could incorporate flexible hours or merely moving a desk. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) explained so powerfully, we need more will—and where there is a will, there is always a way.
  The second way in which the Bill breaks new ground involves the conciliation services. The crucial element in solving any dispute is to make full use of the locally based conciliation service—the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—with the co-operation and support of the local citizens advice bureau. No one wants bureaucratic delays when confronted by a problem. People seek fast remedies and easily accessible advice and support—that aim is most effectively achieved through ACAS, whose personnel, as they are locally based, can see the employers or the providers of services immediately.
  The experience of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality shows that 90 per cent. of all disagreements are settled in that way. That is not to say that someone who is dissatisfied cannot go to an industrial tribunal—that has always been an employee's right. I support the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that we should reflect on whether, when a disabled person is seeking redress in that way, he should be entitled to legal aid.
  The third innovative measure in the Bill is its introduction of the national disability council—an important step. As it is, no other concerned group—ethnic minorities or those seeking redress for lack of equal opportunities—has a Minister directly answerable to it. It

  215
  is significant that there is a Minister with responsibility for the disabled who provides ready access to all who need it.
  Mr. Berry: I was not aware that the Bill proposed that the Minister should be answerable to disabled people. One might think that, if the Minister were answerable to them, he would introduce the Bill that disabled people want.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I think that the hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs.
  The Government are going one stage further by establishing the national disability council—which will act as the Minister's eyes and ears. The council will closely monitor progress on the Bill—spotting where measures need tightening up and making recommendations to the Minister. Nobody should fall between two stools, without a substantial and authoritative organisation to which he can refer.
  Quite rightly, at least half the council's members will be people with disabilities, or the parents or guardians of people with disabilities. With an input from a group of people who, to date, have demonstrated their ability to articulate their concerns, I have no doubt that the council will be effective, but it might be helpful were the council also to include representatives from recognised organisations for the disabled such as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the Spinal Injuries Association.
  Finally, I turn to the question of disabled access. Common sense must prevail; we must be reasonable about access demands on public buildings and places of employment. I welcome the focus on improved access for disabled people at railway stations. It is certainly good news for commuters in my constituency who have a choice of nine railway stations, all of which have access problems. By seeking reasonable changes there is more chance of immediate redress. For example, a restaurant could be required to designate a table with sufficient space for disabled people. A tiny corner shop would be within the law if it installed a bell outside which disabled people could ring in order to be served.
  The Bill will make it illegal to refuse to serve disabled customers. Making it easier for disabled people to shop can only be good for retailers who will benefit from the increased custom. That has been the experience in Sutton, where there are extensive high street facilities for the disabled, including wheelchair access.
  I commend the determination of the Government in promoting the Bill and I particularly congratulate the Prime Minister on taking such a personal interest in it. We must ensure that the Bill promotes action which is practical, workable, enforceable and fair for all. I reject the Opposition amendment and I will have great pleasure in supporting the Government in the Division Lobby.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: When I reintroduce the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on 10 February, I shall have the chance to make a substantial speech on this subject. On that occasion I hope to gain support for the Bill in order to secure its Second Reading. I wish to direct my remarks tonight to the current legislation and I shall advocate my own measure on 10 February.
  216
  Of Conservative Members who have spoken, I compliment the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on his speech. Although there are serious tactical differences between us about how to vote tonight, his arguments are based solidly upon experience, upon a clear analysis of the situation and, above all, upon the correct principles. I could argue that he is rather naive in supporting the Government's position rather than the reasoned amendment, but I respect that judgment because I respect the person who made it.
  I trust that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will explain to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who has just spoken, why the Government's legislation is inadequate. Society does not want to see provision for bells outside shops, which will reinforce the idea that disabled people have special problems and should be treated differently. Disabled people should have easy access to all public buildings, as well as benefiting from the measures that are in the Bill that the hon. Lady supports.
  I feel entirely justified in my decision to select the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill as a private Member's Bill. I could have had egg on my face, as the Queen's Speech foreshadowed that the Government intended to introduce their own Bill in this area. However, I based my judgment upon the fact that the Government were not likely to introduce adequate legislation. Although it is an advance for the Government to introduce any legislation at all in this area, I believed that the Government's measure would block off further advancement by disabled people rather than extend the opportunities that are demanded.
  That is what has occurred. This Bill is entirely inadequate. The long titles of the two Bills describe the scope of each piece of legislation. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will allow amendments to be made that will extend the boundaries of that legislation. That scope is not contained in the Government's Bill. In fact, such measures are specifically limited and blocked. In order to carry amendments to the Government Bill in Committee, hon. Members will have to make amendments to the long title of the Bill and change the nature of the legislation. In effect, we shall have to change chalk into cheese. We shall have to make fantastic alterations to the legislation. The council will have to he changed to a commission and the definition in the Bill will have to be based on entirely different principles.
  The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is not my Bill; it is not a Bill to which any one person can lay claim. It has evolved from a movement in society. I am merely taking up the baton that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) carried last year. I have picked it up because I believe that the measure is right for this time.
  I introduced a different measure two years ago dealing with electoral registration. That subject is very dear to my heart and it would have been easy to reintroduce it and carry on the campaign with which I have been involved. However, that argument is still developing; it needs to be extended and it needs to receive more publicity—its time will come. The time has come for extensive and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. Such rights should not be constrained by the very limited and often contradictory measures in the Government's legislation.
  When the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People introduced the Bill on behalf of the Government, I said that I would introduce the Civil Rights (Disabled

  217
  Persons) Bill unless someone else picked it up before me. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) did not pick it up, given his experience in the area of disability. He has now said that the Government measure can be altered and advanced and that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is in some way counter-productive.
  If the Opposition's reasoned amendment is not carried tonight and if progress is made with the Government Bill, the private Member's Bill that I propose to introduce on 10 February will put continuous pressure on the Government. It is the marker against which the Government Bill will be judged.
  I recognise that this legislation represents a big step by the Government; they have crossed the Rubicon by contemplating and producing legislation about disablement. The problem is that it is a very small step for disabled people. It will not get them anywhere; it will barely take them past the Rubicon—in fact, the Bill's provisions may push them backwards.
  Conservative Members are faced with a dilemma. Can the Government Bill be amended to operate in some meaningful way, or should the all-embracing measure of civil rights for disabled people be placed on the political agenda? They could then seek to offer amendments within the spirit of the legislation that is put forward.
  The problems with the Government Bill have been described in considerable detail by Opposition Members. The most highly restrictive definition of disablement is set out in part I and schedule 1 of the Bill. The figures in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill relating to the numbers of people involved have never been disputed and were used in connection with cost assessment. It was a false assessment, but it was based on the same numbers of people.
  It has always been estimated that 6.5 million people would be covered by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Can the Minister tell us how many people will be covered by the Disability Discrimination Bill as it stands?
  We have heard about all the interest groups that are worried about being excluded. They have been quoted by hon. Members representing four political parties who have raised important issues. The Bill refers to those with substantial disabilities and those with long-term disabilities and states that the categories involved will be decided and explained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Do we trust the Secretary of State to provide the broadest possible definitions? We may finish up with an extremely limited measure.
  I hope that, before we vote on the Bill, we shall be told what number the Government believe it will cover, compared with the 6.5 million covered by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: It is possible that the Minister could help us now by giving that figure, which it seems to me is a crucial figure, not just for the purposes of my hon. Friend's argument, but in terms of the whole debate about the Bill.
  Mr. Barnes: The Minister certainly has plenty of assistance and it must be possible that the figures have been calculated somewhere within the civil service and that there could be at least a rough and ready addition to enlighten the House.
  218
  It is possible to argue that the definition in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is very wide and is in danger of becoming almost too wide. On the other hand, it has been argued that the definitions and provisions in the current Bill could lead to problems concerning litigation.
  The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill needs almost no definition apart from the word "disabled". It provides that the argument that someone is disabled cannot be used by an employer, a provider of services or someone providing access to a building and that no one should be able to say, "No, you cannot come here or do this because you are disabled." Therefore, the word needs to be interpreted very broadly indeed.
  People can be disabled in many ways and the eye of the beholder who is doing the discrimination needs to be taken into account. Some people are clearly disabled, such as those suffering from various chronic illnesses and those with mental impairments, and they are mentioned in one of the schedules to the Bill. The definition is so restricted, however, that what occurs is something of an obscenity—exceptions are included to further limit the definition.
  Having defined certain people who are to be considered disabled, the Bill exempts certain circumstances. Restrictions on the scope of the Bill are then built into existing restrictions, reducing still further what it covers. The figures, therefore, do not need simply to say how many people would qualify under the definition; one has then to subtract the number exempted under clause 5, which lists the circumstances in which less favoured treatment is permitted.
  Some of the language in the Bill is most unfortunate. It states that
  "less favoured treatment is justified"
  and details circumstances in which people can get away with unacceptable behaviour.
  It has already been mentioned that, on the role of employers, the opinion of the employer appears to matter most. When a case goes to court or to an industrial tribunal, what is being judged is the opinion of the employer. If the opinion of the employer is genuinely that the case did not involve a category covered by the measure, the measure will not be able to be produced in law, even if services are available to help people who go to industrial tribunals, thereby facing the considerable financial difficulties that were discussed earlier.
  A whole range of issues has been raised by hon. Members, including the Bill not applying to workplaces with fewer than 20 workers. Those companies are not necessarily financially strapped and unable to make provision for disabled people. In the new computer age, a small employer can often make considerable profits, but profitability is not a consideration. As has already been pointed out, the Minister can not only reduce the figure, but can increase the figure when pressures are applied by industry, and the legislation is no longer being discussed in the House and the subject is no longer of prime consideration.
  We have had considerable discussion of the problems in transport and education. Subsections (5) and (6) of clause 12 explain all the sectors of education, under different funding regimes, to which the legislation will not apply. It is part of the list of exemptions. Surely we should know what in education is not covered by the exemptions.

  219
  Are there forms of education—private or state—where the law will have to apply? Is there any reason why we are given a list of exemptions?
  Clause 12(3)(f) says:
  "the services of any profession or trade, or local or other public authority"
  are covered by the Bill. Why does it not say "except education", thus ruling out the need for another half page? There must be something in education to which the measure applies, so may we have the details before we consider the Bill on Report as to what that something is? Otherwise, we shall be legislating blindly.
  The Bill as it stands does not apply to Northern Ireland although we have been told that an adjustment will be made, and of course we believe that that will take place. In a meaningful contribution, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) pointed out that the number of small firms operating in Northern Ireland is greater than anywhere else within the United Kingdom, so more people are being excluded in Northern Ireland. At least hon. Members representing Northern Ireland will now have the opportunity to table amendments and argue their case in Committee—if they are on that Committee—and on Report, to defend their interests and to join the rest of us in improving the Bill.
  When I submitted the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, I took the precaution of seeking support from all parts of the House. In the rush, I did not manage to persuade a Conservative Member who took the Whip, but I do have the support of one who does not have the Whip. I have the support also of hon. Members from eight other political parties, including all four Northern Ireland parties. They are often at loggerheads in the House in respect of Northern Ireland issues, but are united on civil rights for disabled people.
  I subsequently secured the approval of three other Northern Ireland political parties outside the House. I await responses from Sinn Fein and two Protestant parties more closely associated with paramilitary groups. There might be some embarrassment about them saying that they support civil rights for disabled people, because in the past, such groups have been associated with forms of militarism that created much disablement.
  However, if one gets away from constitutional and border issues in Northern Ireland, it is amazing how much across-the-board support there is for worthwhile issues—and nothing could be more basic than my Bill. For example, there was unanimity—other than the small Conservative party that exists in Northern Ireland—in opposing the student loans system, from Democratic Unionists to Sinn Fein.
  Last year, the Government talked out the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. This year, their tactic is that such a Bill would not work, or would cause considerable political damage. They have jumped ahead of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and are seeking to persuade the public, by capturing some of its language, that they are following its principles.
  The Government produced a White Paper that was available in the Vote Office at 12 o'clock a week last Thursday, and the Government Bill was given its First Reading at 4.15 pm the same day. How much consultation could be undertaken in four and a quarter hours on a Bill already in the Vote Office and waiting to be distributed? The White Paper was about news management. It was
  220
  produced in the hope that the media would concentrate on its content rather than examine the Bill—and it needs examining.
  One must question also the Government Bill's implementation. The beauty of a disability rights commission is that it would provide a mechanism to advance the rights conferred by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. There will be various defences of reasonableness in different firms, so initial protection might not be as great as it could be. However, the commission would act in a dynamic fashion, so that the boundaries of discrimination would be pushed back further and further.
  The council established by the Government Bill to advise the Secretary of State would in no way be equivalent to the commission, 75 per cent. of whose members would be disabled or associated with disabled organisations. The commission would submit codes of practice for the House to consider and to be transferred to the Secretary of State, but under the Government Bill, the House would have to consider codes of practice presented by the Secretary of State. The commission would be served by persons independent of the Department, who would present their considered opinions, on which the House could then decide. The House might even refer matters back to the commission if it did not seem to be moving in the right direction. That arrangement would help alert the House to what should be happening.
  The commission would be the conciliating and service body for disabled people taking on the law. I do not trust a Secretary of State in a Conservative Government to do anything to advance the interests of disabled people. Despite the kind words said about the current Minister, who is quite a pleasant fellow, and about his predecessor, the Minister is controlled by the Secretary of State. The record of the current Secretary of State for Social Security does nothing for Opposition Members, and must strike the fear of God into some Conservative Members.
  Instead of plodding ahead with the limiting and restrictive Government Bill, I hope that the House will support the reasoned amendment, which would replace it with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who has just returned to her place, recently tabled two written questions. She asked whether the Secretary of State will
  "produce a copy of the Disability Discrimination Bill using pictures and simple text to make it available to people with learning difficulties."—[Official Report,20 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 754.]
  The Minister answered that the Department would put some stuff on audio cassette and that a simplified written version was available. That version is not for people with learning difficulties, and work must be done on that.
  If the Bill is meant to apply, albeit inadequately, to people with learning difficulties, they should have some access to its content and the ability to make judgments, so that they may put pressure on their elected representatives to defend their interests.
  Mr. Corbett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government acknowledge that, of the £1 million spent on advertising their efforts in this area, only £2,000 has been

  221
  spent on producing material in Braille and on audio cassette? Does he agree that that speaks volumes about the nature of the Government's commitment?
  Mr. Barnes: That just serves to illustrate my point.
  The second question asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale concerned the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. She asked whether copies of the Bill using pictures and simple text would be provided for people with learning difficulties. The answer amounted to, "That's up to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East." The Government would offer no assistance.
  Any hon. Member who is lucky in the ballot can draw £200 for legal advice when drafting his Bill. I ask the House to imagine how far £200 will go to procure legal advice. If the amount had been updated in line with inflation, it would now be worth more than £1,400. Meanwhile, hon. Members are given no real assistance to produce a text in the required form.
  Luckily, however, there are people who are organised and who are doing the job. Simone Aspis, of the organisation People First, has produced a draft document on the Bill in just the form required. If People First, with its limited resources, can produce such a document, why cannot the Government? I am proud to see that ours is the first Bill that the organisation has ever produced in that way, although it has done other similar documents. The Government should think again about the assistance that should be given to hon. Members to introduce Bills connected with disability. People First could do with some more resources from public funds to carry out more work of that nature.
  It is vital that we get the principles right, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand them. A Conservative Member said earlier that he was on the same wavelength as us even though he might vote differently—
  Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend is on to a very important point about some severely disabled people. The early-day motion on this subject is widely supported; its message is that, unless we improve communication with severely disabled people, they are not just second-class citizens—they are non-people. As my hon. Friend will know, Simone Aspis has been instrumental in bringing this issue to the attention of Members on both sides of the House. Will my hon. Friend accept that there are people in all parts of the House who strongly endorse what he is saying now?
  Mr. Barnes: It is indeed an important early-day motion, and Simone Aspis's organisation is important, too. Although I am not supposed to mention this, I might add that she has been the only person to stay in the Gallery throughout the debate today.
  We shall return to the debate on 10 February. I hope that all Members present for this debate and voting tonight will he here again then. I hope that people outside will continue to apply pressure to their Members of Parliament, asking them to come along and support our Bill. It is not my Bill, but I have picked it up and I am running with it. This is my chance to get it passed; we must get it through on this occasion.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am pleased to speak in this debate after my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I face the disadvantage, speaking so late, that it will be difficult for me not to repeat much of what has been said—but I shall try to avoid doing so.
  I want to concentrate on the definition of rights, the costs of the Bill and its enforcement. Like a number of other Conservative Members, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) suggested that Opposition Members are being churlish, in that we should recognise that the Bill is a step in the right direction. We might have acknowledged that had we not known for a long time that something much better was on offer. There is already a much better Bill that could take the place of this one.
  I deal first with definition and who is covered. It has been said that the definition is inadequate, that it is narrower than it should be, and that it is a negative definition that leaves out people with a "history or reputation" of disability—the terms that are used in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. As an example, I refer to people with HIV and AIDS. Clearly, there will be people, particularly some employers, who will treat people who are HIV positive or who have AIDS as disabled. They will discriminate against them. The definition in the Bill may well cover some people—most probably people in the advanced stages of AIDS who may be suffering physical impairment. The irony is that such people are least likely to seek employment and benefit from the Bill's provisions.
  It is much more likely that people with HIV will be discriminated against, because an employer will perceive it as a disability. The issue of perception is important. The way in which people are perceived impacts on the way in which they are treated. If an employer perceives a disability that he or she believes will increase costs or reduce efficiency, they are likely to act on that perception. The person who is discriminated against will have no remedy through the provisions of the Bill as it stands.
  Reputation is important. The sort of provision that was covered in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and which is covered in other countries, for example, the United States and Australia, protects the individual. The issue becomes not, for example, whether a person has HIV, but rather whether they are being discriminated against because an employer believes that that person has HIV. That is what happens. That person's HIV status does not even have to be proved or disclosed. It is the fact that they have been discriminated against that matters.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Why does my hon. Friend think that the Government have specifically excluded the people, the victims of discrimination, to whom he has referred?
  Mr. Gerrard: What we are up against are the costs of a full definition and full civil rights—to which I was going to refer later—and what the Government believe, falsely, those costs would be. I will return to that point later.
  In opening the debate, the Minister referred to discussions that the Government will have with the insurance industry. I very much hope that HIV will be raised, because clearly it is an area in which the insurance industry discriminates at present.

  223
  I have used HIV as an example, but I am sure that many other people will recognise that similar problems apply to many other conditions. Obvious examples are people with epilepsy, which may in some cases have a serious effect on their physical abilities, but which in other cases is quite trivial and has no relationship to that person's ability to do a particular job.
  The matter of rights that are established has been frequently referred to and I do not want to repeat what has been said, with the exception of one point on employment—that the majority of employers will not be covered because of the limitation on the number of employees to 20.
  In the US, the limit is 15, but the interesting point about its approach is that, under US legislation, the number starts at 25, with an automatic reduction to 15 after two years. In the US, the approach was quite clear from the beginning. The intention was to bring the number down. As a number of hon. Members said earlier this evening, many of us would prefer an approach that did not depend on a number. Many hon. Members have said that we should not exempt anybody. It would be useful if the Minister explained just how the Government intend to use the provision in the Bill that allows the number to be changed, because as it stands, it can be used to go either way—up or down. That is a significant difference from the approach that was taken in the US.
  As has been said, we will have two classes of disabled employee; some who are protected and some who are not. The gaps in the definition and the failure to go for a full civil rights approach are due to costs. The Government talk about the cost of implementing the legislation from the point of view of compliance. That is one side of the equation. But nothing is said about the cost of not implementing sufficiently tough legislation.
  The position on costs is summed up in the preamble to the American legislation, which says:
  "The continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis, and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity."
  In other words, there should be a rounded look at the whole economic picture.
  Compare that with the British Government's attitude, looking at one side of the equation, setting a limit of 20 or more employees, and their failure to accept a full definition and full civil rights. They look at only one side of the cost equation.
  I come now to enforcement which, in some ways, is the most disappointing part of the Bill. It is not as if we have not had experience in Britain and elsewhere of constructing legislation to deal with discrimination in order to ensure that people have rights that can be enforced. But the Bill provides a dreadfully weak enforcement mechanism. Individuals will be left to try to fight their way through the legal system alone without legal aid and with no real help.
  Compare this Bill with other attempts to prevent discrimination. I am most familiar with race discrimination and the work of the Commission on Racial Equality. The CRE can help individuals to deal with their own cases, but it has other powers as well, such as the power to take investigative action independent of an
  224
  individual's complaint, to establish good practice, to make findings against organisations, public and private, and to take class actions.
  I do not pretend that there are not still problems with the way in which that system operates. The CRE does not fight enough industrial tribunal cases, and it can deal with only a few high-profile cases. But that approach and its successes are lessons from which we should learn. The lesson is clear: we need a disability rights commission which can help individuals to initiate cases and obtain legal aid where necessary.
  We are told that an individual will be able to go to an industrial tribunal, but that is not easy. Industrial tribunals—perhaps we should consider this in a wider sense—have become the province of lawyers in a way that was never envisaged when they were first established. Now, large organisations brief QCs to defend them at an industrial tribunal. That is not the way that industrial tribunals were originally expected to work. There is no question but that it puts individuals, particularly individuals without an organisation behind them, at a significant disadvantage. Moreoever, the system is already overloaded, with long waits for hearings.
  It is also particularly difficult now for individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against when applying for employment to work through the industrial tribunal system. They are least likely to have the support of an organisation such as a trade union. The key point is that help should be available. There is no point in providing a remedy and then ensuring that some people will not be able to use that remedy because no mechanism exists to help them to do so.
  We need a commission with investigative powers to take general cases. It should not only monitor discrimination, but uncover it. None of us should be under any illusions that it will be easy to remove discrimination, both direct and indirect, against people with disabilities. The Bill and the Government's approach fail to recognise the full effects of indirect discrimination. From experience of racial discrimination, we know that institutionalised discrimination is the most difficult to tackle, especially on the basis of individual cases or claims. That is why one needs a commission that can investigate, and people who can take class actions. We should not rely all the time on one individual trying to fight his way through the system on his own.
  It is far too easy for us to assume that, because of the number of people who are prepared perhaps to stand up publicly and to make aggressive, abusive or hostile remarks about disabled people, such deep-seated prejudice does not exist. It is clear that prejudice exists against people with HIV, and that is mot the only example that one could quote. The evidence still exists that there is systematic prejudice and discrimination.
  There have been improvements in the past 15 years, but the majority of those improvements have occurred simply through disabled people and organisations for the disabled fighting for their rights. Discrimination will not disappear. Things will not improve just through persuasion. Certainly, we need education, but that on its own will not be enough; nor will legislation that is not enforced. That is the message that we receive from tackling other areas of discrimination and from other countries.
  In the autumn, I was in Washington and I took the opportunity to visit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I specifically asked about its experiences in

  225
  the past two years of implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act. Its view was that there had been some problems in getting started and that it was early days. Essentially, however, it had a very positive view of the Act's effect.
  That Act is not enforced through vague rights that individuals are left to enforce on their own. It is enforced through duties on the commission, on the Attorney General, and on the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. That is a recognition of the power that Governments can have in using their economic spending to influence the private sector. I know that contract compliance is the last thing that would be popular with the Government, but that sort of approach has been recognised by Governments in other countries as being valuable and as making a difference.
  If we are serious about anti-discrimination legislation, we are required to be serious about its enforcement. Yes, we have to change attitudes and challenge prejudices. One does not do everything through legislation; an educative process is needed. It is certain, however, that without adequate enforcement, the provisions will fail.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who has consistently supported and worked strongly on behalf of people with disabilities. He was the 17th Back Bencher to make a speech in the debate today. I am glad that the Leader of the House is here, although I am not supposed to see that. It is a great shame that people with disabilities who need to use wheelchairs have no access to the Galleries of the House, and that they must sit on the outside of those Galleries. I hope that that matter can be quickly put right.
  In a curious way, there has been consensus in the debate: even those who spoke in favour of the Bill went on to criticise some or all of the inadequacies highlighted by our reasoned amendment. I suppose that that was to be expected, but I hope that it will be taken on board by, in particular, the Minister—whose responsibilities are new to him—because there has not been unqualified support for what he and the Government propose.
  I especially commend the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)—who fought such a valiant and skilful battle in the last Session, in the face of Government skulduggery, to put his Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on the statute book—and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has now taken up the torch and will exhibit equal determination and tenacity in his efforts to do more to meet the demands of people with disabilities.
  In the run-up to the Bill, the Minister and his officials told organisations of and for disabled people and their carers and families that, following the Government's consultation paper, all the issues were up for discussion. Some felt that, on that basis, there was no need for the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood: if need be, parts of his Bill could be transferred to the Government measure in the form of amendments. They now know better.
  The Government's words were an attempt to throw dust in the people's eyes after their shameful behaviour over the Bill presented in the last Session. The issues are not,
  226
  and never were, "all up for discussion"; the best that was up for discussion was contained in the long title of the Government's Bill, which—as several speakers have pointed out today—was restrictively drawn.
  The Bill is nowhere near comprehensive enough, and its limited scope rules out areas in which organisations of and for disabled people and their carers demand and deserve action. I may say to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson)—and to others who, with less charm, chided us for tabling our reasoned amendment—that it is not our fault that there was no co-operation over the Government measure; the Opposition have co-operated for 13 years, and we still have no legislation guaranteeing civil rights for disabled people.
  Had the Government wished to proceed on the basis of consultation, they could have consulted us—and every other party represented on either side of the House—to try to achieve the consensus of which the hon. Lady spoke. I acknowledge immediately that the 6.5 million people with disabilities outside the House, their families and their carers would have preferred us to proceed on that basis, but it was not the Opposition but the Government who chose not to make that possible.
  The Bill is, of course, a timorous step forward, but we invite the House to deny it a Second Reading so that the Government can do better, perhaps by taking over the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East. As has been said—none of this is new—the Bill is inadequate: its definition of disability is restrictive and exclusive, and it fails to tackle the vital question of access to education for people with learning difficulties.
  It excludes firms with fewer than 20 employees from anti-discrimination protection, and provides no timetables for the removal of that phoney threshold. The Bill also does nothing to help people on to buses and trains, although the places from which they leave are covered. It is silent on any financial help to employers to take on people with disabilities, or to help speed access to buildings offering services. It lacks any real attempt to co-ordinate enforcement and to help spread good practice.
  I wish to mention six good reasons why the House should not accept the Bill, but there are others which other hon. Members have mentioned.
  Mr. Thurnham: Shame.
  Mr. Corbett: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he will understand the sense of what has been said from all around the Chamber today about the illogical and silly way in which the Government have tried to help people with disabilities.
  I want to go through the' six reasons quickly. The British Council of Organisations of Disabled People—Jane Campbell of the council has been watching our proceedings all day—complained that the definition of disability is based on the medical model. That would exclude elderly disabled people who do not suffer from what the Bill labels "a disease", people with a disease such as multiple sclerosis who are not prevented from carrying on most tasks but who might—in employment—be considered unfit for work, and people with HIV who experience some of the most severe forms of discrimination.
  I will give the House an example of the narrow and flawed thinking of the Government. Clause 14, about which Mencap is concerned, deals with the circumstances

  227
  in which the Government say that it is all right to discriminate—for instance, under subsection (3), because a disabled person
  "is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement or of giving an informed consent".
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe)indicated assent
  Mr. Corbett: The Minister agrees. If she will wait, she can comment when she winds up.
  Mencap believes that that measure alone could deny about 250,000 people their right to equal access. Mencap cites the examples of people wanting to open a bank account, needing medical or dental treatment, wanting to make rental agreements or even wanting to take out council house tenancies. What is the intention there? Whom is the measure supposed to cover? Surely the people who meet the definition in the Bill are likely to be looked after already by the court of protection.
  Miss Widdecombe: Exactly.
  Mr. Corbett: I am glad to hear that. If they are protected, does not the measure simply widen the grounds on which it remains lawful to discriminate?
  I remind Ministers that in any event the Law Commission is due to report in March on the whole issue of capacity and decision making. I would like the Minister today at least to undertake that she will consider the recommendations of the Law Commission as the Bill proceeds, and that she will consider tabling amendments here or in another place to implement those which impact on the Bill.
  Perhaps the greatest hole in the Bill—I believe that it is of great significance, and many of my hon. Friends have also spoken about it—is its failure properly to tackle discrimination in education. Barnardo's says:
  "The quality of education provision disabled children receive, will play a major part in their subsequent integration into adult life".
  The Bill simply ignores that. Important as trying to meet the needs of people with disabilities or special learning needs in the short term is, we must also try to help to prepare people with a range of disabilities for integration into adult life. Barnardo's adds something which we all know from constituency cases:
  "The present system still discriminates against disabled people and young children because parents cannot choose a mainstream school on the same basis as other parents."
  In the city of Birmingham, only two secondary schools—one to the north and one to the south of the city—have the necessary facilities for young people with disabilities. I have a young constituent who has been well served by Great Barr primary school, which is situated just outside my constituency. The school was recently praised by the schools inspectorate for the quality of education it provides. They engaged in correspondence—I almost said a battle—lasting several months with Birmingham education department because they rightly insisted on a choice of secondary education for their daughter. Like all other parents, they were invited to state their preference, but the school they chose did not have the facilities to take the child. The upshot is that, to find a school that best suits and meets her needs, she has to be transported to the other side of the city.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: The Opposition spokesman should not place 100 per cent. reliance on mainstream
  228
  schooling for people with difficulties. I am a governor of the Mary Hare grammar school for the deaf—the only grammar school for the deaf in the United Kingdom—and what it offers is unbeatable anywhere.
  Mr. Corbett: I take the hon. Lady's point and I did not mean to be dogmatic, but if parents want to choose mainstream education for children, they should have that right; they should not be turned down because the facilities do not exist. Many special schools do a magnificent job—some of those in the city of Birmingham are known to me and I try to be supportive of them.
  One primary school in my constituency which copes with children with disabilities decided to pal up with a school a few miles up the road whose pupils are not disabled. For the past two years, pupils from the two schools have gone away together for a week to a camp in the countryside on the edge of Birmingham. The resulting learning and understanding, among both groups of children and the very committed and devoted teachers, is magnificent. That is exactly the sort of work that the Minister and his right hon. Friends at the Department of Education and Science should encourage.
  Mr. O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend agree that children with disabilities should have the opportunity to profit from an education with mainstream pupils and to share their experiences if that is good for them? As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said, however, in many cases segregated provision is best, and both options should be available.
  Mr. Corbett: Exactly, and the present Government of all Governments should not need any lectures from the Opposition about parental choice, because they said that they were introducing it. The Bill does nothing to improve parental choice for parents whose children have disabilities. Some promises were made—restated wishes from the Education Act 1993—but that is beside the point. Two out of every three primary schools and more than half the secondary schools in England and Wales have no suitably adapted lavatories. Moreover, I cannot be the only hon. Member with primary schools that still have outside toilets— or can I? [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Clearly, I am not.
  The denial of mainstream education further isolates young people with disabilities because it shields those without them from the experience of being alongside children with different abilities. What is more, as Scope says, the White Paper simply restates the provisions of the 1993 Act for an accessibility audit; there is nothing new in that.
  On work, the exclusion of firms with fewer than 20 employees and the absence of a phased removal of that threshold are unacceptable. The Government know that 96 out of every 100 firms employ fewer than 20 people. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, in rural areas small businesses are the main providers of job opportunities for everyone, including people with disabilities. The Government know that that sector offers the best growth in jobs and that six out of 10 companies with up to 10 staff already have one disabled person working for them. So what is the problem?
  The Government also know that the Confederation of British Industry and the Employers Forum on Disability do not want a cut-off. Under the present Prime Minister—and, indeed, the previous one—have run around telling us

  229
  that it is not their job to run business, so why in heaven's name do not they let business get on with the job that it says it wants to do? They are stopping business doing the job that it wants to do.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, 91 per cent. of the employers who responded to the Government's consultation paper rejected the idea of a cut-off point for firms with 20 or fewer employees.
  Miss Widdecombe: The figure of 91 per cent. is accurate. Will the hon. Gentleman now confirm that the number of employers responding was 11?
  Mr. Corbett: No.
  I will now show what can happen at work and describe the experience of a former press operator at the Leyland DAF plant at Washwood Heath in Birmingham. That man lost three fingers at work but was still regarded as a valued and productive employee. Then he was made redundant. He applied for a similar job with a small car component firm and was invited for interview. All went well until he mentioned that he had lost three fingers. From then on, the prospective employer did not want to know. That man could not be refused a job on grounds of his race or gender because that would be against the law, but the Bill would not stop him being refused a job on the ground of his disability. He said:
  "I didn't think of myself as being disabled until I was discriminated against."
  How can the Government say—quite rightly—that they will not tolerate discrimination on grounds of race and gender but then tell 96 out of every 100 firms that it is all right to discriminate on grounds of disability?Lawyers will have a field day if the Bill reaches the statute book. If a disabled job applicant happens also to be gay or lesbian and from an ethnic community, the lawyers could keep the case running into thousands of pounds.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend referred earlier to Jane Campbell of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, who is highly regarded in this House. How can the Government pretend to correct Jane on this issue? She is a severely disabled person and she knows the realities of disabled living. She knows what she is talking about in defining disability. How can they say that they know more than Jane?
  Mr. Corbett: My right hon. Friend makes an exceptionally good point. I applaud the fact that the Government decided to carry out a consultation. The only trouble with consultation is that it implies that one will listen and, where one feels it right to do so, respond to what is said. All the evidence, even in the document that the Minister has now published, is that the Government have taken little notice of what people said because they do not like it.
  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the House should show some humility. The best people to tell us about discrimination against disabled people are those who suffer from that discrimination, who face it every day of the week and who come to anticipate it because of what happens in our society.
  As other hon. Members have mentioned transport, I will omit that issue in view of the lack of time available.
  230
  The Bill is silent on financial encouragement for employers or owners of shops or other commercial properties to improve access. For example, the Royal National Institute for the Blind wants the national insurance contributions holiday for employers who take on the long-term jobless extended to employers who take on disabled people. Why not? What about tax relief on spending to assist the employment of disabled people? If people can apply for grants of up to £20,000 to improve their homes, why cannot some modest help be offered, perhaps on a pound-for-pound basis, to small retailers and others who need to make their premises accessible to disabled people?
  Perhaps the biggest weakness of the Bill is the total absence of a proposal to set up an organisation with responsibility for enforcement, to develop case studies and practice, as well as to encourage and spread good practice. Virtually every organisation of the disabled and for the disabled that has commented on the Bill has made that point, but again, the Government have ignored it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, it is pretty rich for the Government to indulge in a consultation exercise, spend a million quid boasting about it and then spend just £2,000 on putting out versions on audio and in Braille. The very people from whom we desperately need to hear, so that we have a better chance of getting the legislation right, are effectively locked out of the debate.
  I commend especially to the Minister for the Disabled the excellent booklet published by People First, which states:
  "People with learning difficulties had found it impossible to understand and comment on the Government Disability Discrimination Bill because the summary ….was not written using pictures and simple text."
  I wish we could use video screens in the Chamber, but we have not come to that yet. I commend that booklet to the Minister. There would be no need to employ civil servants to produce the Government's own version, as I am sure that People First would make it available to the Minister, his Department and others at a reasonable cost.
  We should have the humility to accept that the best people to talk about discrimination are those who know about it, meet it and are offended by it because they are denied the same rights as other citizens. The Government must understand that calls to end discrimination against people with disabilities are not about services and benefits, important as they are, but about civil rights—rights equal to those that the rest of us are able to claim and exercise.
  To deny the Bill a Second Reading today will not rob disabled people of their rights because the Government can take over the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill after they help it to secure its Second Reading on 10 February.
  9.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): This has been a constructive and sensible debate, with many useful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I echo the tributes that have been paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) for the huge amount of work that he did to support the work to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities. I congratulate my hon. Friend the current Minister for

  231
  Social Security and Disabled People on producing an excellent Bill and on the huge amount of work and consultation which went into it.
  With one or two exceptions, the tone of the debate has been entirely reasoned. Many points were raised and, for that reason, I may not be able to respond to all of them tonight. I should like, first, to address the reasoned amendment.
  To echo the wise words of my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), we have a choice: either we can accept a Bill which has been introduced by the Government and which, amended or otherwise, will reach the statute book, or we can reject it. If we do that, we will for ever after have to explain why, when we had the chance to get an anti-discrimination measure on the statute book—we will not be able to accept the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—we turned it down. That is the question that faces hon. Members tonight.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said that she would vote for the reasoned amendment because there was nothing in it with which she could disagree, but she must remind herself that if she does that, the Disability Discrimination Bill will be rejected. That could easily result in no anti-discrimination measure being on the statute book. I am talking straightforward fact. If hon. Members who have been in the House for a long time, and who know the workings of the system, do not understand the logic of that, I am unable to assist hon. Members further.
  Secondly, I believe that much of what is in the reasoned amendment either is inaccurate or refers to matters that are being addressed. For example, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said clearly that we shall now consider the possibility—and, if possible, enact legislation to that effect—of making it unlawful to discriminate in the sale and letting of premises.
  It is also said in the reasoned amendment that the Bill is unacceptable because its employment provisions would extend to less than—
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Lady has said that the reasoned amendment is inaccurate. She then referred to the Bill, but there is no reference in it whatever to premises in the way in which the Minister discussed them in his speech. Will she therefore withdraw what she said, because it is she who is being wholly inaccurate?
  Miss Widdecombe: With respect, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that there is much in the reasoned amendment that either is inaccurate or refers to measures that have been addressed. When I spoke about measures that have been addressed, I meant the unlawful discrimination in the sale and letting of premises, which was discussed by my hon. Friend in his opening speech. [Interruption.] I shall proceed, because I assume that the reason that hon. Members have made so many arguments tonight is that they wish to hear answers. I suggest that we make some progress on that.
  The reasoned amendment claims that our Bill is unacceptable because the employment provisions extend only to less than 5 per cent. of firms. Although, strictly, technically, statistically, that may be true, the reasoned amendment conjures up a wildly inaccurate picture of the
  232
  vast majority of the work force not being covered, whereas the exact opposite is true; 83 per cent. of employees will be covered.
  It does not follow that, just because a small firm is exempt, it will make a practice of discrimination. It simply means that we have recognised that there are burdens on businesses that it is not sensible to inflict on very small businesses. However, we have also said more than.once tonight that, although we have written into the Bill the dividing line of 20 employees, we are taking a power to amend that in the light of experience.
  We were asked from the Opposition Benc we could amend that to a larger number as well as a smaller number, but that is certainly not the intention of that power. There would have to be some mighty compelling evidence and some consultation as well. The idea is to find out, in time to come, whether experience shows that we could decrease that number, but we are starting with what we consider to be a reasonable number.
  I am sorry to take issue again with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), because he has quite a reputation on that issue and I honestly thought that he would have read the consultation document extremely thoroughly. I must take issue with him when he says that 91 per cent. of employers oppose an exemption. When it comes down to 11 employers, 10 of whom oppose an exemption, that does not describe the opinions of employers. He omitted to add that, of the employer associations that were actually consulted, six out of nine supported an exemption.
  Mr. Berry: I was absolutely correct when I said that, of the employers who responded, 91 per cent. opposed an exemption. That was 10 out of 11 who offered an opinion. Will the hon. Lady admit that, of all the employers who were consulted and who responded, only one—the one that she has mentioned—actually wanted an exemption for small firms? I am grateful that she has strengthened the argument that I was trying to make.
  Miss Widdecombe: Now will the hon. Gentleman please tell me how many of the remaining 10 employers were small ones? I think that he will probably be unable to do so.
  I shall now proceed to make progress.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall not give way now. I intend to make progress. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once and I have given way to the hon. Member for Kingswood; I shall give way on sensible points, but I want to make progress.
  Much has been made of our decision to set up a.national disability council rather than a commission. There appears to be some received wisdom that, just because 20 years ago a Labour Government decided that the best way of monitoring and policing equal rights was to set up commissions, that was the only way it could be done. I invite hon. Members to compare the two very different tasks faced by commissions and the council.
  The Equal Opportunities Commission represents 50 per cent. of the population and is largely engaged in class actions. The number of individual cases that it supports before tribunals amounts to a minority. The work entailed by the disability laws will largely involve individuals—no two of whom will be the same—coming before tribunals.

  233
  I noted the call from the Labour Front-Bench team earlier to introduce legal aid in tribunals. In his response to an intervention, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) seemed to commit a future Labour Government—hypothetical, of course—to introducing legal aid. I hope that he has consulted the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer on the likely cost of that policy.
  Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about the next Government, but I want to be particularly clear about the present Government's view. In my speech, I mentioned a boy who suffers from cerebral palsy and who has taken a case of unfair dismissal to a tribunal. That tribunal has been suspended today because his family does not have the money for further representation. What advice would the Minister give that family tonight?
  Mr. Dennis Turner: A good question—answer it.
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall. I would say to that family—I am surprised that the hon. Member for Monklands, West has not already done so—that tribunals are specifically designed to be user-friendly, cheap and informal. The majority of successful cases before tribunals are those where there is no representation.
  The Education Act 1993 and the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 set out extremely clear provisions for disabled pupils and students. We have already said many times during the debate that the Department for Education is carrying out an audit of accessibility to establish the current position on access within schools, but the majority of schoolchildren with special educational needs are already in mainstream schools and there has been a vast increase in the percentage of children with statements, right across the age range, who are now taught in mainstream schools. With due respect to the hon. Members who were concerned about the issue, the Government are ahead in their thinking and are already beginning to take action of the sort that we have been asked to follow.
  Of course, education will be caught by the conditions imposed on employers in the Bill. Schools will have to observe non-discriminatory practices in employment, and vocational training—which is provided under the Employment and Training Act 1973—will be covered by the Bill. We are left with schools which are already subject to an audit and which have made remarkable progress in a fairly short time.
  A further question which was raised about education referred to the fact that only new schools will be accessible under the legislation. However, it is worth pointing out that, each year, half the capital budget goes on new build, and schools will have to observe the rules. It is not reasonable to suggest that there is only a limited amount of new build and that nothing else will be covered.
  I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) intends to vote against the reasoned amendment, and his speech about his reasons for coming to that decision should stand as an example to those who may be thinking of taking a different course.
  234
  My hon. Friend asked about the importance of addressing the question of lack of disabled access to our courts. The Government place a high priority on ensuring that disabled people are able to access our courts. Much work has already been done in that area. For example, at least one court room in every new Crown and county court is equipped with an infra-red hearing system for people who have poor hearing. Courts will be subject to the new right of access and we will bring forward proposals for consultation on how that right will apply in this area.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon that we make provision in our tribunals for hearing and sight-impaired individuals and for those with communication difficulties. Special arrangements are made to ensure that they are helped in that context.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend consider extending that support, for example, to assisting disabled people in preparing their cases before they come to the tribunals? Could that be associated with green form support?
  Miss Widdecombe: Some legal aid is available to disabled people in preparing for tribunals, but I shall undertake to look further at what my hon. Friend has said.
  The winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) departed in tone from much of the debate. He asked how the Government could be trusted with looking after the rights of people with disabilities. All he has to do is look at our record of caring for people with disabilities. I suggest that he look at the dozens of measures that we have implemented since 1979. I shall list some, in case Labour Members have forgotten them.
  Do Labour Members recall how we look after not only the disabled but their carers? We extended the invalid care allowance to non-relatives in 1984. The Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 placed further requirements on local authorities concerning assessment and statements for school children with special educational needs.
  What about the introduction of the disablement advisory service in 1983–84? What about the introduction of the severe disablement allowance, the disability living allowance, the disability working allowance and the sheltered placement scheme? What about the provisions that we put in place for building regulations? What about the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the provisions in the Education Reform Act 1988? We have introduced all those measures, but the Opposition do not think that we can be trusted.
  Do Labour Members have a record which compares to that? Of course they do not. Tonight, we have a choice: we can accept the Bill and move towards the most comprehensive proposal for safeguarding the rights of disabled people that has come forward in decades, or we can reject the Bill and return to the situation of last year, with a thoroughly unsatisfactory, very ambitious but very impractical substitute measure.
  Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I am afraid that I will not give way at this point. The last time I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, he quoted 91 per cent. of 11 as a definitive

  235
  explanation of the views of employers. I shall not give way to Opposition Members, and I hope that no one in the House will give way to the reasoned amendment. I hope that we shall now put on its journey towards the statute book a major measure which everybody out there who is disabled or who is caring for the disabled wants and hopes to see.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 307.

  Division No. 47]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cummings, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jon

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Alton, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Denham, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnes, Harry

  Dixon, Don

  Barron, Kevin

  Dobson, Frank

  Battle, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dowd, Jim

  Beckett. Rt Hon Margaret

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Beggs, Roy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bell, Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Enright, Derek

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Etherington, Bill

  Benton, Joe

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Berry, Roger

  Fatchett, Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Boateng, Paul

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Boyes, Roland

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fraser, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fyfe, Maria

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

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Galloway, George

  Burden, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Caborn, Richard

  George, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cann, Jamie

  Graham, Thomas

  Carlie, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Chidgey, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Church, Judith

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hall, Mike

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hardy, Peter

  Coffey, Ann

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cohen, Harry:

  Harvey, Nick

  Connarty, Michael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corston, Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  236

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Home Robertson, John

  Mudie, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Neil, Martin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hutton, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Powel, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jowell, Tessa

  Redmond, Martin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Reid, Dr John

  Keen, Alan

  Rendel, David

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rogers, Allan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooney, Terry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Terry

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Litherland, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Salmond, Alex

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sheerman, Barry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McAllion, John

  Short, Clare

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Simpson, Alan

  McCartney, Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McKelvey, William

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Snape, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spearing, Nigel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spellar, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Stevenson, George

  Maddock, Diana

  Stott, Roger

  Mahon, Alice

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marek, Dr John

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, David (Shettlleston)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Martlew, Eric

  Timms, Stephen

  Maxton, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Meacher, Michael

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Wallace, James

  Milburn, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Watson, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Welsh, Andrew

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morley, Elliot

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wilson, Brian

  237

  Winnick, David

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wise, Audrey

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Stephen Byers and

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mr. Peter Mandelson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Delvin, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amess, David

  Dover, Den

  Ancram, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Ashby, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Atkins, Robert

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bates, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Faber, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Body, Sir Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Booth, Hartley

  Forth, Eric

  Boswell, Tim

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  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)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Garnier, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gill, Christopher

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butcher, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butler, Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  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, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coe, Sebastian

  Harris, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Congdon, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Conway, Derek

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cran, James

  Hendry, Charles

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

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hicks, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Day, Stephen

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  238

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

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

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knapman, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knox, Sir David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sackville, Tom

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lamont Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Legg, Barry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McLoughin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Madel, Sir David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thomason, Roy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tredinnick, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Viggers, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Walden, George

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waller, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Ward, John

  Page, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  239

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Watts, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Wells, Bowen

  Wolfson, Mark

  Whitney, Ray

  Wood, Timothy

  Whittingdale, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Simon Burns.

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

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

  (1) any sums required by the Secretary of State—

  (a) for making payments to persons appointed under, or in accordance with arrangements made under, the Act;

  (b) for paying expenses incurred by the National Disability Council; and

  (c) in respect of any other expenditure incurred by him under or by virtue of the Act;

  (2) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in complying with any provision of the Act; and

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

  Question agreed to.

Local Government
10.16 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3025), dated 28th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be annulled.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to move the motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of myself and my hon. Friends. It is not often that the Liberal Democrats have an opportunity to initiate a debate in the House. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Liberal Democrats will not only initiate a debate; they will be heard in the House. Will Members who are leaving do so quickly? Close the doors so that we can hear what the hon. Member for Newbury has to say.
Mr. Rendel: I am especially pleased that we have today an opportunity to bring before the House a matter of such crucial importance. It is crucial not just to the individuals in local government who may be unfortunate enough to lose their jobs through redundancy but to the whole process of local government reform itself.
The regulations that the motion seeks to annul are unfair, inadequate and unlikely to attract sufficient numbers of voluntary redundancies. It is, therefore, important that the House should have a chance to debate them. I hope that as a result of the debate the Government will accept the annulment and return with an improved set of regulations as soon as possible. As the regulations cover England and Wales, but not Scotland, I hope that the annulment, which will result if the motion is passed later tonight, will persuade the Government to withdraw the equivalent set of regulations in Scotland.
The regulations have three main purposes: part II puts in place a scheme for redundancy payments above the statutory minimum for cases of redundancy that are separate from those caused by the reorganisation of local government. Part III deals with redundancy payments and early retirement for employees who lose their jobs as a result of local government reorganisation; and part IV seeks to overcome some of the difficulties caused when the notorious north Tyneside judgment led to an unforeseen reduction in the level of pension for some ex-local government employees, who had previously been made redundant or who left in the interests of the efficiency of the service.
Most of my remarks this evening will be directed towards part III, but it may be, appropriate at this point to begin with a few remarks about the inaccuracies of parts II and IV.
First, I pay tribute to the various bodies which have done their best to provide the Government with what would have been an acceptable set of regulations for local government redundancies. The local government associations, the Staff Commission and Unison in particular have all done valuable work in making sensible proposals and, in doing so, have given me invaluable support in considering how to react to the Government's response.
Those bodies consider part II to be the least unacceptable part of the proposals. Unison is unhappy that some degree of discretion is allowed to local councils by

241
part II, but it is largely welcomed by the local authority associations. There is good reason to support some discretion in cases where we are not dealing with a large scale redundancy programme, as we may well be during the period of local government reorganisation.
However, it is greatly to be regretted that that discretion is fettered to the extent that the maximum payments allowed under that part are still well below payments which are being offered to civil servants in many cases.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing such an urgent matter to the attention of the House. Is it not extraordinary that in Wales the level of payments given to redundant local government officers will be even lower than in England to start with and, even more extraordinary, to emphasise the point that has just been made, civil servants in the Welsh Office, perhaps with a similar experience and background to those in local government, will receive about £72,000 in redundancy pay, whereas the equivalent in local government will receive as little as £29,000? It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State cannot control his own Department while doing this to people in local government.
Mr. Rendel: I feel at least as sorry for the Welsh as I feel for the English in this case. Surely, in considering the different merits of civil servants and local government officers, the Government should recognise that what is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander.
The attempt in part IV to overcome the problems produced by the north Tyneside judgment is also welcome in so far as it goes, but it is no better than a half-hearted and partial solution to the problems. Not all those affected will be covered by the new measures and those who are affected will, for the most part, not be fully compensated.
The fact that the compensation is discretionary is, in this case, simply a temptation to those local authorities which tend not to act in a responsible way in relation to their staff. After all, these are staff who, by definition, finished their service with the local authority some time ago. Clearly, the pressure on the local authority to treat them properly is so much reduced that we would be foolish to allow an unnecessary level of discretion in this case.
The Government should have put the pensioners affected back in the position that they were in before the north Tyneside judgment was made. That would have been the fair way to deal with the situation. After all, it is not the pensioners' fault that the law was misunderstood by those who should have known better. The pensioners should not now have to pay any of the costs of that misunderstanding.
I come now to what most of us consider to be the heart of the regulations, or at least the section which has the greatest importance for the immediate future—the section which deals with local government reorganisation. Sadly, not only is part III the heart of the regulations, but it is the part in the greatest need of significant amendment.
The first and most telling criticism of all is that the maximum level of payments to be made under the regulations is, quite simply, far too low, especially in relation to precedents set in previous episodes of local government reorganisation and by the modern day civil service.
242
For example, the maximum level set in the 1986 reorganisation for a 49-year-old with service throughout his or her career was 82 weeks' pay compared with a maximum of 66 weeks' pay under these regulations. It might be said that those were different, easier times, when the country could afford more; times when it was not so necessary to watch every penny. Is that the Government's argument? Are they really arguing that the economy has got steadily worse in the past 10 years of Conservative rule, so we can now afford to pay people only 80 per cent. of what we could afford to pay them 10 years ago? Surely not.
Mr. Alex Carlile: A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a valid point about the redundancy pay level available to local government employees in Wales. Does my hon. Friend accept that a further problem is overlaid on the quantum and it especially affects local government officers who face redundancy in rural Wales? They face the grave problem of finding new jobs, if they have lived in a rural area for the past 15 or 20 years, and if their families have settled in those rural areas. Does my hon. Friend think that a strong case exists for protecting in particular those many local government employees in rural mid-Wales, who face terrible uncertainty and financial loss?
Mr. Rendel: Indeed. I accept the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. His case is all the stronger in that Wales has not been treated in the same way as England. Wales went through its organisation process by diktat of the Minister, rather than by a process of agreement by the people of the country.
The argument that the Government might think that we are now poorer is, in some ways, refuted by what is happening in the civil service. The very same Treasury mandarins who insist that 66 weeks pay must be the maximum for local government officials, have managed to negotiate a package for redundancies from their own Ministry which, I understand, amounts to a maximum payment of no less than 156 weeks pay. That, however, is not the only fault in part III of the regulations, even if it is the most obviously hypocritical.
I welcome the fact that the Government have decided that the scheme to be introduced for people under 50 is to be mandatory. In a major reorganisation of this sort, it is right that all employees who stand to be made redundant across the whole country should know what to expect by way of compensation. Nothing is guaranteed further to inflame an already emotive situation than for different councils to offer different redundancy terms as they go through the same trauma of reorganisation.
The fact that the Government have been forced to recognise the strength of that argument for people who are under 50 makes it all the more strange that they have failed to recognise that the argument is just as strong for people who are over 50. That is another serious fault in the regulations and another reason why the annulment should be agreed tonight, so that the Government can introduce a new set of regulations to ensure that all local government employees are fairly treated and have a clear picture of what their rights are.
A third problem lies in the failure of the Government to introduce any special provisions for people in the age bracket of 40 to 49. Unfortunately, I have been in the position of trying to find work when aged over 40. Who knows, had it not been for the people of the Newbury

243
constituency asking me to carry out my present responsibilities, I might still be looking for work. Besides, I am sure that all hon. Members have come across several constituents who have complained to them bitterly about the ageism of employers, about the way in which, in some careers, it is now almost impossible to get even an interview, let alone to get a job, once one has passed the magic figure of 40.
There is a pressing need, therefore, to make special provision for people who are in that especially difficult part of their careers. They are far too young to retire—what a waste it would be if retirement were their only option—and yet they are old enough to find it desperately difficult to find another job.
Finally on part III, there is the inadequacy of the provisions for people whose work for local government has, so far, been limited either because they are part-timers, or because they have only recently taken up their local government employment. Those people, more often women than men, do not deserve to be neglected just because they have not yet had the chance to put in a long period of service. Their needs should be provided for in the regulations.
Why is this all so important? Whenever we think of the local government reorganisation shambles, as it has turned out to be, we must all hope that the process, whenever it does go ahead, proceeds as smoothly as possible. We must hope that, not just for the sake of the employees concerned as they go through what will no doubt turn out to be a very traumatic period for some of them, but, perhaps even more important, for the sake of all the recipients of local authority services—residents of local authority areas, many of whom are the very people who elected us to speak for them here. Many of those people fear that local authority services will be disrupted by the reorganisation.
One way in which we can allay some of those fears is to ensure that, where redundancies and early retirements are necessary, they take place smoothly and with the maximum acceptance by the employees involved. Surely experience has taught us that to offer redundancy terms less good that those that have been offered in similar circumstances in the past is a sure way to create discontent and low morale. That is true not only of those who are eventually forced to accept the terms but—this is important—of those who are left behind.
If the Government sincerely want local government reorganisation to be a success, one of their first tasks should be to improve the regulations to ensure that all the redundancies that it is expected to cause can be voluntary rather than compulsory.
Although this is not at the heart of the debate, let me say in passing that the Government's failure to provide adequate funds for the costs of local government reorganistion in areas such as Berskshire where, on top of the transitional costs, there are expected to be on-going costs rather than on-going savings—can serve only to exacerbate the problem of redundancy costs. Indeed, it may even force some councils to use the discretion that the Government are giving them to minimise redundancy payments, which can only make the problem of inadequate payments even worse.
We see, then, just how fundamentally the regulations demand to be improved: indeed, I believe that the very success of local government reorganisation hangs on their being improved. This is another example of how the
244
Government have got it in for local government, and local government officers, in a big way. What is it about local government that makes this Conservative Administration hate it so much? Could it be that the Government know that the number of Conservative councillors is falling year by year, and that most of the seats are being taken over by Liberal Democrats?
Whatever it is, the Government would be well advised to admit tonight that the regulations are nowhere near adequate. If they refuse to vote to annul the regulations—as my hon. Friends and I will—they will find that their decision traps them yet deeper in the mire into which they have fallen over the whole question of local government reform. Tonight, the Liberal Democrats have provided the Government with an opportunity to overcome the difficulties in which the regulations will land them otherwise; they should seize that opportunity with both hands.
10.23 pm
Mr. Roy Thomason: I am surprised by the prayer, and by the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)—although I congratulate him on moving the motion and giving us an opportunity to debate it.
I am surprised first by the hon. Gentleman's claim that the local authority associations do not support the proposals, because I have a piece of paper from the Association of District Councils that suggests that they do support them. Secondly, I am surprised that the Liberal party—which began the week with a demand for the Labour party to come clean over its spending plans, and sought to cost the expenditure of that same party only a few days later—should seek to increase public expenditure as it is tonight. Is there much difference between the two Opposition parties?
Thirdly, I am surprised because it appears that Unison has yet another spokesperson on the Opposition Benches. Fourthly, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newbury seems to think that one can make an argument in favour of increasing expenditure and improving conditions of employment by mounting one settlement upon another. We know that is the very reason why inflation has gone out of control in the past.
One cannot take the civil service settlement and seek to improve on it, because in turn somebody will come along with an attempt to improve it further, which leads inevitably to escalation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I hear the cries of the Opposition. That way leads to ruin, because each settlement is taking more public expenditure than the previous one, and adds more to inflation, step by gruesome step.
Mr. Rogers: Why does not the hon. Gentleman follow the logic of his own argument and attack the Ministers who agreed to the civil service settlement, rather than trying to exploit people in local government who have no real voice? If there is a bad settlement—the hon. Gentleman seems to think that the civil service settlement was had—why does he not criticise Ministers?
Mr. Thomason: I did not say that the civil service settlement was a bad one. My argument is that the Labour party—and apparently now the Liberal Democrat party—

245
is seeking to use one settlement to step above another to increase public expenditure. That is the old story which we have heard so often.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the McKinstry memorandum in The Spectator, in which Leo McKinstry described the way in which the Labour party has operated in local government and said what a great indication that was of what it would be like in government, goes very much to the heart of the issue and explains the parrot cries from Opposition Members?
Mr. Thomason: My hon. Friend is right.
I do not wish to detain the House, so I shall briefly ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he can define "material date" for the purposes of the regulations, and whether he can confirm that the regulations are improving local discretion by giving power to local government to make decisions. Can he also confirm that the national joint negotiating bodies are likely to meet later this week to agree tariffs for the over-50s that are generous, and to agree to settle terms that some of us consider to be more than fair? Can he further confirm that meetings are taking place on 26 January between the local authorities and the unions, which could give a guaranteed offer of new jobs after reorganisation to those who want them? Will not that answer the criticisms raised by the hon. Member for Newbury?
Does my hon. Friend agree that the present proposed costs—not any enhanced costs—of this provision could be met by savings that will be generated from the local government review? Does he further agree that this measure should be welcomed on both sides of the Chamber as being in the interests of local government employees?
10.36 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Tonight the House has a very clear choice. We are dealing with the future of people who will lose their jobs in local councils through no fault of their own, either through general redundancy or through the local government reorganisation that the Government are pushing through. The question is whether such people should get a fair deal, and the choice before the House tonight is whether people are treated fairly or meanly.
The choice is not between a generous settlement and a mean settlement—it is a much narrower choice between a fair settlement and a mean settlement. Needless to say, the alternative that the Government are proposing tonight is a mean alternative. We all know that the Government are extremely generous to rich people, and that they are happy to pour money into the pockets and handbags of the bosses of privatised industries. They look after themselves rather nicely, and they are very mean to people who cannot fight back.
The regulations cover three categories of staff—staff who are likely to be made redundant by the local government review, staff who may he made redundant generally and pensioners whose pensions were cut as a result of the court decisions on North Tyneside.
First, on the local government review, contrary to what the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said, the staff are not seeking any leapfrogging improvement
246
on what has gone before. They are simply asking for a settlement along the lines that the Government conceded in 1986, when the metropolitan counties were abolished—the terms agreed by Margaret Thatcher. One might summarise it by saying that the deal that she put together, John Major has decided to put asunder. The settlement can thus be simply categorised as meaner than Thatcher, and it is difficult to think of anything meaner than that.
The settlement is not merely meaner than Thatcher, but worse than what the Staff Commission recommended to the Government, worse than the terms offered to the civil service, and worse than severance payments paid to other categories of people for whom the Government are responsible. The boss of Severn Trent Water, for example, got £512,000 as part of his severance agreement, which was entirely the Government's responsibility as they passed the legislation that enabled him to pay himself that enormous amount.
If someone is made redundant as part of the local government review, the regulations allow maximum compensation of 66 weeks, which compares with the 82 weeks to which Mrs. Thatcher agreed in 1986 and which the Staff Commission recommended, and the 156 weeks that this Government and these Ministers have agreed will be available in the civil service.
Let us consider an example of what will happen in Wales as a result of the regulations. Under the civil service severance agreement, a 45-year-old civil servant in the Welsh Office with 26 years' service, earning £23,000, will get £71,000, but a local government officer in Wales, aged 45—perhaps the civil servant's twin brother or sister—and earning £23,000 after 26 years' service, would get £29,570 at the most, which cannot be fair or reasonable.
The scheme is mandatory only up to the age of 50, or for people over that age who are not entitled to a pension when they give up work. It also provides some special arrangements for people who are entitled to a pension. Once again, the Government have chosen the mean-minded alternative. Generally, those over 50 who are entitled to a pension will receive only statutory redundancy pay because the Government have apparently decided that the pension, which people have worked and paid for, should be taken into account when they allow a special severance payment as a result of a local government review that they introduced. People who are paid a salary will have to live on a pension and statutory redundancy, without the Government making up any of the difference.
The Government and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, who is supporting them, claim that they cannot afford better terms. Presumably they think that, from a Government point of view, times are harder than they were in 1986.
There are two choices. No one knows how many people may be made redundant as a result of the local government review. If it is to be a large number, massive savings in expenditure will result in the years to come and it would surely be easy to find the money to pay a decent severance payment out of those savings. If few people are to be affected by redundancy, the sums will be so trivial that it will be equally easy for the Government or local government to find them.
The second aspect of the regulations is the enhanced payment for people made redundant because of changes in the internal organisation of their council. I admit that

247
the regulations improve the maximum under such arrangements, from 24.5 to 66 weeks, but that is not the 82 weeks for which the staff have been asking, and it is not mandatory. The payments are entirely discretionary and, given the choice between a fair and a mean arrangement, yet again the Government have chosen a mean one.
The third aspect is the North Tyneside judgment. When the district auditor went through North Tyneside council's books, he said that enhanced severance payments and top-up retirement bonuses, given to staff were unlawful. That has left existing pensioners, not just in north Tyneside but in other parts of the country, who retired in good faith with a higher pension as part of those agreements, with lower pensions. Indeed, some of them have been asked to pay back the lump sums that they received. All those involved in those agreements—employers and employees—were acting in good faith and believed that they were acting lawfully at all times. Councils of all parties believe that to be the case.
One of the areas most affected, which is dear to the hearts of Tory Members, is Tory Westminster council. It agreed to some of the biggest enhanced pension arrangements and pay-offs when people left local government service of any council in Britain. Some 600 of its former staff—now its pensioners—are now faced with substantial reductions in their living standards. The same applies to agreements with the then Tory Hillingdon council.
Everyone agrees that the matter should be put right. What everybody thought was lawful and reasonable should be made lawful and reasonable. But it is not being made so by the regulations, which fail to put pensioners in the position that they thought they were in before that unexpected judgment.
In passing, I comment on the strange inconsistencies of the district audit service, which for years said nothing about those enhanced payments. In the year when district auditors in North Tyneside identified the payments as unlawful, the district auditors in Hillingdon and Westminster apparently still saw them as lawful. We need more consistency in the system.
Furthermore, the arrangements are not mandatory. Whether Westminster pensioners get back even what is permitted under the regulations is entirely in the hands of Westminster city council, from which we can expect no sensible decision. In other councils, all the money that pensioners have lost will not be made up. Indeed, the judgment may affect other pensioners who were paid off before the period covered by the regulations, and they may still lose. Once again, these are sloppily drafted and mean-minded regulations. What the Government are doing might be described as "a Maxwell" on the pensioners, but in this case it is by statutory instrument.
Various people advise me that aspects of the regulations are technically unsound and may lead to the Minister having to come back within a very short period to put them right. My Welsh colleagues want to know why the period covered by the regulations is 18 months in England but only 15 months in Wales.
The regulations are mean to council staff who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. They are in marked contrast to the generous attitude that the Government have towards themselves and their colleagues. Since the settlement in 1986, the Conservatives have introduced and benefited from ministerial severance payments. Those are
248
made to people who lose their jobs not through no fault of their own but either because even the Prime Minister finally recognises that they are totally incompetent or because they are up to something, financially or with somebody who is not their spouse. Those seem to be the reasons why Ministers lose their jobs, yet they get severance payments in those circumstances.
The other part of the ministerial severance package is that Ministers then go on to jobs in the City with Barclays bank, in industries that they have privatised, or in merchant banks that have taken part in the privatisation process. The Government are very generous to themselves but mean to everybody else. The regulations are typical of what they are up to, and people are sick of it.
10.49 pm
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry)rose—
Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a defender of Back Benchers, do you believe that in a debate of one and quarter hours it is appropriate that there should be three opening speeches and three closing speeches from Front-Bench spokesmen? Do you think it appropriate that we should have had just one speech from a Conservative Back Bencher and not even one from an Opposition Back Bencher? That is an abuse of parliamentary procedure and I ask you to protect Back Benchers on both sides of the House from such abuse.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That point of order has been noted.
Mr. Curry: This is a serious matter because people's livelihoods are affected and they are naturally anxious. It merits a serious debate.
Although I do not agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), he treated the subject seriously. The hon. Member for Holborn and St.Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has a particular talent for disfiguring any subject with which he comes into contact—mainly, it must be said, as a pretext for his failure to understand the substance of it.
Local government reorganisation is at an advanced stage. The commission has submitted final reports for all 39 shire counties and the Cleveland order has been approved by both Houses. I know that the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) are looking forward to joining their colleagues in the Lobby tonight.
We are consulting on draft orders to implement changes in Avon, Humberside and York and we are aiming to seek parliamentary approval soon, in time for elections to be held in May. Further orders will be laid as decisions are taken.
Change is a normal part of local government. The search for efficiency, the changes in function and the growing success of the role of local government as an enabler has inevitably meant that there will be different staffing requirements. No organisation can petrify its structure if it is to respond to public needs and its own search for greater efficiency.
That is the context in which the new local government compensation regulations have been introduced. Those regulations are not confined just to local government

249
reorganisation, but, as hon. Members have already noted, they achieve three things. First, they provide a better and more flexible general compensation scheme, for which local authority employers have long asked, for use in all cases—not just reorganisation. Secondly, we have made special extra provisions to suit the particular circumstances of local government reorganisation, reflecting the key role to be played by local government staff in the transition to restructured authorities.
Thirdly, we have provided the means for compensation to be paid to those pensioners who are adversely affected by the North Tyneside Court of Appeal judgment. Only one of the three elements covered in the regulations therefore refers to local government reorganisation.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd rose—
Mr. Curry: I will give way, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt want me to press ahead in the interests of Back Benchers.
Mr. O'Brien: If the Minister will not accept the annulment of the regulations, will he support those local authorities that are involved in the reorganisation of local government which do not wish to make people compulsorily redundant? Would he agree to negotiate a national agreement on severance and conditions for those who agree to leave their employment voluntarily?
Mr. Curry: It is entirely up to a new council to make staffing dispositions; the Government do not intend to lay down whether redundancies should be compulsory or voluntary. It is up to councils to seek the changes by the methods which they arrive at. That is what the principle of allowing local authority discretion means. I understand that the negotiating body is likely to agree soon that the discretionary awards in the regulations will be paid at the maximum. That could obviously benefit the over-50s and the other groups covered by the regulations.
Mr. Llwyd: Can the Minister explain why Wales is being treated differently? Is he aware that, during the passage of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, the implications of reorganisation were raised time and time with Welsh Office Ministers? Assurances were given about improving conditions and so on, but to date nothing has been done. We have been badly treated by the Government.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are some differences between England and Wales.
Mr. Rogers: Why?
Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I will tell him.
The first difference is that the prescribed period to which part III applies in England is 18 months after the vesting day; in Wales, it runs from three months before to a year after. That is the result of a consultation that was undertaken. In Wales, the consultation resulted in the choice of that formula; in England, people preferred a
250
different period. The United Kingdom has constituent parts which have their own characteristics, so I see no problem in that.
Mr. Nick Ainger rose—
Mr. Curry: I have not finished the answer to the first intervention yet.
As far as the other condition is concerned, loss of employment in Wales must be attributable to provisions made under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, because it is intended to target part III to staff losing their jobs because of reorganisation, and not for other reasons.
I think that you would want me to make progress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).
As I said, we have made additional provision because of the specific circumstances of reorganisation. I have also mentioned the North Tyneside position.
The regulations provide new and significantly improved compensation terms for local government staff in England and Wales in cases of redundancy, which may occur as part of the normal operations of local government. Before the regulations came into force, local government employees aged below 50 could receive only the minimum statutory payments on redundancy. The most that could be given to an employee under the age of 50 was 24 weeks' pay. Under the new regulations, for all future general cases of redundancy, local authorities have the discretion to make payments of up to 66 weeks' pay for employees, based on a tariff according to age and service.
Employees aged over 50 have, for many years, had a better deal than those aged below 50. If they have two years' service, they are entitled to immediate payment of their pension and pension lump sum. In addition, if they have at least five years' service, they may receive a discretionary top-up to their pension benefits. That provision has not changed. Local government employees aged over 50 facing redundancy as a result of normal change in local government can still receive those benefits.
As well as introducing significantly better severance terms for general cases of redundancy, the regulations provide extra benefits for employees made redundant from local government service specifically as a result of local government reorganisation. Those benefits are, first, that the maximum amounts permitted under the 66-week tariff are mandatory for staff aged under 50 affected by reorganisation. [HoN. MEMBERS: "How much?") They are maximum and mandatory. Secondly, for the over-50s made redundant in reorganisation cases, there are options for further compensation payments at the employer's discretion. I shall say more about that later.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Curry: If I can make progress, I will return to that later.
We have also taken the opportunity provided by the regulations to provide local authorities with new powers to enable them to compensate those of their pensioners who suffered reductions in their pension payments as a result of the 1992 Court of Appeal decision in Allsop v. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council. As hon. Members will recall, that judgment declared unlawful the

251
local severance scheme operated by North Tyneside council and, as a consequence, several councils had to terminate pension claims made under their local schemes—although I have not heard of cases of pensioners being required to pay back lump sums. If my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has specific references to that, I will be pleased to receive them.
Many of those pensions, which authorities had agreed, had been in payment for some years before being redluced. Some of those pensioners have had to wait more than two years for compensation, and the new powers that we are giving to local authorities will be widely welcomed.
All those new provisions, which flow directly from discussions that we have had with the Staff Commissions, the local authority associations and the Local Government Management Board, incorporate the results of two extensive consultation exercises among all interested parties, and provide the framework that local government has sought.
We have modified our proposals substantially in the light of the consultation exercises. Specifically, we have amended our proposals to make a mandatory arrangement for reorganisation cases.
Mr. Steen: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because the matter that I wish to mention will not come out in any other way. The Prime Minister said last year that there would be fewer rules and regulations in the House. There were going to be fewer rules and regulations on the Floor of the House, fewer rules and regulations upstairs and fewer downstairs. Yet every time that I enter the Chamber, there is another rule or regulation. Why do we have to take this course tonight? Only the other day I was dealing with the town and country planning regulations; now we are discussing another regulation. Is the deregulation arrangement working in the Minister's Department?
Mr. Curry: The answer to the second question is yes. The answer to the first question is that, if there is reorganisation, one has to make provision—as has been made in the past—for those people affected by it. We have taken advantage of that fact to enhance the conditions for all local authority members. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is relatively unusual now to be here at nearly 11 pm, and perhaps we have become accustomed to slightly soft ways in the House.
Mr. Steen: Wednesday mornings and Friday mornings?
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is a slave to duty.
Mr. Tipping: Although the Minister has amended the regulations to take account of criticisms, will he explain why the figure given now is 66 weeks when, back in 1986 when the metropolitan counties were abolished, 82 weeks redundancy payment was offered?
Mr. Curry rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies I must inform the House that all the interventions—it is not a matter for the Chair to criticise
252
them as they are in order—are ruling out hon. Members who wish to speak and who have taken the trouble to write to the Speaker to ask to speak.
Mr. Curry: I like to give way as I think that that helps the debate, but in view of your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now try to move to the conclusion of my speech. I shall answer the question of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) because I had anticipated it. If he has patience, we shall get there—with the tolerance of his colleagues.
The compensation package that we have adopted, as contained in the regulations, means that local government employees under the age of 50 on being made redundant as part of normal staffing changes, can now receive compensation equal to the maximum of two weeks pay for each year of local government service over the age of 23. In addition, each year of service over the age of 42 counts for five weeks pay, leading to a total equivalent to 66 weeks pay. Those improvements also apply to redundancies due to reorganisation, with the important proviso that in this circumstance it is mandatory for local authorities to pay the maximum amounts available.
Secondly, we have also provided that extra powers are available to provide benefits to those aged 50 and over made redundant as a result of reorganisation. At the employers' discretion, such employees' pensions can be increased if they have five or more years service, or they can receive the lump sum compensation payment—up to 66 weeks pay in some cases. For those with between two and five years service, we are making available the option of additional compensation in lieu of immediate payment of pension.
In formulating the regulations, we had helpful and detailed assistance from the Local Government Staff Commission in England and the Staff Commission for Wales. The Staff Commission was expressly asked to consider whether there should be a special scheme for staff made redundant as a result of reorganisation and, if so, whether the arrangements should be discretionary or mandatory. After consideration, it advised that there should be a special scheme, and that is now provided. It also recommended that the scheme should be mandatory—a proposal that has been implemented in respect of staff under 50. A special mandatory level payment has been included as one of the options for the over-50s.
Other recommendations by the Staff Commission—for example that the age group of 45 to 49-year-olds should be targeted for the highest payments and that the age service banding should closely follow that used in previous reorganisations—have also been followed. In some respects, such as the 18-month period for the reorganisation terms in England, we have bettered what the Staff Commission recommended.
Two recommendations of the Staff Commission were not followed in full. Those were that the maximum limit for payments should be set at 82 weeks and that it should be mandatory for over-50s to receive maximum added years enhancement to their pension and pension lump sum.
The precedent of the GLC and the metropolitan counties abolition is prayed in aid. However, the 82 weeks maximum was available in 1986 only to a very limited group of employees. In fact, employees had to be aged exactly 49 and to have over 25 years service to qualify

253
for that amount. Anybody aged less than 49 could not receive 82 weeks and received similar amounts in 1986 to those available under the regulations. A 45-year-old with 27 or more years service would receive 66 weeks pay under both the 1986 regulations and under our new regulations.
We have targeted the maximum 66 weeks to employees aged between 45 and 49—the very group that the Staff Commission and other consultees asked us specifically to earmark for higher compensation payments. The 66 weeks maximum was settled upon only after full account was taken of all the relevant factors. I am sure that it is the right level—it is more than two and a half times better than the compensation previously available to local government employees. Taken together with the other measures that we have introduced or are proposing—including our proposed compensation for detriment, the consultation period for which closed yesterday—those regulations provide a very much improved and flexible statutory-based compensation package.
The other recommendation of the Staff Commission which we have not fully followed is that staff over 50 years of age should receive mandatory payment of added years, which results in higher pension payments. I believe that this would be an expensive imposition on local authorities' discretion. Under our proposals, employing authorities may choose to pay maximum added years if they believe that the case for doing so is justified. We have also provided the alternative of a lump sum payment according to personal circumstances. Such a single sum may be more welcome to individuals than relatively small increases in continuing pension payments.
Local government employers and their employees now know where they stand on redundancy payments and they can plan for the future. The decisions themselves are for the councils to make. We have provided a proper statutory protection for staff affected by reorganisation and for all local authority staff affected by change. If the motion to reject the package is successful, not only will the package for staff affected by local government reorganisation fall, but so will the great improvement in the security of all local government staff. It will also mean that pensioners who stand to receive compensation for cuts in their pensions will be immediate losers. I trust that the House will firmly reject such an outcome.
Mr. Dobson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman given way?
Mr. Curry: Congeniality is second nature to me, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Dobson: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman accepts that the pensioners who retired in good faith feel that, one way or another, they have been swindled out of the pensions to which they and their employers thought that they were entitled. Can he tell us why he is not proposing a scheme which will restore to each and every one of them by right the money that they have lost as a
254
result of the judgement? Why does he accept that some of them will not get full restoration, and why is he leaving the decision to the discretion of the councils?
Mr. Curry: First, the hon. Gentleman talks about pensioners being swindled. I think that one has to be cautious in using that sort of terminology when speaking about something that has happened as a result of a court ruling. The pensioners may feel that they were dealt with unjustly, but one must be careful how one reflects that feeling.
Secondly, we have provided for 66 weeks in the regulations which cover those people affected by both reorganisation and the normal run of changes in local authorities' competences and employment. It seems reasonable that, if 66 weeks is applied to those cases, it should apply also to the generality of cases, so that everyone is on the same footing. I think that it is a perfectly reasonable position, and the overwhelming number of pensioners will receive full compensation under that methodology.
11.7 pm
Mr. Clive Betts: I wish to comment on the North Tyneside follow-up and the regulations. The Minister must be much clearer about the position of pensioners who were affected by the genuine and proper decisions taken by local authorities, generally on the basis of legal advice.
Will the Minister assure the House that people who entered into agreements with local authorities that they would retire under a certain compensation package will not have that package reduced as a result of the regulations? It is most improper for the House to pass regulations that will have the effect of reducing the pensions of people who entered into an agreement with their local authorities in good faith.
While I am on that subject, I take strong exception to the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). He spoke of people who "should have known better"—presumably referring to the local authorities which made the decisions at the time. My local authority received advice from our legal officers and from counsel on the subject before we reached a decision. Certainly members of both the leading political parties took that decision seriously. The fact that the hon. Gentleman's colleague on the committee at the time walked out halfway through the meeting and refused to pass a vote on the subject is probably not untypical of the way in which the Liberal party behaves in such circumstances.
Let me also comment briefly on the issues that affect the current reorganisation of local government and the compensatory arrangements for redundancy. First, it is disappointing that the Government did not concede the general issue that was put to them by the local authority associations and the unions—that staff transfer orders should have applied to all staff. It would have been much easier to have sorted out all the arrangements for redundancy, retirement and compensation had that approach been taken.
The problem now is that staff are in totally different positions. Some are subject to staff transfer orders, some have chief officer open interviews and others have priority interviews. They do not know whether redundancy rules will apply to them. In direct service organisations, for example, staff still do not know whether their jobs will

255
exist after the reorganisation, although private contractors that employ people have contracts with the authorities, and the new authorities will have to honour those contracts. That is wrong, and something should be done to sort it out.
Equally, the Government have not issued any proper advice on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and that certainly will affect people who are made redundant. It is time the Government sorted it out. Clearly, it is a substantial mess. A general staff transfer order would have resolved that problem and allowed the redundancy issues to be sorted out in a more ordered and proper way.
I am one of the few people in the House who can think back to 1986 and say that I was party to the issues which applied to the metropolitan county reorganisation from both sides. I was both a councillor and an employee, one of Sheffield city council and the other of the South Yorkshire local authority, so I saw the regulations from both sides and generally they worked pretty well.
The question that the. Minister has not answered tonight—he tried to answer it by explaining that only a small group of staff would benefit if the maximum number of weeks was 82 and not 66—is why a system which worked in 1986 has now been changed. He did not say why the Staff Commission,. which recommended that exactly the same rules that applied in 1986 should apply now, was ignored. His argument that 82 weeks applied only to a certain number of staff was surely taken on board by the Staff Commission when it recommended that 82 weeks should be the maximum period. Why did he demur from the Staff Commission's decision?
Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Betts: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as he has had his say and I am aware that others want to speak.
The Minister also did not answer why the Staff Commission recommended that the scheme for the over-50s should be mandatory. Why did the Minister not accept that recommendation? It was good enough in 1986; why is it not good enough for staff in 1995?
Those questions certainly need answering because they affect people who are not responsible for the changes. They are not staff who have been inefficient or unproductive, but staff who are affected by a political change beyond their control. They want some degree of certainty and a feeling that their interests are being recognised and looked after.
Finally, the Minister said nothing about the funding of the scheme. I agree that the scheme should be mandatory because—rightly or wrongly—the House is compelling reorganisation on local authorities. I support some of the changes, but the House is making the decisions, so the scheme should be mandatory.
The House should also make provision for the proper funding of the arrangements. All that we know for the next financial year is that the Government will top-slice £50 million of capital to allow local authorities to borrow to try to fund the schemes. We also know that money is topsliced, so every other authority in the country will suffer.
My authority represents about one hundredth of the population of the country, so if one subtracts one hundredth of the cost of £50 million from its own
256
borrowing, it will lose £500,000 of borrowing to help fund the reorganisation schemes. My local authority, therefore, loses more than its total allocation of borrowing for social services in the city of Sheffield.
Is it not time that the Government accepted their own responsibilities and decided to fund the schemes? Will they guarantee that the sum of £50 million for 1995–96 will be substantially increased for 1996–97, when the majority of those costs will fall? Will they guarantee to provide borrowing facilities for those authorities and not do it at the expense of the other authorities in the country?
11.14 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: Although there is not much point in speaking for a minute or two, I thought that the House might like to hear me.
First, I do not understand why, having just adopted the Jopling recommendations, we sat until late last night. We are sitting till midnight tonight, all Wednesday morning, afternoon and evening, on Thursday and on Friday morning. The more the House sits, the more rules and regulations it passes. These regulations are a good example of filling the time available—it is Parkinson's law. My hon. Friend the Minister beautifully and convincingly explained the reason for them, but we should not be passing more and more regulations and sitting later into the night than we did last year. We are passing more regulations in Committee upstairs, in the Chamber and in the basement, despite the Government's commitment to reducing regulations. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me that these are the last regulations that he will introduce this Session.
11.15 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: Part III of the regulations concerns local government reorganisation and compensation for resulting redundancies. I was involved in local government for 12 years before entering the House and I have grave reservations about the redundancy implications of reorganisation in my county of Avon.
If there are to be redundancies, it is essential to provide a fair system of compensation and ensure that the package is realistically funded. Neither is the case. It is accepted that the maximum compensation payable to staff aged 45 to 49 will be 66 weeks' pay, assuming full service from the age of 18. Few staff will be eligible for that maximum. Even then, those terms are significantly worse than those offered when metropolitan authorities were abolished in 1986. If 82 weeks' pay was thought acceptable compensation then, why should a significantly lower amount be acceptable today? the proposed compensation is worth less than the civil service scheme and is vastly poorer than that offered under the last reorganisation in 1974.
Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Berry: I would love to give way, but I am told that there is no time.
The proposed redundancy package is a poor deal for local government staff who have given good service to their communities. The scheme will not attract many voluntary redundancies, but it will lead to more compulsory redundancies from reorganisation. Even though the terms are an insult, local councils will have

257
difficulty finding the money to fund them. There will be no new money to cover the costs of reorganisation, but only limited powers to borrow.
Most redundancies will occur in 1996–97 and 1997–98. No guarantee has been given that councils will be allowed to borrow in those years as they will need to do. Any redundancy costs that cannot be funded from additional borrowing will have to be met from more cuts in services or higher council tax, if that is allowed.
The regulations provide worse compensation than for any other previous local government reorganisation. They are not fair and will not encourage voluntary redundancies. They will result in further cuts in services and jobs, and they should be opposed.
11.17 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: Labour Members have explained compellingly why we oppose the regulations and want them annulled. The Minister did not touch on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which are vital to Wales because only one of its counties is unaffected by the possibility that workers on the transfer will not be covered by them. As this Government-inspired scheme of local government reorganisation will affect the whole of Wales, there should be no nit-picking over the interpretation and application of TUPE.
The Government's record of interpreting TUPE shows them to have been wrong on virtually every occasion. Rather than engage in a prolonged dogfight, at the end of which the Government will be proved wrong, they should, for the sake of fairness and completeness, accept that TUPE applies to all workers in reorganised local government in Wales.
I come next to arrangements for the proper funding of the local government reorganisation. There seems to be a major debate about the exact number of people likely to be made redundant as a result of the reorganisation. Touche Ross, employed to carry out a survey of the possible consequences for jobs, suggested that about 900 people employed in central services and administrative tasks—out of a total of about 6,000—would probably lose their jobs in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales, however, is on record as saying in the House that he expects very few people to become redundant, because of the scope for retraining and finding new jobs for people in the new unitary authorities. If this is true, it would appear that few savings will be made from these local government changes, yet savings were ostensibly the Government's reason for effecting the reorganisation.
There will be a mandatory scheme for some staff, and the Welsh Office will be prepared to provide supplementary credit approvals to cover those schemes. The Welsh Office will take account of the consequences in future years when the capping criteria are determined. For the discretionary schemes, however, no supplementary credit approvals will be provided. When local authorities apply discretionary schemes, they will not be counted for capping criteria purposes, so authorities will be in danger of being capped for trying to give their employees a fair deal. Given that the Staff Commission has recommended mandatory schemes to cover all
258
workers who are made redundant, or who choose redundancy, the Government should be prepared to withdraw the scheme tonight and to make further changes.
The shadow Environment Secretary has already cited the huge differences between the Welsh Office redundancy scheme and the one for local government workers. The Minister of State made no attempt to justify the fact that workers in the Welsh Office will receive double what their counterparts in local government will get.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will be prepared to withdraw the regulations and to introduce others based on the 1986 scheme. It has been claimed that the lower limit of 15 months for the scheme to work in Wales—as opposed to 18 months in England—resulted from consultations with local authorities; but local authorities in Wales at the time were under the impression that the period of 82 weeks would also apply to the new scheme. The Welsh Office has therefore reneged on that part of the agreement, while retaining the 15-month period. That is yet another reason why the regulations should be withdrawn and a new scheme introduced in their place.
11.23 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I shall try to answer all the points raised in this short debate. The House will understand that I feel the greatest sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who expressed reservations about what we do here, and when we do it. I think, though, that we are making good progress with the timing.
The Government do not agree that it would be right to annul the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994. The package that they contain is a fair and good one. Local authorities have a certain legal framework to provide equitable and affordable compensation to their employees in a variety of circumstances.
Part II of the regulations—I think that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) called it the least unacceptable part—gives councils an opportunity to structure flexible severance packages to suit local needs, at levels that are significantly above those that applied before 28 December. These improved arrangements stem directly from discussions with the local authority associations. A higher overall limit may be preferred by some, but councils, just like anybody else, must live within their means, precisely as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) was seeking to emphasise. The Government took the view that the tariff in part II was at the right level.
Opposition Members tended to concentrate on part III of the regulations. They say that the terms on offer for the staff who lose their jobs because of local government reorganisation are worse than those that would have been available in previous reorganisations, and are worse than those available in the civil service. Civil service pay has traditionally been set to take account of the greater job security that civil servants have, and compensation payments were set at a correspondingly higher level.
What the Opposition do not say is that the compensation for local government employees is now higher than it is for certain other groups of public sector

259
employees; nor have they recognised that compensation is just one aspect of terms and conditions: it is the whole package that should be compared, not just elements of it. The Government take that wider view, and terms and conditions in local government, taken as a whole, are no worse or better than in other parts of the public sector.
I accept that the compensation terms that applied when the Greater London council and metropolitan councils were abolished involved higher payments only for particular long-serving staff aged 49. That does not mean that the precedent must always be followed slavishly. The detriment consultation scheme, on which we have been consulting, would provide for potentially higher detriment payments than were available in 1986. The key feature of part III of the regulations is a mandatory scheme for staff aged under 50. That was the principal recommendation of the staff commissions for Wales and for England, and our decision to follow it has been widely welcomed.
I acknowledge that the commissions went further and recommended that there should be mandatory "added years" for staff aged over 50 who can receive an immediate pension. The Government did not feel able to accept that recommendation. We have instead provided councils, in these regulations, with a range of options for dealing with staff over 50. It would not make sense to provide a range of options but then decree that one of them—the most expensive, naturally—should be mandatory.
The hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) all sought to allege that Wales has been treated worse in these arrangements than in previous reorganisations. I must remind them that the consultation paper issued last June said that the scheme should apply in Wales only for the calendar year 1996. We received 13 comments on that proposal.
Of those proposals, eight of the responses argued that the period should be extended beyond the calendar year 1996 to 31 March 1997. That is precisely what we have done. We responded to those consultations. Normally, it is claimed that we do not listen to consultations, but on this occasion, we did precisely that.
I want to put it into perspective because, to stress the importance of the point, we also had responses from 15 district councils and four county councils in Wales. Not one of them mentioned the point about the term, nor did a joint response by the Local Government Management Board, the Council of Welsh Districts, the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Wales Trades Union Congress.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) was concerned that part IV of the regulations provide a legal basis for councils to make compensatory lump sum payments to pensioners who have suffered reductions in the North Tyneside case. They have waited some time for these provisions. The regulations do not attempt to restore the illegal payments that were made previously, but I hope that authorities will exercise their discretion fairly and sympathetically within the terms of the regulations. As my hon. Friend has already made clear to the House, we have brought forward the right package, and I commend it to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 296.

Division No. 48]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dowd, Jim

Adams, Mrs Irene

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Ainger, Nick

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Allen, Graham

Eastham, Ken

Alton, David

Enright, Derek

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Etherington, Bill

Armstrong, Hilary

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Ashton, Joe

Fatchett Derek

Barnes, Harry

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Barron, Kevin

Fisher, Mark

Battle, John

Flynn, Paul

Bayley, Hugh

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Fraser, John

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Fyfe, Maria

Bell, Stuart

Galbraith, Sam

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Galloway, George

Bennett, Andrew F

Gapes, Mike

Benton, Joe

George, Bruce

Bermingham, Gerald

Gerrard, Neil

Berry, Roger

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Betts.Clive

Godman, Dr Norman A

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Godsiff, Roger

Blunkett, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Boateng, Paul

Gordon, Mildred

Boyes, Roland

Graham, Thomas

Bradley, Keith

Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

Grocott, Bruce

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Gunnell, John

Burden, Richard

Hain, Peter

Byers, Stephen

Hall, Mike

Caborn, Richard

Hanson, David

Callaghan, Jim

Hardy, Peter

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Harvey, Nick

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Campbell-Savours, D N

Henderson, Doug

Canavan, Dennis

Heppell, John

Cann, Jamie

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Hinchliffe, David

Chidgey, David

Hodge, Margaret

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hoey, Kate

Church, Judith

Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

Clapham, Michael

Home Robertson, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hood, Jimmy

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Clelland, David

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Coffey, Ann

Hoyle, Doug

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hutton, John

Corston, Jean

Illsley, Eric

Cousins, Jim

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cox, Tom

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Cummings, John

Jamieson, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Barry (Alyn and U'side)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

Darling, Alistair

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jowell, Tessa

Denham, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dewar, Donald

Keen, Alan

Dixon, Don

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Dobson, Frank

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Donohoe, Brian H

Khabra, Piara S

261

Kiffoyle, Peter

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Lewis, Terry

Primarolo, Dawn

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Purchase, Ken

Litherland, Robert

Radice, Giles

Livingstone, Ken

Randall, Stuart

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Raynsford, Nick

Llwyd, Elfyn

Reid, Dr John

Loyden, Eddie

Rendel, David

Lynne, Ms Liz

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

McAllion, John

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McAvoy, Thomas

Rogers, Allan

McCartney, Ian

Rooker, Jeff

Macdonald, Calum

Rooney, Terry

McFall, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McKelvey, William

Rowlands, Ted

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ruddock, Joan

Maclennan, Robert

Sedgemore, Brian

McMaster, Gordon

Sheerman, Barry

McNamara, Kevin

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

MacShane, Denis

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McWilliam, John

Short, Clare

Madden, Max

Simpson, Alan

Maddock, Diana

Skinner, Dennis

Mahon, Alice

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mandelson, Peter

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

MareK, Dr John

Snape, Peter

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Spearing, Nigel

Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

Spellar, John

Martlew, Eric

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Maxton, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Meacher, Michael

Stevenson, George

Meale, Alan

Stott, Roger

Michael, Alun

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Straw, Jack

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Sutciffe, Gerry

Milburn, Alan

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Miller, Andrew

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mitchell, Austin (G. Grimsby)

Timms, Stephen

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Tipping, Paddy

Morgan, Rhodri

Turner, Dennis

Morley, Elliot

Tyler, Paul

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Vaz, Keith

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Mowlam, Marjorie

Wallace, James

Mudie, George

Walley, Joan

Mullin, Chris

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Watson, Mike

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Wicks, Malcolm

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Wigley, Dafydd

O'Hara, Edward

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Olner, Bill

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Winnick, David

Patchett, Terry

Wise, Audrey

Pearson, Ian

Wray, Jimmy

Pickthall, Colin

Wright, Dr Tony

Pike, Peter L

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Pope, Greg

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Prentice, Bridget (Lev'm E)

Mr Archy Kirkwood and

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Mr Don Foster.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Alexander, Richard

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Baldry, Tony

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Amess, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Ancram, Michael

Bates, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Batiste, Spencer

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bellingham, Henry

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Bendall, Vivian

Ashby, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Atkins, Robert

Biffen, Rt Hon John

262

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gallie, Phil

Booth, Hartley

Gardiner, Sir George

Boswell, Tim

Garel Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Garnier, Edward

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gillan, Cheryl

Bowis, John

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brandreth, Gyles

Gorst, Sir John

Brazier, Julian

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Bright Sir Graham

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Grylls, Sir Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Budgen, Nicholas

Hague, William

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butcher, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butler, Peter

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Butterfill, John

Hannam, Sir John

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Camington, Matthew

Harris, David

Cash, William

Haselhurst, Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sydney

Hawksley, Warren

Churchill, Mr

Hayes, Jerry

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hendry, Charles

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Coe, Sebastian

Hicks, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Congdon, David

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Coombs, Simon

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Horam, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Couchman, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

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

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

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Day, Stephen

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hunter, Andrew

Delvin, Tim

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Jack, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dover, Den

Jenkin, Bemard

Duncan, Alan

Jessel, Toby

Duncan Smith, Iain

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dunn, Bob

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Dykes, Hugh

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Elletson, Harold

Key, Robert

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Knapman, Roger

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knox, Sir David

Evennett, David

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Faber, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fabricant, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fishburn, Dudley

Legg, Barry

Forman, Nigel

Leigh, Edward

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Forth, Eric

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lidington, David

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lightbown, David

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

French, Douglas

Lord, Michael

Fry, Sir Peter

Luff, Peter

Gale, Roger

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

263

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

MacKay, Andrew

Shersby, Michael

Maclean, David

Sims, Roger

McLoughlin, Patrick

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Madel, Sir David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Soames, Nicholas

Mans, Keith

Speed, Sir Keith

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mates, Michael

Spink, Dr Robert

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Spring, Richard

Merchant, Piers

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Mils, Iain

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Steen, Anthony

Moate, Sir Roger

Stephen, Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Stem, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Streeter, Gary

Moss, Malcolm

Sweeney, Walter

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Sykes, John

Nelson, Anthony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Nicholls, Patrick

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thomason, Roy

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Norris, Steve

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Thumham, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Ottaway, Richard

Tracey, Richard

Page, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Pace, James

Trend, Michael

Patrick, Sir Irvine

Trotter, Neville

Patten, Rt Hon John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Pawsey, James

Viggers, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Walden, George

Pickles, Eric

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Waller, Gary

Porter, David (Waveney)

Ward, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Rathbone, Tim

Waterson, Nigel

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Watts, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wells, Bowen

Richards, Rod

Whitney, Ray

Riddick, Graham

Whittingdale, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Widdecombe, Ann

Robathan, Andrew

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wilkinson, John

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Willetts, David

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wilshire, David

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Wolfson, Mark

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wood, Timothy

Sackville, Tom

Yeo, Tim

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Tellers for the Noes:

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

TRANSPORT
Ordered,
That Mr. James Hill be discharged from the Transport Committee and Sir David Madel be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
11.42 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to debate—not before time—what has happened, is happening and will happen to the South Thames training and enterprise council. I also welcome my colleagues from south London who are present; I have received apologies from others who cannot be here, but are no less concerned about the matter than I am.
It is a paradox that yesterday London Pride launched its prospectus, containing a section called "Raising Skills". That section in turn contained a subsection entitled "Training", and read as follows:
"London's most pressing challenge is more fundamental. The capital has a very high requirement for basic skills and literacy training which is not being sufficiently met. Current programmes need to be extended to allow more Londoners to progress to medium and higher skill levels.
The Partnership believes: Government must rectify the under-funding of the London TECs. Historically they have been substantially underfunded on key programmes relative to TECs elsewhere. If London is to achieve the targets set, it is essential that this differentiation is addressed."
The partnership prospectus addressed the need for effective mechanisms for providing training in the capital city.
By way of background, training and enterprise councils have been in existence for four years, and there are 82 in this country. Scotland has a parallel system. They were a Government idea, and it was intended that they would pull together the various training agencies to provide training for school leavers and for the short and long-term unemployed. They would also help businesses to develop the skills necessary either to expand or to make themselves more efficient in the future.
TECs have been given certain jobs in relation to which they are effectively a Government agency. They are responsible for administering youth training, employment training, training for work for the long-term unemployed and for training credits. From the beginning, the Government made a commitment and statements were made of various objectives. All of us who were Members at that time were sent promotional material on the subject.
It was clear that the Government were encouraging participation from the private sector, and encouraging people to join in with help to target training on areas where long-term growth was expected. The private sector was encouraged to develop higher skills, and particularly to offer support in areas where there had been a decline in industry. South Thames is unique because it is definitely the most needy area for such an agency.
The first chairman of the South Thames TEC, when talking to a European training conference in 1992, said:
"South Thames exhibits all the characteristics of a deprived inner city area. The community we serve is made up of a million residents of whom one third come from the ethic minorities. In one school in Lambeth 115 languages are spoken."
He added that the TEC covers some of the poorest and most deprived districts in London as he talked about the needs with which the South Thames TEC must deal.

265
Its budget of £46 million has successfully grown during the past four years from £25 million at the beginning. It was the pilot TEC for adult training credit, and it covers 13 per cent. of London's population and 11 per cent. of the work force. All four of the boroughs affected have urban priority areas, poor housing, high levels of crime, high unemployment and special training needs. We have been particular victims of a declining manufacturing industry, and the recession has hit us very hard.
It is not surprising then that, of the top 10 constituencies in Britain in terms of unemployment, four are within the area of the South Thames TEC. Those four include my constituency, which is now in the invidious position of being the fourth worst in the country.
Everything initially appeared to be going well with the South Thames TEC; so well that the Government regularly sang its praises. The current Chancellor of the Duchy even had a go at the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) for not paying tribute to
"the tremendous amount of work being done by the South Thames training and enterprise council in providing opportunities to the long-term unemployed."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 907.]
It continued to be successful and respected until about a year ago, when there first appeared to be some financial difficulties.
During 1994, those difficulties became more and more obvious. In August, the chief executive resigned. In passing, I would like to pay tribute to Mike Hanson who—I think my colleagues would agree—did an excellent job in presenting and promoting south London locally and further afield. We were very sad that he went. When the history of this episode is written, I hope that no one will say that the fault lay at his door. He tried extremely hard to ensure that the TEC delivered, even though it did not always give the Government the messages that they wanted to hear, and continued to act independently, which is important.
The TEC continued to serve the local community, as the deprivation figures became worse in south Thames. Last year, we ended up as the TEC area in Britain with the highest levels of unemployment and the lowest levels of job availability. Let there be no mistake, therefore, about the importance of the TEC to south London.
In the autumn, a breach notice was issued because of various financial irregularities. Apparently, the TEC did not have the proper financial management structures in place to ensure that invoices that were presented were genuine. Further management changes took place and many assurances were given, on the record, that matters were being sorted out.
On 21 December, after the House had risen for the recess, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) wound up South Thames TEC. On that day it went into receivership. The Government had two options: to come to the rescue and support the TEC; or, to pull the plug. All the information in the possession of those who were directly informed suggests that the Government specifically decided to withdraw their support and to pull the plug.
There are two possible explanations. The first is that the Government were initially complacent and unprepared and then had not taken seriously the concerns expressed
266
locally, or given local management the chance to respond to the breach notice. If it was due to a lack of preparedness, the manifestations are as serious for jobs and training in south London as the lack of preparedness of the Japanese Government to deal with recent emergencies in Japan—and I am not being flippant. The Government were not ready to pick up the pieces and to deal with the problem.
The second explanation is that the Government intended to pull the plug because they were not happy with a high-spending TEC that was trying to ensure that the Government kept on putting the money in and, not least, because the Secretary of State does not like TECs very much, to set an example to the other TECs. I do not take a view one way or the other. I know, however, that the right solution was not to allow the TEC suddenly to disappear.
An extraordinary situation has resulted from that December disappearance. I understand that it has also happened once in Scotland, but I do not remember an occasion in England when a body which everyone who had contracted with it thought was a Government agency suddenly went bust. Yes, it was, formally, a private sector company, but everyone dealing with it assumed that it had Government backing.
Suddenly, a bit like a south Thames bubble—it burst. The Minister may nod his head, but people were subsequently told that they must wait in line, as one does when a company goes bust, and hope that there would be enough to pay them out. That is true, and all of my south Thames colleagues will testify to the fact that we have been contacted by people who are waiting for the money that the Government said that they would receive⁁I have a file full of contacts here.
First, assurances were given. In the week before Christmas, the Department of Employment said that training obligations would be maintained, but might be transferred, and a letter of comfort was issued. The Under-Secretary said later in a written answer:
"As foreshadowed in the minute laid before the House on 21 December 1994 … letters of comfort have been issued to certain providers of training and business support programmes within the area covered by South Thames training and enterprise council. That process is continuing. The minute said, that some of the indemnities were likely to be called in and that has now occurred."—[Official Report, 16 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 331.]
I think that £9 million was made available, as a Government grant, so that honouring the obligations could commence. That was welcome.
One sometimes wonders whether debating an issue in this House serves any use. The Minister and I have had a word and he says that the following facts are unrelated. But the fact that we were due to debate the matter today has produced a flurry of activity in the past day or two, including the tabling of a revised minute yesterday and ministerial letters arriving at near to the speed of light. I have received two letters from the Minister today, both of which are welcome.
My colleagues and I have also received an invitation to meet the Minister before Thursday to discuss the matter. I understand that the revised minute includes individuals who were not included in the original minute. Obviously, that is welcome, but it does not provide all the answers and has certainly not produced money for everyone waiting in the queue.

267
I shall list some examples of organisations that are in the queue and then ask some questions. Although the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will say a few words if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in reality all that we can do tonight is express our huge concerns on the Floor of the House while accepting that we do not expect the Minister to answer tonight the huge number of questions that need to be answered.
Some of the people in the queue are owed a very large sum of money. Southwark college, the major further education college in my borough, is owed —1.4 million for training credits, work-related further education, capital works schemes, student hardship funds and the like. I have a list of some 20 organisations in Southwark that have various contracts. Many of them have contacted me in some way. They range from large public agencies like colleges to individual who were employees or for whom a contract worth £50 makes a huge difference.
For example, a firm called Martyn Dawes Associates is waiting for £17,000. Its suppliers are chasing it, and unless it can pay off the people to whom it owes money it must either lay people off or get into financial difficulty. It has had verbal commitments but nothing in writing and no letters answered by the receiver, Grant Thornton. The firm also tells me that it received the letter saying that Grant Thornton was the receiver only after the statutory 28-day period in which the letter should be sent. That is at best a technical—if not more serious—breach of the law.
An organisation called Springboard Southwark is also owed money. Like many other bodies, it is effectively now a Government paying agency. As a charity, it is being asked to fund the obligation of a Government agency and is using its funding to provide training allowances for other people. If that is not an example of bad practice by an agency that is meant to be about good business practice, I do not know what is. The real concern is that the death of the TEC will give rise to a considerable loss of credibility.
Training for Change has also contacted me. It is owed £22,000 in outstanding invoices. It has had many conversations with the Government office for London, and some matters have been secured while others have not.
The big sector that has not yet been secured is all the money due for the investors in people programme, none of which looks like being secured. That is bad news because many investors have responded to the call to be partners and are now left effectively unprotected and unsecured. If that does not put people off becoming partners in training and enterprise, I do not know 'what will.
The list includes little local organisations like Southwark Heritage, which develops tourism. The consequence of the Government's action is also shown by the words of the head teacher of a secondary school in my constituency, St. Saviour's and St. Olave's school, who wrote to me saying:
"We are sure you share our dismay at the unreliability of a government funded agency".
The school was expecting to be supported by the schools' effectiveness project.
One person wrote to me that she had submitted a business plan and had expected 40 quid a week for six months. Last week, someone who lives in Rotherhithe came to my surgery and explained that he was in exactly
268
the same position as that woman, only worse. He had been told that there would no problem and that he could expect 40 quid a week. He entered into various commitments on the basis of that assurance, including loans from the bank, which he now has no capacity to pay off.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), who cannot be present tonight, asked me to mention someone at the bottom end of the financial scale. Someone was due 50 quid and was sent a cheque that bounced. Many other people I have seen were also sent cheques that bounced.
I have given the range of the practical, real, suddenly-left-singing-for-our-money implications. We must have a mechanism to guarantee all outstanding invoices. Nothing less than a decision by the Government to honour all the obligations will satisfy those hon. Members who are present and all the other interested people who will read the debate. We must do something to restore the good faith of the TEC system with all the people who are needed to be partners in it. We must ensure that no one is left out of pocket for the period for which people are now subsidising the current shortfall in funding. We must ensure that such financial difficulties, with their consequences, are not repeated.
What are we to do now to ensure that those in training programmes can continue in them when the current contract comes to an end? I know that the Minister will offer a partial response to that question. What are we to do now to honour those who have delivered the work? What will happen to payments for work from now until the end of the financial year and to outstanding payments to people for last October and November, before the receivers were sent in? What role does the Government office for London play, as opposed to the Department or the TEC successor?
I and my colleagues are extremely concerned to know about the new arrangements. Any arrangement that merely carves up the South Thames TEC and makes, for example, my borough an appendage to central London and the boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich appendages to the borough of Bromley and those further out of London would be unsatisfactory. There was a logic in the South Thames TEC being constituted of boroughs with a common tradition—that logic is no less valid today.
We want the present TEC area to remain. We want the public to be told what is going on. We want anyone who has a concern to be given a direct answer. We want contracts to be honoured and debts paid. We want an assurance that what has happened to our TEC will never be repeated.
If one goes to watch Millwall, one of the chants is, "No one likes us, we don't care." It feels now as though the Government are saying that to south London. My colleagues and I do care and the Government should care. I hope that tonight they will pledge to put right quickly an avoidable fiasco that should never have happened.
12.2 am
Mr. Nick Raynsford rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): In the time available, does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) should speak?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): Briefly.
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the Minister and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for allowing me to intervene briefly in the debate.
I should like to reinforce the case made by the hon. Gentleman. Important training operations are threatened with closure at any moment as a result of the situation that has arisen. I have written to the Minister about the Greenwich Training Company, which has established an excellent reputation and currently has about 450 trainees and employs 42 staff.
Last Friday it was uncertain about whether it would be able to pay its 150 youth trainees their weekly allowance. It is now seeking legal advice as to whether it is able to continue to trade because it might be insolvent. It is unsatisfactory that such worthwhile training operations should be threatened with insolvency because of a situation created by the Minister's decision and the Government's failure to put suitable mechanisms in place to ensure the survival of training.
I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that that type of venture will be enabled to survive, at least in the short term, until a more appropriate long-term framework is in place to guarantee the survival of training. Otherwise, large numbers of people whose future livelihoods depend on that type of venture will be left in the lurch; that would be unacceptable.
12.4 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): The debate that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has initiated gives us a chance, as he rightly said, to examine some of the issues surrounding South Thames training and enterprise council. I am afraid that, in the time that remains, I shall not be able to discuss all the issues that he mentioned, and I hope that he will understand that perhaps I can pursue them in correspondence or, if he wishes, at a meeting with him, and with his colleagues if he so desires.
The decision that I took on 21 December 1994, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was not easy, but I am convinced that it was the right and necessary decision. It took place against a background, which we should not forget, of there being 82 TECs in England and Wales—the hon. Gentleman said "this country". It is a good job that hon. Members who usually sit on the Bench behind him were not present. They might not have liked that, because it includes Wales in the total. As the hon. Gentleman said, those TECs are about three to four years old.
In the time that they have existed, TECs have demonstrated that they are able to provide significant improvements in the delivery of a range of Government programmes. They are local organisations; they are in the private sector; they are run by local business people. Two or three times, the hon. Gentleman used the words, "the
270
Government agency". TECs are not Government agencies and never have been. They were set up as private companies limited by guarantee. They have a contract with the Government to deliver Government programmes but, beyond that contract, they have considerable flexibility to generate margins and to use those margins for any other purpose in their overall strategy agreement.
I shall say a word about audit and control arrangements, which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. All TECs are required, by annual contract with our Department, to operate sound financial management control systems. Teams of departmental staff carry out regular risk assessments of all TECs. They examine their financial controls and systems, and their means of demonstrating by documentary evidence that they have delivered the training for which they have claimed funding.
Each TEC is allocated to a risk band. All the other TECs in the country bar one are in the low-risk category; one is in the medium-risk category. Only South Thames TEC has been in the high-risk category, and the rest is history, to which I shall return later.
I emphasise that it was a licensing requirement—and we are embarked on the licensing of all TECs—that TECs should be in the low-risk category. Therefore, no TEC will be able to be licensed without being in that category, and all TECs will be required to be licensed in the next two years.
I should also make it clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General's report from the National Audit Office on our own departmental accounts for 1993–94 specifically highlighted South Thames TEC; the report also referred to significant improvements in the technical audit and financial control systems.
I shall discuss South Thames TEC specifically. The history of the case is that weaknesses were found as long ago as July 1993, and the TEC was told about those weaknesses in its financial accounting systems. Our London Government regional office worked with the TEC to try to obtain improvements to its systems.
In very early 1994, the TEC was told that it would have to be placed in the high-risk category, and it was asked in fairly strong terms to implement an action plan to return it to a low-risk category. When it became demonstrably clear that it was failing to do so, the breach of contract notice to which the hon. Gentleman referred was issued, on 3 October 1994.
Following that, in spite of the changes in management to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, we began to have serious doubts that even that breach would be remedied, and we sent in a team of accountants from our Department and from Messrs Grant Thornton. They submitted a report to the Department on 16 December 1994, a copy of which is in the Library and therefore available for all hon. Members to read.
In summary, the main points are as follows. The report demonstrated a very serious loss of about £million in the previous accounting period. It demonstrated an incorrect balance sheet, which itself was bad. It demonstrated—perhaps more seriously—that the forecast for 1995–96 was for continuing very serious losses. Perhaps most significantly, the management accounts could not be substantiated by the information available.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I could, at that stage, have decided to bail out the TEC, and he is right—of course that was an option. But given all the information

271
that I received from the accountants and the glaring weaknesses in the financial control systems that had not been remedied despite all the many months of pressure from my Department, I do not believe that I would have been fulfilling my duty to the taxpayer if I had put more public money into an organisation that had shown itself to be completely incapable of managing that public money.
Ms Joan Ruddock: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Paice: I am sorry, but I have not got time to give way. I have many questions to answer.
On 21 December—just five days after we had the report—I appointed the receiver. On the same day, I issued letters of comfort to the providers.
Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Paice: No, I am sorry. I will not give way as I have very little time to respond to many points.
I laid a minute before the House. As required. I also informed the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the events as they transpired. Letters of comfort were initially provided to the providers of youth training and training for work. The letters demonstrated that we would provide funds for the receiver for the three months following—up to the end of the present contracting year, the end of March.
In addition, we would also make payments for accounting period nine, from 7 November—six weeks earlier than when the receiver went in. The reason for the choice of 7 November—which I have seen
272
questioned—was clearly because at that stage we had not paid any money to the TEC for that period, so there was no question of double funding, which is important.
Since then, we have extended the letter of comfort to child care, work-related further education and various aspects of the career service. The Department of the Environment has extended it to business start-up schemes, education and business partnerships, compacts and teacher placements—it is important to stress that point as the hon. Gentleman raised a particular case.
We are still looking at all aspects of how we can provide comfort for the providers and we propose to lay a further minute before the House in line with the procedures and to issue a further letter of comfort to providers, guaranteeing that if their existing contracts with the TEC are not renewed, they will nevertheless be paid for outputs achieved in relation to training completed prior to 26 March under the existing contracts. We will pay for output-related funding even though it may not occur to be paid until after the period for which we have already issued comfort.
Of course I am aware that many providers are owed money by the TEC for the period before then. I could give a more detailed explanation, but in my final minute I shall just say that the payment of those debts is a matter for the receiver. It would not be appropriate for the Government to make payments to providers for money owed to them prior to period nine. We have already made that money available—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Accommodation
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to publish his Department's court accommodation plan for the next five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's accommodation plan, covering the next three years, will be published by the end of March 1995.

  Court Rooms
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many county court rooms and Crown court rooms are currently not in(a) full-time use and (b) part-time use in England and Wales, excluding London; and what percentage of the total number of court rooms these figures represent.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are 98 county court rooms and Crown court rooms in England and Wales, excluding London, currently being used part time. This is 17 per cent. of the total number of court rooms in England and Wales, excluding London. There are 16 county court rooms and Crown court rooms in England and Wales,

  Supreme court fees

  New fee

  Fee number

  Brief description

  Pre 1992£

  1992£

  Percentage rise pre-1992 to 1992

  1993

  Percentage rise 1992–93

  1994 £

  Percentage rise 1993–94

  Before 1992 Supreme court fees {Amendment) Order 1990 WEF 1 September 1990

  Supreme court fees (Amendment) Order 1993 WEF 11 January 1994….Fee

  IN EVERY DIVISION OF HIGH COURT

  Commencement

  1

  On sealing writ of summons, originating summons, origination notice of motion, or originating petition On sealing originating summons for:

  70.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  100.0

  42.86

  2(a)

  approval of settlement

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  15.00

  50.00

  2(b)

  Part 2 of Solicitors Act 1994 (taxation of costs)

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  15.00

  50.00

  2(c)

  for discovery

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  15.00

  50.00

  2(d)

  examination of witness abroad

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  15.00

  50.00

  3

  On presenting a petition of course

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  15.00

  50.00

  4

  Leave to apply for judicial review

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  100.00

  Progress of proceedings

  5A

  On taking appointment before master etc.

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  100.00

  88
  excluding London, currently not in use at all. This is 3 per cent. of the total number of court rooms in England and Wales.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many county court rooms and Crown court rooms in London are currently not in(a) full-time use and (b) part-time use; and what percentage of the total number of court rooms these figures represent.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are five county court rooms and Crown court rooms in London currently being used part time. This is 3 per cent. of the total number of court rooms in London. There are no court rooms in London currently not in use at all.

  Court Closures
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many county court centres, court caller offices and Crown court centres he has decided to close in(a) the last five years and (b) the next five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Some 35 courts and offices have been closed in the last five years. One court is scheduled for closure.

  Fees (Civil Business)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the increases in the fees for civil business introduced by his Department in the last three years and the percentage rise in the cost of civil business that each increase represents.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the last three years—1992, 1993 and 1994—fees have been increased in the Supreme court and the county court. In the Supreme court, fees were increased once during this period, on 11 January 1994. In the county court, fees were increased twice, on 30 November 1992 and 15 August 1994. Details are given.
  89

  Supreme court fees

  New fee

  Fee number

  Brief description

  Pre 1992 £

  1992 £

  Percentage rise pre-1992 to 1992

  1993

  Percentage rise 1992–93

  1994 £

  Percentage rise 1993–94

  Before 1992 Supreme court fees {Amendment) Order 1990 WEF 1 September 1990

  Supreme court fees (Amendment) Order 1993 WEF 11 January 1994….Fee

  5B

  On lodgings summons before judge or official referee

  15.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  33.33

  5C

  On ex parte application to judge or official referee

  15.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  33.33

  5D

  On lodging a motion

  15.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  33.33

  5F

  On setting down for trial

  30.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  50.00

  66.67

  5J

  On obtaining allocation of cause of official referee

  30.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  50.00

  66.67

  5K

  On filing an order for hearing of a cause

  30.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  50.00

  66.67

  6

  On setting down a cause or motion

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  15.00

  50.00

  7

  On examination of witness before trial

  5.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  10.00

  100.00

  8(a)

  On an inquiry etc. on adjourned summons

  15.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  33.33

  9

  On sealing notice of appeal

  15.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  33.33

  11A

  On filing notice of appeal to High Court

  15.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  33.33

  11B

  On filing a case stated for High Court

  15.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  33.33

  11C

  On filing a notice of cross appeal to High Court

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  15.00

  50.00

  11D

  On filing respondent's notice of appeal to High Court

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  15.00

  50.00

  Enforcement of Judgments

  12

  On sealing a writ of execution

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  100.00

  13

  Application for a garnishee order

  17.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  25.00

  47.06

  14

  Ex parte application to examine a judgment debtor

  17.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  25.00

  47.06

  16(a)(i)

  Ex parte application to register incoming judgment

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  100.00

  16(a)(ii)

  Providing certified copy of judgment for use abroad

  10.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  100.00

  16(b)(i)

  Ex parte application to register an outgoing order

  2.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  10.00

  400.00

  16(b)(ii)

  Providing certified copy of judgment for use abroad

  2.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  10.00

  400.00

  Miscellaneous

  21(a)

  On filing document under Bills of Sale Acts

  5.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  10.00

  100.00

  21(b)

  On filing a fiat of satisfaction

  5.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  10.00

  100.00

  22A

  Certificate of search in Bills of Sale Index

  2.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  5.00

  150.00

  22B

  For continuation search if within one month

  1.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  2.00

  100.00

  23(a)

  On taking an affidavit or affirmation

  3.50

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  5.00

  42.86

  23(b)

  For each exhibit to affidavit or affirmation

  1.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  2.00

  100.00

  24

  Per hour or part for search for bills of sale

  1.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  5.00

  400.00

  ADMIRALTY

  26(a)

  On lodging a warrant for arrest

  60.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  100.00

  66.67

  26{c)

  On entering a reference for hearing by registrar

  15.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  50.00

  233.33

  COURT OF APPEAL

  27(a)(i)

  filing notice of appeal from county court

  75.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  100.00

  33.33

  27(b)

  On filing notice of cross appeal

  30.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  50.00

  66.67

  90 91

  Supreme court fees

  New fee

  Fee number

  Brief description

  Pre 1992£

  1992£

  Percentage rise pre-1992 to 1992

  1993

  Percentage rise 1992–93

  1994 £

  Percentage rise 1993–94

  Before 1992 Supreme court fees (Amendment) Order 1990 WEF 1 September 1990

  Supreme court fees (Amendment) Order 1993 WEF 11 January 1994….Fee

  COMPANIES/INSOLVENCY

  30(a)

  Presenting petitions to wind up

  40.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  50.00

  25.00

  30(b)(i)

  up Presenting bankruptcy petition by debtor

  15.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  33.33

  30(b)(ii)

  Presenting bankruptcy petition by creditor

  45.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  50.00

  11.11

  30(d)

  On hearing of a public examination

  15.00

  As previously

  0.00

  As previously

  0.00

  20.00

  33.33

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what he estimates will be the total shortfall in fee income from civil business for(a) the current financial year and (b) the next financial year; and what the figure was for the previous financial year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The estimated shortfall in fee income from civil business for the current financial year is £71.1 million. We plan to meet our reduced income target in full next financial year. The shortfall in the financial year 1993–94 was £53.4 million.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the increases in the fees for civil business that he plans to introduce in the next 12 months.

  County Court fees—New fees

  New fee number

  Description

  1992 £

  1993£

  Percentage Rise 1992–93

  1994 £

  Percentage Rise 1993–94

  Before 1992 County Court Fees(Amendment) Order 1988. No new fees in 1992

  County Court fees (Amendment) Order 1992(Article 4) WEF 1 April 1993….FEE

  County Court Fees(Amendment) Order 1994 WEF 15 August 1994….FEE

  SUMMONS PRODUCTION CENTRE

  Fee 1(i)(b)

  On issuing a summons at the Summons Production Centre

  10p per £ or part minimum fee £10.00

  New

  maximum fee £60.00

  New

  SETTING DOWN FOR TRIAL

  Fee 2A

  (i) On a request for a date for trial

  50.00

  New

  (ii) On filing a time estimate

  50.00

  New

  (iii) On fixing a date

  50.00

  New

  PARKING

  4A(ii)

  Warrant to enforce parking penalty charge

  5.00

  New

  As 1993

  0.00

TRANSPORT

  Fennell Report
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress London Transport has made in implementing the recommendations of the Fennell report into the King's Cross underground fire.

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport has implemented, either as one-off or on-going actions, over 90 per cent. of the report's recommendations. I have therefore agreed that the latest progress report submitted by LT, a copy of which
  92
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We have no definite plans for increases yet, but we do propose to review the fee structure to introduce a daily hearing fee, and will need to revise the fee levels then.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the new fees for civil business that his Department has introduced in the last three years; the levels at which they are currently set; and the percentage rise in the cost of civil business that these new fees represent.

  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  During the last three years—1992, 1993 and 1994—new fees were introduced in the county court on 1 April 1993 and 15 August 1994. Details are given.

  has been placed in the Library of the House, should be the last one. Work on implementing the remaining recommendations is in hand and HM railway inspectorate will continue to monitor regularly the progress being made.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review fire safety arrangements in areas with(a) regional airports and (b) major chemical works; and if he will make a statement.
  93
  Mr. Norris
  The responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation, including the operational safety of airports rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. Airports operate under the terms of the Air Navigation Order 1989. Detailed guidance for aerodrome licence holders are given in CAA document CAP168— "Licensing of Aerodromes".

  There are no plans to revise the current regulations but the authority is always willing to consider amendments to its instructions for regional airports in order to ensure the safety of aircraft operations is maintained.

  The arrangements for areas with major chemical works is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Salvage Tugs
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps were taken by his Department to ensure that the crew and officers on the vessels Brodispas Moon and Sun chartered by his Department were proficient in the English language.

  Mr. Norris
  The emergency towing study team from the Coastguard agency visited and assessed tugs from each of the shortlisted companies prior to the award of the contract. During those visits, discussions were conducted with the vessels' officers and crews and their proficiency in the English language was assessed. Both tugs have British liaison masters.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what actions he took to secure British crewing of the salvage tug vessels charted by his Department prior to his decision to award the contract to Croation crews; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Tenders for the contract were invited from a wide range of salvage and towing companies against a tight specification. In accordance with Government policy, no limitation was placed on flag or crew nationality as such, subject to vessels meeting international safety requirements. Only two of the 34 vessels offered by tenderers for this contract were both UK crewed and registered. The contract was awarded on the basis of performance against the specification and value for money, to a company with good salvage back-up facilities. The selected tugs are managed in the UK by a UK company and have been employed in the North sea working for major oil companies for the last three years.

  Mr. Charles Kenndey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement outlining the circumstances which led to the coastguard tug, Brodospas, being stationed at Stornoway, with specific reference to its(a) sailing under a flag of convenience, (b) being registered in St. Vincent, West Indies and (c) carrying a Croatian crew; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 17 January 1995]: The Brodospas Sun is one of the two tugs currently under contract to the Coastguard agency and which are stationed at Stornoway and Dover for a trial period this winter. This meets Lord Donaldson's recommendation that there should be interim emergency towing arrangements this winter: the inquiry recommended that priority should be given to the Dover strait and north-west Scotland. Tenders were invited from a wide range of salvage and towing companies against a tight specification. In accordance with Government policy, no restriction was placed on flag or crew nationality as such, though the vessels proposed were expected to meet international safety requirements
  94
  such as the safety of life at sea convention. The contract was awarded on the basis of performance against specification and value for money.

  Aircraft Security
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute an inquiry into how British Airways security allowed a representative of ICL Technical Plastics to carry on a British Airways aircraft from Glasgow to London an electro-shock weapon.

  Mr. Norris
  From the scant details given, we are unable to trace this incident.

  Double-decker Buses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 414, what proposals are being considered by the European Commission which would prohibit the manufacture and use in the United Kingdom of double-decker buses; and what response has been made by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Train Cancellations and Delays
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains were cancelled; how many of those cancellations were attributable to(a) train breakdowns, (b) signal failures, (c) track/points failures, (d) leaves on the line, (e) staff shortage, (f) adverse weather conditions and (g) other factors; and what percentage of timetabled trains was cancelled in each of the Network SouthEast divisions in each four-week period during (i) 1992, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1994.

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the causes of train delays and cancellations that are(a) recorded and (b) not recorded in British Rail's four-weekly track record on punctuality and reliability under the terms of the citizens charter.

  Mr. Watts
  All train delays and cancellations are recorded in British Rail's track record figures apart from those caused by circumstances outside British Rail's control. Examples of the types of delays and cancellations included and excluded from the track record figures are as follows:

  a) Recorded delays and cancellations

  Delays and cancellations resulting from:

  —Derailments

  —Locomotive or train failures

  —Infrastructure failures

  —Engineering work

  —Accidents and incidents

  —Staff Shortages

  —Leaf Fall

  —Bad Weather

  95
  b) Non-recorded delays and cancellations

  Delays and cancellations resulting from:

  —Acts or threats of vandalism/terrorism

  —Suicides/Accidents to trespassers

  —Motor vehicles striking bridges or level crossings

  —Line closures at the request of police or emergency services

  —Gas leaks or fires in lineside buildings not caused by rail industry employees or agents

  —Fire or failure due to electrical failure or defect not caused by rail industry employees or agents

  MOT Certificates (Fraud)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new measures he plans to introduce to reduce fraud in the issue of MOT certificates for(a) cars and (b) other vehicles.

  Mr. Norris
  I have no such immediate plans.

  Vessel Registration
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) Spanish, (b) Dutch and (c) Danish-owned vessels registered as British there are in each of the major ports and by total.

  Mr. Norris
  The information available relates to ships of 100 gross registered tonnes and more. The figures are taken from Lloyd's Register of Shipping and are given in the table:

  Foreign parent owned vessels registered in British ports

  Port of Registry

  Vessels

  (a) Spanish

  Unknown

  1

  Brixham

  8

  Plymouth

  1

  Falmouth

  7

  Penzance

  2

  Milford Haven

  12

  Fleetwood

  1

  Ayr

  6

  Peterhead

  1

  Aberdeen

  6

  North Shields

  1

  Grimsby

  1

  Lowestoft

  3

  Total

  50

  (b) Dutch

  Southampton

  2

  Hull

  2

  London

  6

  Total

  10

  (c) Danish

  Newcastle

  1

  Lowestoft

  1

  London

  1

  Total

  3

  Source:

  Lloyd's Register of Shipping.

  M65-M6 link.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the daily 96
  increase in the number of vehicles leaving the M65 at Colne following the completion of the M65-M6 link.

  Mr. Watts
  We expect an extra 2,000 vehicles per day eastbound on the M65 to junction 7 when the link to M6 is completed. There are no forecast of how much of this additional traffic would continue along the motorway to leave the M65 at Colne.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of construction of the M65-M6 link.

  Mr. Watts
  Some £145 million, excluding VAT.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic accidents in each of the past five years leading to the death or serious injury of(a) pedestrians, (b) cyclists, (c) motor cyclists and (d) other motorists involved a heavy goods vehicle; and what proportion this represents of all road traffic accidents affecting each category.

  Mr Norris
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of accidents involving an HGV and a pedestrian, where the pedestrian was killed or seriously injured: GB 1989–93

  Accidents/percentage

  Vehicle type

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Pedestrians

  139

  128

  104

  107

  97

  Percentage of all pedestrian accidents

  0.24

  0.22

  0.20

  0.22

  0.21

  Number of accidents involving an HGV and a pedal cycle, where the cyclist was killed or seriously injured: GB 1989–93

  Accidents/percentage

  Vehicle type

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Pedal cyclists

  299

  229

  223

  218

  196

  Percentage of all pedal cycle accidents

  1.03

  0.86

  0.89

  0.87

  0.81

  Number of accidents involving an HGV and a TWMV1 where the TWMV user was killed or seriously injured: GB 1989–93

  Accidents/percentage

  Vehicle type

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  TWMV

  471

  381

  270

  252

  215

  Percentage of all TWMV accidents

  1.09

  0.96

  0.87

  0.92

  0.85

  1 Two wheeled motor vehicle—includes scooters and mopeds.

  Number of accidents involving an HGV and an other motor vehicle1, where the other vehicle user was killed or seriously injured: GB 1989–93

  Accidents/percentage

  Vehicle type

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Other Motor vehicle

  2,609

  2,381

  2,077

  1,940

  1,816

  Percentage of all OMV accidents

  0.99

  0.91

  0.86

  0.81

  0.77

  1 Exludes HGVs.

  97

  Number of accidents involving an HGV and an pedestrian, where the pedestrian, was killed or seriously injured: GB 1989–93

  Accidents/percentage

  Vehicle type

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Pedestrians

  139

  128

  104

  107

  97

  Per cent. of all pedestrian accidents

  0.24

  0.22

  0.20

  0.22

  0.21

  Number of accidents involving an HGV and a pedal cycle, where the cyclist was killed or seriously injured: GB 1989–93

  Accidents/percentage

  Vehicle type

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Pedal cyclists

  299

  229

  223

  218

  196

  Percentage. of all pedal cycle accidents

  1.03

  0.86

  0.89

  0.87

  0.81

  Number of accidents involving an HGV and a TWMV1, where the TWMV user was killed or seriously injured: GB 1989–93

  Accidents/percentage

  Vehicle type

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  TWMV

  471

  381

  270

  252

  215

  Percentage. of all TWMV accidents

  1.09

  0.96

  0.87

  0.92

  0.85

  1 Two wheeled motor vehicle—includes scooters and mopeds.

  Number of accidents involving an HGV and an other motor vehicle1, where the other vehicle user was killed or seriously injured: GB 1989–93

  Accidents/percentage

  Vehicle type

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Other Motor vehicle

  2609

  2381

  2077

  1940

  1816

  Percentage of all OMV accidents

  0.99

  0.91

  0.86

  0.81

  0.77

  1 Exludes HGVs.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all those passenger and freight train operating companies, or other bodies, which will be responsible for providing or using motive power after full implementation of his plans for rail privatisation, showing which of them will be responsible for(a) recruitment, (b) training, (c) certifying competence, (d) route learning and passing, (e) inspection and (f) disciplining of motive power staff.

  Mr. Watts
  The arrangements to be made by the successor companies to the British Railways Board cannot be listed before full implementation of the privatisation plans.

  The Railway (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 place a duty on employers to ensure that employees carrying out "safety critical work" are competent and fit
  98
  to carry out that work. The regulations also enable the Health and Safety Executive to approve specific assessments and standards to be achieved.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to carry out an assessment of the economic impact of the roads programme.

  Mr. Watts
  The economic impacts of schemes in the national roads programme are assessed.

  The national roads programme has consistently shown good economic rates of return.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has ratified annexe IV of the marine pollution convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We have not yet ratified annexe IV of the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships—MARPOL 73/78—but we are taking action to do so soon.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment the Government have made, following the case of Colonel Owen in Cirencester, of whether devaluation is a sufficient cause for blight to be registered against a home or business when a motorway is to be constructed; and what are the implications for such a course in relation to those constructing the Birmingham northern relief road.

  Mr. Watts
  The full implications of the decision by the Court of Appeal in the Lt. Col. Owen case are being reviewed. An announcement about future policy on discretionary purchase of property affected by motorway and trunk road schemes will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Highways Agency provided figures for traffic flows under the new 2011 AADT figures in relation to the Birmingham northern relief road; for what reasons they were not available earlier; and if the Government will provide compensation for objectors who may have employed professional help or been involved in expenditure of time and energy because of the delay in provision of the figures.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 24 January 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, when the Highways Agency provided figures for traffic flows under the new 2011 AADT figures in relation to the Birmingham Northern Relief Road; for what reasons they were not available earlier; and if the Government will provide compensation for objectors who may have employed professional help or been involved in expenditure of time and energy because of the delay in provision of the figures.
  The revised traffic flows result from updating assessments which have only recently been completed. They will provide the current inquiry with up to date information, but are unlikely to give rise to significantly changed effects. In consequence, there is likely to be little effect on the substance of objections already placed before the inquiry.

  Coventry Airport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received about noise and nuisance at Coventry airport over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Norris
  A total of 14.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of prosecuting all those involved with each flight of calves from Coventry airport during November and December 1994 for not having the required export permit under the Air Navigation Order 1989.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: An urgent inquiry is being conducted by my Department into the series of livestock flights by Air Algerie aircraft from Coventry airport in November and December last year. The inquiry will seek to determine whether there was any breach of the Air Navigation Order 1989. The question of further action will be decided once the outcome of the inquiry has been considered.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the costs of operating search and rescue services by helicopters using private contractors, relative to the cost of providing such services through the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Norris
  The three search and rescue helicopters under contract to the Coastguard agency cost approximately £7.5 million per year. Ministry of Defence helicopters which are provided primarily for military purposes are also made available for civil SAR. The Coastguard agency does not pay for civil use of Royal Air Force helicopters; it pays for the use of Royal Navy helicopters only out of working hours. The agency's estimate of using contracted helicopters to replace all the MOD SAR helicopters units is some £22.5 million. Those figures do not include the cost of SAR for incidents on land for which the Coastguard agency has no responsibilities.

  Parking Enforcement, London
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which companies have been given the task of yellow line parking enforcement in each London borough following the removal of this task from the Metropolitan police traffic warden service from July 1994 under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the borough councils concerned.

  Railway Station, Ebbsfleet
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date Eleanor Laing, a special adviser in his Department, was briefed by representatives of Decision Makers Ltd. on Ebbsfleet either formally or informally.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: I understand from Eleanor Laing, who was a special adviser
  100
  at the Department of Transport until 20 July 1994, that she was briefed formally on Ebbsfleet by Decision Makers on 29 July 1993 and 3 May 1994.

  Heather Bloom (Loss Inquiry)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations are under way to investigate the loss of the Heather Bloom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: An investigation is being carried out by the marine accident investigation branch; the only other known official investigation concerns an inquiry under section 61 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 into the cause of death.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 485, if he will list the year of introduction and the number of carriages currently in use on British Rail's Kent coastal services in each of the BR classes 415/1–5, 416/2 and 4, 416/3, 411, 413, 415/6–7 and any other mark I carriages; and when the last of each of these classes of carriages will have been replaced by new rolling stock.

  Mr. Watts
  The list of the carriages in use in December 1994 is as follows:

  Class

  Units (coaches)

  Date built from

  411

  106(424)

  1959

  414

  5(10)

  1951

  421

  21(84)

  1964

  423

  66(264)

  1967

  207

  5(10)

  1962

  The replacement of rolling stock, and the appropriate timing of an order, is a decision for BR. However, I understand that the last of the class 414 vehicles in the Kent Coast fleet will be withdrawn by 13 April 1995; the other classes of vehicles listed are considered by BR to have four years' serviceable life left, and in its view are likely to need replacing during 1999.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 485, if he will give an undertaking that all carriages currently in use on British Rail's Kent coastal services in the BR classes 411, 413, 415, and 416 will either be strengthened immediately or replaced by new rolling stock within the time scale recommended by the Hidden report into the Clapham Junction railway accident; and how many of these mark I carriages he expects will still be in service in April 1999 given current rolling stock investment plans.

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that by 13 April 1995 all the mark I vehicles in classes 413, 415 and 416 will have been withdrawn and replaced by Networker class 465 and 466 trains.

  Because class 411 vehicles are considered to have only four years' serviceable life left, it would not be reasonably practicable to carry out structural changes to these vehicles. I understand that they will need to be withdrawn from services during 1999.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide an assurance that in respect of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill neither Ruckholt road nor Dunedin road in Leyton will be used by construction traffic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  There will be a code of construction practice—a draft of which is being discussed with the affected local planning authorities—which will cover the use of the public highway and traffic management matters. In the meantime, I understand that Union Railways is shortly to meet the London borough of Waltham Forest to discuss the issue of road accesses in the Temple Mills area.

  Ministerial Visits, Newbury
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie),Official Report, columns 874–75, when making his visit to Newbury, what time he arrived and what time he left.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I arrived at Newbury at about 11.30 am and left at about 2.45 pm.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why he gave the hon. Member a holding answer on 10 January, but was able to answer on 12 January,Official Report, column 198.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Notification of this question was received while I was on an official visit to the Netherlands from 9 to 11 January inclusive.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what his reasons were for deciding to ask the Highways Agency to reconsider the options concerning the Newbury bypass; when he first made that decision; whom he told before his announcement of the decision; and when he first told anyone else he had made this decision;

  (2) when he instructed the Highways Agency to review the alternative options designed to relieve traffic congestion on the A34; and what form this instruction took.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I decided to look again at the plans for the Newbury bypass against the background of continuing public concern about the scheme and because I wanted to be sure that the proposed western bypass was the right solution. By instructions to the chief executive of the Highways Agency on the day of my public announcement, I asked him to review the options for relieving congestion in Newbury and to report back. I took the decision and shared the information only within Government shortly before making my announcement.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Newbury of 3 January asking him for a meeting to discuss the Newbury bypass.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have no record of receiving this letter.
  102
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which constituents of the hon. Member for Newbury he has met since his announcement in respect of the Newbury bypass to discuss his decision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Among those with whom I have discussed my decision on the A34 Newbury bypass, I believe four of them may be constituents of the hon. Member for Newbury.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which hon. Members have so far made representations to him concerning his announcement in respect of the Newbury bypass; and which he has met concerning those representations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have received representations about my announcement on the Newbury bypass from the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) and the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Havant (Mr. Willetts), for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and for Winchester (Mr. Malone). I have met none of these concerning his representations.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which(a) constituents of the hon. Member for Newbury and (b) other hon. Members he provided the information contained in his answer of 12 January, Official Report, column 198, before he provided the hon, Member with the answer.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have not kept a record of conversations where I may have discussed details about who accompanied me on my visit to Newbury.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the absenteeism rate for the Natural Resources Institute in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Natural Resources Institute under its chief executive, Mr. Anthony Beattie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Anthony Beattie to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 24 January 1995:
  Mr. Baldry has asked me to reply to your question about the absenteeism rates for the Natural Resources Institute in the years since 1991.
  The figures for sick leave are being collated. I will write again when they are available.

  Indian Sub-continent (Aid)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much overseas aid has been given to(a) Pakistan, (b) India and (c) Bangladesh in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  The gross United Kingdom bilateral aid given to Pakistan, India and Bangladesh since 1979 is given in the tables:
  103

  United Kingdom bilateral gross public expenditure to Bangladesh, India and Pakistan 1979–1993–94 (£000s)

  Bangladesh

  India

  Pakistan

  1979

  33,632

  121,623

  21,797

  1980

  66,190

  86,080

  22,245

  1981

  33,383

  168,550

  24,613

  1982

  23,537

  54,204

  18,738

  1983

  24,728

  127.600

  16,612

  1984

  35,656

  146,537

  18,016

  1985

  41,173

  106,466

  16,569

  1986

  38,321

  143,481

  20,715

  1987

  31,634

  78,464

  22,475

  1987–88

  31,265

  99,097

  22,599

  1988–89

  48,161

  84,647

  28,183

  1989–90

  55,827

  87,652

  34,894

  1990–91

  51,602

  100,746

  45,467

  1991–92

  59,231

  136,386

  41,823

  1992–93

  65,717

  115,370

  38,483

  1993–94

  56,258

  103,144

  48,202

  Note:

  British Aid Statistics was published by financial year from 1992.

  Britain also provides aid to these countries through multilateral agencies.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the agreements for the provision of British aid that he signed with the Pakistani Government during his recent visit to Pakistan.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 9 January, in Islamabad, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary exchanged letters in respect of two new aid projects in Pakistan. These were:(i) a contribution of £3.6 million over five years to the second phase of the Dir district development project, managed by the United Nations Drug Control Programme. The project is designed to improve basic infrastructure and to provide alternative sources of income for people in the main opium poppy growing area of the North West Frontier Province in parallel with enforcement action by the Pakistan authorities.
  (ii) a contribution of £12 million over three years in support of the Government of Pakistan's social action programme, which the World bank and other donors are also supporting. The programme seeks to improve primary education, health and reproductive health through a combination of sectoral policy reform and incremental budgetary support.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there is any threat by the Rwandan Government to the continued presence of international non-governmental organisations in Rwanda; and what representations he has been making.

  Mr. Baldry
  In order to avoid duplication of effort, and improve co-ordination, the Government of Rwanda have introduced a policy of NGO registration, but a number of NGOs have failed to meet the registration deadline of 9 January. The registration policy has not led to NGO expulsions. We will continue to monitor the situation.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the costs of compliance 104
  in meeting water standards in upland and lowland England and Wales (a) in total and (b) by water authority in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, Ofwat has published information which shows that the compliance programme for drinking water resulted in expenditure in England and Wales of £620.5 million in 1991–92, £733.3 million in 1992–93, and £737.1 million in 1993–94.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures have been implemented with regard to the conservation and reclamation of refrigerants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The EC Environment Council adopted in December a new EC regulation on ozone-depleting substances. This requires refrigerants contained in commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment and air conditioning equipment to be recovered if practicable for recycling, reclamation or destruction during service and maintenance of the equipment as well as before equipment dismantling or disposal. It also requires that all precautionary measures practicable are taken to prevent the leakage of ozone-depleting refrigerant from this equipment. This regulation is directly applicable in UK law.

  In 1994 the refrigerant users group was set up, with Government support, by a number of refrigerant users and suppliers. The RUG was the first refrigerant bank in Europe. Its main aim is to ensure that the increasingly scarce supply of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants is conserved through recovery and efficient reuse within the UK.

  Capping Limits
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list for each local authority for which he is responsible(a) the change in the capping limit in cash terms between 1993–94 and 1994–95, (b) this change in cash terms after the notional cost of pay increases at the current rate of inflation have been taken into account and (c) this change in cash terms after notional increases in pay and price increases at the current rate of inflation have been taken into account;

  (2) what is the cash change and percentage change in the capping limit of each local authority for which he is responsible for 1994–95 compared to 1993–94; and if he will also express the change as a figure per head of population.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have arranged for a table showing the following for each local authority in England to be placed in the Library of the House:

  (i) the cash change between the 1993–94 cap limit and the 1994–95 cap limit.

  (ii) the cash change between the 1993–94 cap limit (in 1994–95 prices) and the 1994–95 cap limit.

  (iii) the percentage change between the 1993–94 cap limit and the 1994–95 cap limit.

  (iv) the change per head of population between the 1993–94 cap limit and the 1994–95 cap limit.

  Information on cap limits after notional costs of pay increases at the current rate of inflation have been taken into account is not available.

  Pollution
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of carbon dioxide emissions for each year since 1980; and what efforts his Department has implemented to reduce these levels.

  Mr. Atkins
  Annual United Kingdom emissions of carbon dioxide since 1980 are as follows:

  Estimated annual United Kingdom emissions for carbon dioxide, expressed in terms of weight of carbon (million tonnes of carbon)

  Year

  Amount

  1980

  164

  1981

  157

  1982

  154

  1983

  152

  1984

  148

  1985

  154

  1986

  158

  1987

  159

  1988

  159

  1989

  156

  1990

  158

  1991

  159

  1992

  155

  1993

  1152

  1latest provisional estimate.

  In fulfilment of our commitment under the climate change convention, the UK climate change programme, published in January 1994, sets out in full the measures aimed at returning emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his most recent figures for annual CO2 emissions for the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of their consistency with the target set in "Climate Change: The UK Programme".

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my oral answer of Wednesday 18 January 1995,Official Report, column 706, to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) earlier today.

  London Boroughs Grants Committee
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money the London Boroughs Grants Committee has(a) received from the London borough of Barnet and (b) given to organisations based in Barnet each year since its inception.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The London Boroughs Grants Committee distributes grants to voluntary organisations in Greater London which either have a London-wide remit or cover a significant number of London boroughs. There is no direct relationship between contributions from the amounts awarded to voluntary organisations in particular boroughs. The London boroughs grants unit has supplied the following information:

  The London borough of Barnet's contribution to the committee's annual expenditure

  Year

  Contribution £

  1986–87

  1,190,700

  1987–88

  1,179,250

  1988–89

  1,240,515

  106

  The London borough of Barnet's contribution to the committee's annual expenditure

  Year

  Contribution £

  1989–90

  1,246,000

  1990–91

  1,300,500

  1991–92

  1,265,300

  1992–93

  1,307,000

  1993–94

  1,255,700

  1994–95

  1,255,700

  Amounts awarded to voluntary organisations based in the London borough of Barnet

  Year

  Amount £

  1986–87

  n/a

  1987–88

  62,905

  1988–89

  98,712

  1989–90

  113,688

  1990–91

  92,228

  1991–92

  114,298

  1992–93

  103,340

  1993–94

  153,871

  1994–95

  165,327

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the London Boroughs Grants Committee has(a) received from each London borough and (b) paid to organisations based in each London borough during the last three years.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There is no direct relationship between contributions from, and amounts awarded to, voluntary organisations in particular boroughs. The London boroughs grants unit has supplied the following information:

  (a) Borough contributions received

  £ thousands

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Barking and Dagenham

  622.1

  613.5

  607.8

  Barnet

  1,307.3

  1,255.7

  1,255.7

  Bexley

  928.9

  920.3

  911.7

  Brent

  1,078.0

  1,040.7

  1,026.35

  Bromley

  1,267.2

  1,235.6

  1,218.45

  Camden

  782.7

  748.3

  751.15

  City of London

  17.2

  17.2

  17.2

  Croydon

  1,347.5

  1,336.0

  1,330.25

  Ealing

  1,238.5

  1,181.2

  1,178.3

  Enfield

  1,115.2

  1,100.9

  1,089.45

  Greenwich

  911.7

  894.5

  891.6

  Hackney

  808.5

  774.1

  788.4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  630.7

  639.3

  647.95

  Haringey

  814.2

  871.5

  877.3

  Harrow

  811.3

  854.3

  851.45

  Havering

  977.6

  974.8

  960.4

  Hillingdon

  994.8

  992.0

  986.2

  Hounslow

  831.4

  874.4

  857.2

  Islington

  731.1

  713.9

  725.35

  Kensington and Chelsea

  553.3

  596.3

  610.65

  Kingston

  587.7

  576.3

  573.4

  Lambeth

  980.5

  1,052.1

  1,075.1

  Lewisham

  954.7

  994.8

  994.8

  Merton

  696.7

  719.6

  716.75

  Newham

  880.1

  914.6

  928.9

  Redbridge

  992.0

  969.0

  963.3

  Richmond

  705.3

  688.1

  685.2

  Southwark

  951.8

  937.5

  943.2

  Sutton

  708.1

  716.7

  713.85

  Tower Hamlets

  705.3

  696.7

  699.55

  Waltham Forest

  900.2

  911.7

  905.95

  107

  (a) Borough contributions received

  £ thousands

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Wandsworth

  1,080.8

  1,089.4

  1,103.75

  Westminster

  756.9

  768.3

  782.7

  Greater London Totals

  28,669.3

  28,669.3

  28,669.3

  (b) Amounts paid to or approved for voluntary organisations by borough base.

  £ thousands

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Barking and Dagenham

  44.7

  44.6

  47.5

  Barnet

  103.3

  153.9

  163.3

  Bexley

  63.8

  65.7

  63)7

  Brent

  442.3

  341.9

  355.3

  Bromley

  68.2

  71.5

  76.4

  Camden

  5,035.3

  4,409.3

  4,210.4

  City of London

  156.1

  91.3

  81.5

  Croydon

  158.9

  198.6

  199.9

  Ealing

  258.1

  412.5

  436.6

  Enfield

  132.4

  146.6

  144.4

  Greenwich

  488.3

  479.7

  407.0

  Hackney

  1,491.2

  1,479.5

  1,519.7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  811.5

  979.3

  993.4

  Haringey

  880.3

  655.8

  699.0

  Harrow

  23.6

  1.2

  —

  Havering

  47.7

  50.5

  56.4

  Hillingdon

  172.1

  177.1

  161.5

  Hounslow

  246.4

  255.7

  268.0

  Islington

  3,391.9

  4,703.2

  4,728.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,399.5

  1,302.0

  1,296.0

  Kingston

  69.8

  95.3

  109.8

  Lambeth

  2,248.9

  2,257.6

  2,260.3

  Lewisham

  465.8

  461.9

  487.7

  Merton

  251.7

  265.3

  259.2

  Newham

  368.2

  386.7

  413.4

  Redbridge

  86.3

  60.1

  67.1

  Richmond

  79.0

  76.8

  95.0

  Southwark

  2,314.8

  2,558.1

  2,425.2

  Sutton

  104.8

  75.2

  72.7

  Tower Hamlets

  1,961.7

  1,934.7

  1,832.9

  Waltham Forest

  73.1

  181.4

  148.9

  Wandsworth

  322.4

  327.3

  367.2

  Westminster

  3,128.4

  2,939.4

  3,055.7

  Outside London

  61.4

  70.2

  70.4

  Totals

  26,952.5

  27,709.9

  27,574.3

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation requiring the provision of(a) adequate heating systems and (b) insulation in domestic buildings.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Part L of the Building Regulations 1991 in England and Wales requires reasonable provision, including insulation and heating controls, to be made for the conservation of fuel and power in new buildings and extensions to existing ones. Revised regulations which come into force on 1 July this year strengthen the provisions of part L and in addition require all new and converted dwellings to be provided with an energy rating based on the standard assessment procedure. The Boiler Efficiency Regulations 1993 require that, when they are placed on the market, gas and oil-fired boilers achieve specified levels of efficiency, These regulations came into force on 1 January last year.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current combined heat 108
  and power capacity in the United Kingdom; and what is his target for 2000.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has set a target of 5,000 MW installed combined heat and power capacity by the year 2000. It is estimated that approximately 3,000 MW CHP is now in operation in the United Kingdom on around 1,100 sites.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made toward reaching his target for increased efficiency of domestic appliances by 2000; and what assessment he has made as to the consistency of such progress with reaching that target.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government have not set specific targets to improve the energy efficiency of domestic appliances but are committed to achieve overall carbon dioxide targets by a variety of approaches including improving appliances. Joint voluntary initiatives with industry, the Energy Saving Trust and my Department's energy efficiency office have resulted in good progress in some sectors and I believe they can be emulated elsewhere. The Government are presently engaged in studies to assess the impact of energy labelling and other policies in each sector.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many grants have been made under the home energy efficiency scheme and of what average value in each year since its formation by local authority area.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. The total numbers of grants under the home energy efficiency scheme in Great Britain and their average values, for each financial year since the scheme began, are as follows:

  £

  1990–91 (from January 1)

  7,582

  154

  1991–92

  167,849

  137

  1992–93

  204,130

  150

  1993–94

  270,148

  153

  1994–95 (until December 31)

  330,751

  168

  Before 9 December 1993, a contribution from the householder, to a maximum of £16, was required in each case. Since then 100 per cent. grants have been available.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he carried out into the effectiveness of the advertising campaigns he has run in order to encourage greater energy efficiency in the home.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Two advertising campaigns have been run by my Department to promote energy efficiency in the home. The first of these campaigns, "Helping the Earth Begins at Home", now completed, was monitored through a series of interview surveys to track changes in public knowledge, attitudes and energy saving behaviour, over the course of the campaign. The second campaign. "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth", is currently under way and is subject to a similar programme of monitoring research.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in tightening building regulations since the publishing of "Climate Change: The UK Programme"; what assessment
  109
  he has made as to achieving the energy-saving target set out in the document; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Revised building regulations for the conservation of fuel and power were laid before Parliament last year. They come into force on 1 July. It is estimated that the improved provisions will save about 250,000 tonnes of carbon per year by the turn of the century, with significantly greater savings in the longer term.

  Uranium
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the source of the uranium recently found in Northamptonshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The scrap metal containing uranium found on land at Poplar farm, Caldecott, Northamptonshire, is of unknown origin. Investigations are continuing to trace the source of the material.

  Greenpeace
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has that the misuse of equipment, as referred to in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's reply to Greenpeace's complaint regarding a perceived breach of paragraph 2 of the Drigg authorisation, was the sole cause of the high-surface activity levels recorded by the Greenpeace investigators.

  Mr. Atkins
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution sought the advice of the National Radiological Protection Board regarding the environmental monitoring carried out by Greenpeace and depicted in its video of the Drigg site. The NRPB advised that an item which fully complies with the requirements of the Drigg disposal authorisation could give rise to the results determined by Greenpeace. This is because the instrument used by Greenpeace was not appropriate for use in the mixed radiation fields associated with the low-level wastes disposed of at Drigg. It is possible that there was no surface contamination present at all on the items monitored, and that the spurious surface contamination really was due to radiation emissions from radioactive material contained within the disposed items.

  HMIP thoroughly investigated Greenpeace's complaint and concluded that there had been no breach of the Drigg site authorisation. A reply to this effect was sent by HMIP to Greenpeace on 16 December 1994.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what attempt has been made to locate and monitor the package reported to him by Greenpeace as containing intermediate-level waste in its complaint regarding arrangements for the disposal of low-level waste at Drigg.

  Mr. Atkins
  Greenpeace entered Drigg illegally, in July 1994, but did not bring its complaint to the attention of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution until October 1994. In the intervening period, the item in question has been completely covered by material disposed of in the trench. Direct monitoring of the item would have been possible if Greenpeace had bothered to notify HMIP immediately of its concerns. An item, which from the Greenpeace video and report could have been mistaken for a glovebox that might have been thought to contain intermediate-level waste, has been identified from photographs provided by British Nuclear Fuels plc of the 110
  tipping face at about the same time that Greenpeace entered Drigg. The disposal records and history of the item indicate that the disposal was carried out in full compliance with the requirements of the Drigg authorisation.

  Sprinkler Systems
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to make the introduction of a sprinkler system a mandatory requirement in single-storey buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The provision of sprinklers in new buildings is a matter for building regulations. Whether such sprinklers should be required in large single storey buildings is under consideration at present and I hope to be able to make a statement within a few months.

  Fire Engineers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to require the compulsory registration of qualified fire engineers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have no plans at present to require the compulsory registration of qualified fire engineers but will keep the situation under review.

  Civil Airports
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers are available to local authorities to control noise and nuisance at civil airports.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local authorities' powers to control noise at civil airports are those available under planning legislation, through which conditions may be attached, if appropriate, to planning permission. In addition, at all but the smallest airports, operators are required to consult nearby local authorities about matters concerning management and administration which may have a bearing on noise and nuisance.

  Leasehold
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consideration he has given to the funding of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory scheme beyond its initial two years; and if he will make a statement on the expected longer-term demand for the scheme and the necessary resources to ensure that it is able to respond appropriately;

  (2) what proposals he has for further publicity to increase leaseholders' awareness of their rights under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the interim report of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have carefully studied the interim report of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service and taken note of its conclusions about the way the new rights for leasehold enfranchisement and lease extension introduced by the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 have been exercised.

  I have been impressed with the start that the service has made and consequently I am able to announce that the

  111
  Department has decided to make available, from its special grants programme, a grant of £78,711 to LEAS for 1995–96. This is an increase of 8 per cent. on the initial grant given to the service in 1994–95. The primary reason for the increase is to allow the service to increase its programme of publicity designed to make leaseholders and freeholders more aware of the new rights to enfranchisement and lease extension. At the same time, the Department will continue to make its booklets on enfranchisement freely available on demand. So far, over 145,000 copies have been issued.

  The intention has been to provide funds from the SGP to the service over a three-year period. This means that, subject to a review of the service's performance, planned for later this year, further funding will be made available to the service in 1996–97.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of funding for the Energy Saving Trust which is raised from gas customers; and what this level is expected to be in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The finances of the Energy Saving Trust are properly a matter for the trust, which is an independent company. However, I understand that in the financial year 1994–95 the gas industry will pay the trust a total of £2.5 million, raised from gas customers by the so-called "E-factor" levy. Figures for future years are not available, as the Director General of Gas Supply has yet to reach a decision on proposals to finance, from the E-factor, trust schemes which were submitted to her by British Gas in July 1994.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to bring forward proposals to address the problems of noise pollution and noise nuisance.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local authorities have a range of powers to prevent or abate noise nuisance from premises and from vehicles, machinery and equipment in the street. An inter-departmental working party was set up in October last year to review the current controls over neighbour noise and to investigate options for swifter remedies. The working party expects to complete its review shortly and I intend to consult fully on its conclusions and recommendations.

  West Yorkshire Fire Service
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had in respect of the West Yorkshire fire service's budget deficit for 1995–96.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have received two written representations from the West Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority about the proposed local government finance settlement 1995–96. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration met a delegation from the authority on 10 January 1995. We will be considering these representations, together with those we have received from other authorities, in finalising the settlement for 1995–96.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the consultants, (b) the tasks for which they were employed and (c) the payments made to them from the budget of his Department in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Erin Void, Derbyshire
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he can report on the application by Derbyshire county council to his minerals division for funding under the Moynihan agreement in relation to the reclamation of the Erin void at Poolsbrook, Staveley, Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Moynihan agreement relates to deep mines in England started before 1 July 1948 which closed within four years commencing 1 April 1990. Under the agreement, British Coal undertook responsibility for the restoration of those closed colliery sites to a soft end use. An application for funding by my Department would not be appropriate nor has such an application been received.

  However, Derbyshire county council has made representations to my Department about a dispute with British Coal as to whether the Erin void falls within the terms of the agreement. My understanding is that the Erin void is a former opencast coal site which is already subject to conditions requiring its infilling and restoration to a condition suitable for agriculture. As such, it would not appear to fall within the agreement.

  Green Belts
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will publish revised planning policy guidance on green belts in England.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have today published a revision of planning policy guidance note 2 on "Green Belts". This reaffirms our commitment to green belt policy, and makes limited changes to strengthen it to meet the challenges of the next century.

  Following research which we published in 1993, we issued a draft revision of PPG2 for public consultation last year. We are grateful to the almost 700 organisations and individuals who responded. We have carefully considered their views in finalising the document, and made adjustments to take account of views expressed. The thrust of the revised PPG2 is similar to the consultation draft, which was broadly welcomed.

  Compared with the present published PPG2, the, revision incorporates six main amendments, within a framework of continuity.

  (1) It reaffirms the Government's commitment to green belt policy, stresses the fundamental aim of preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and points out that green belts can assist in moving towards more sustainable patterns of urban development.

  (2) It sets out positive objectives for the use of land in green belts, so as to secure greater benefits for the environment without compromising the overall restrictive approach.

  (3) It further encourages proper consideration of the long-term direction of development, through the development plan system, to ensure long-term protection of green belts.

  113

  (4) It removes the former concession for new building in the green belt by institutions, so that they are subject to the same controls as other developers.

  (5) It enables local planning authorities to make realistic provision in their development plans for the future of existing major developed sites in the green belt, such as pre-war factories and power stations, in such a way as to secure environmental benefits.

  (6) It introduces a new policy on the re-use of buildings, which includes specific safeguards for the green belt.

  These modifications will reinforce the position of green belts as a cornerstone of the town and country planning system in England as we enter the 21st century.

  A summary of responses to the consultation exercise has been deposited in the Libraries of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Department of the Environment. Copies of all the responses have been placed in the DOE library.

  Buying Agency
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets he has set the Buying Agency for 1995.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To support the objectives set out in the agency's corporate plan 1995–1997, and business plan 1995, we have set financial, productivity, customer satisfaction, environmental, and internal quality targets.

  The financial targets are:

  —to increase sales by 10 per cent. or to £157 million whichever is the higher,

  —to achieve an overall surplus after interest of 1.5 per cent. on total sale.

  114
  The productivity targets are:

  —to increase sales/staff ratio from £1.27 million per employee projected for 1994 to £1.42 million in 1995,

  —to reduce the cost of £ of sales from 2.9p projected in 1994 to 2.6p in 1995.

  The customer satisfaction targets are:

  —to ensure 90 per cent. of direct orders are delivered by the due date,

  — to resolve 90 per cent. of complaints within one month, the balance within three months.

  The environmental target is:

  —to ensure that all new or revised catalogue entries contain information relating to the environmental impact of the product and, where appropriate, its production and disposal.

  These targets require the agency to build on improvements in sales, efficiency, and customer service, made in 1994.

  In addition, the agency is proposing new pay and grading arrangements and management delayering, and other measures in line with the White Paper "The Civil Service—Continuity and Change".

  Pennine Bridleway
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decision on the proposed Pennine bridleway.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following further consultations with the local authorities through whose areas the route passes, the Secretary of State has today signified that he has decided to approve the Countryside Commission's report in respect of the Pennine bridleway, with the modifications to the route as submitted by the commission.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps are open to areas where television reception is(a) poor and (b) non-existent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The first step is for such communities to notify the engineering department of the BBC or Independent Television Commission so that these bodies are aware of the situation. They jointly build about 25 new television relay transmitters each year. It is also open to communities to install their own television relay system at their own expense under the self-help television system.

  Buckingham Palace
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the cost of repairing the damage to the gates of Buckingham palace; what insurance covers the gates; and who will incur the bill for repair.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Investigations are taking place to assess the extent of the damage to the gates of Buckingham palace. Until these are completed, it is not possible to estimate the cost of the repairs. In line with general Government policy, the gates of Buckingham palace were not insured. It is hoped that the car driver's insurance company will meet the cost of the repairs. If not, the repairs will be funded from the royal household's current grant in aid provision.

  National Jazz Centre
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representation his Department has received concerning the creation of a national jazz centre.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department has received no such representations.

  Double Funding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to report on the allegations of double-funding of money from the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority S4C, and the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts via Pengwyn Pinc cyf to the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have received a report from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts on the circumstances of an award to the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Council under the business sponsorship incentive scheme. My consideration of that report will be informed by the findings of an internal inquiry which is currently being undertaken by S4C.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Dining Room
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee when the stools for waiters and waitresses by their stations were first introduced into the Members' Dining Room; how many complaints there have been about their use; what considerations underlay their 116
  removal before Christmas; and what proposals there are to return them.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: This is a matter for the Director of Catering Services. I have asked her to write to the hon. Member.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Card Systems
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider setting up a committee to consider the developing technology of card systems and the potential demand for such systems from Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Cabinet Committee GEN34, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, already exists to consider the developing technology of card systems and the potential demand for such systems from Government Departments.

  Recruitment
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what opportunities exist in the civil service for the recruitment of individuals with outside experience.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Many, varied and at all levels.

  Worldwide Web Server
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to present to the House during the current Session of Parliament a report on the progress and future plans for development of the government worldwide web server "open.gov.UK".

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  I have asked CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems, to prepare a report on the progress and future plans for development of the government worldwide web server "open.gov.UK", in three months' time, and quarterly thereafter. This report will be placed in the Library of the House, and it will, of course, be available over the Internet via the CCTA Government information service.

  The CCTA Government information service was launched in November 1994 as a pilot service to make Government information available over the Internet, and to provide a means for Departments to develop expertise in this sector. It has proved a tremendous success. Over 14 Departments and agencies have already made information available, and most others have plans to do so. On average, there are over 35,000 requests for information each week. This month we have added two additional pilot services, "G-NET" and "GMAIL", and further improvements are planned for the coming months.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants are currently(a) registered disabled and (b) disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document "Focus on Ability".

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  On 1 July 1994, the number of registered disabled people in the non-industrial civil
  117
  service was 8,142, representing 1.67 per cent. of the total. Figures for the number and proportion of all disabled people employed in the civil service are not available, although surveys conducted by some individual Departments suggest that there may be at least as many non-registered disabled people in the civil service as there are registered.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

  The Prime Minister
  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.

  Hugh Colver
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister during which years Mr. Hugh Colver was employed by Her Majesty's Government in(a) the Ministry of Defence, (b) other Departments and (c) No. 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Hugh Colver was employed as an information officer in the Ministry of Defence from December 1975 to July 1981 and again from September 1985 to June 1987 as deputy chief of public relations and from then until July 1992 as chief information officer. He was a press officer at: No. 10 from July 1981 to July 1982; at the Department of Education from July 1982 to January 1984; and at the Metropolitan police from January 1984 to September 1985. He is no longer employed by a Government Department.

  Card Systems
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider setting up a committee to consider the developing technology of card systems, and the potential demand for such systems from Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science today.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers and former Ministers have given evidence to the Scott inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers and former Ministers who the Government are aware have given evidence to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry are:

  Ministers who have given written and oral evidence:

  In addition to myself,

  The Right hon. Kenneth Clarke QC

  The Right hon. Michael Heseltine RD

  The Right hon. Douglas Hurd CH

  The Right hon. Peter Lilley

  The Right hon. Sir Nicholas Lyell QC

  118

  The Right hon. Sir Patrick Mayhew QC

  The Right hon. Malcolm Rifkind QC

  The Right hon. the hon. William Waldergrave

  Former Ministers who have given written and oral evidence:

  The Right hon. Kenneth Baker CH

  The Right hon. Sir Adam Butler

  The Right hon. Paul Channon

  The Right hon. Alan Clark

  The Right hon. Tristan Garel-Jones

  The Right hon. The Lord Howe QC

  The Right hon. Sir Richard Luce

  The Right hon. David Mellor QC

  The Right hon. Timothy Renton

  The Right hon. The Baroness Thatcher OM FRS

  The Right hon. Lord Trefgarne

  Ministers who have given written evidence only:

  The Right hon. Jonathan Aitken

  The Right hon. Douglas Hogg QC

  Former Ministers who have given written evidence only:

  The Lord Glenarthur

  The Right hon. the hon. Sir Archie Hamilton

  Neil Hamilton

  The Right hon. the hon. Sir Timothy Sainsbury

  Science Promotion
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken since 1993 to promote science and its applications.

  The Prime Minister
  In May 1993, we published the White Paper "Realising our Potential"—Cm 2550—which sets out the Government's policy for science, engineering and technology. It announced a number of new initiatives such as technology foresight and the restructuring of the research councils to carry forward the Governments strategy. That strategy is to improve the nation's competitiveness and quality of life by maintaining the excellence of science, engineering and technology in the United Kingdom.

  In a speech to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee in February 1994, I underlined the importance of the White Paper and my commitment to the policy it sets out.

  The White Paper recognised the important benefits of international collaboration. In September I visited South Africa and met President Mandela. I exchanged letters of intent with him, committing the United Kingdom and South Africa to continuing discussions with a view to concluding in due course a bilateral science, engineering and technology agreement.

  In September I also met members of the Council for Science and Technology which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster chairs on my behalf. We discussed the vital contribution of science, engineering and technology to the nation's prosperity and quality of life. I emphasised our determination to create a culture of partnership, where excellence in science and the development of new applications go hand in hand.

  Women Workers
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Prime Minister what practical measures he has introduced to help(a) employers in the private sector and (b) employers in the public sector to increase the quality and quantity of

  119
  women's participation in the work force, since the launch of Opportunity 2000 in 1991.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  Opportunity 2000 is an employer-led campaign which the Government have supported since its launch in 1991.

  The Employment Department helps private and public sector employers increase the quality and quantity of women's employment by promoting a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market. Details of the ED's initiatives introduced since the launch of Opportunity 2000 are contained in the ED's annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library, and include, the out-of-school child care grant, new horizons for women, and fair play for women.

TREASURY

  Corporate Assets (Individual Investments)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an estimate of the proportion of corporate assets which represent investments financed by individual investment through unit trusts life, endowment insurance and pension contributions.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is not possible to attribute particular corporate assets to particular sources of funds. However, it can be estimated that about 45 per cent. of company securities are financed by personal sector investments in unit and life assurance and pension funds.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Cabinet Office—OPSS

  "Red Book"

  892

  977

  1,044

  1,108

  1,241

  1,320

  at 1993 prices

  1,097

  1,113

  1,119

  1,142

  1,241

  1,294

  Real increases

  1

  16

  6

  23

  99

  53

  Cabinet Office—other, etc.

  "Red Book"

  274

  313

  363

  1,123

  1,233

  1,200

  at 1993 prices

  337

  357

  389

  1,157

  1,233

  1,176

  Real increases

  1

  20

  32

  768

  76

  -57

  Direct funding at 1993 prices

  House of Commons

  96

  98

  105

  156

  163

  175

  House of Lords

  18

  19

  20

  33

  33

  41

  Notes:

  (a)This information is not available prior to 1989–90 in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (b)"other spending" covers expenditure by the Privy Council Office, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Houses of Parliament and the National Audit Office.

  (c)The increases in OPSS spending over the period reflect the priority accorded by the Government to the science programme of basic and strategic research, and includes from 1992–93 to 1994–95 the transfer of funding from the higher education funding councils to the research councils in respect of certain research projects.

  (d)Most of the increase in Cabinet Office—other, etc. relates to the setting up in 1994–95 of the security and intelligence services vote, For which comparable historic figures are available only back to 1992–93. Other increases relate principally to capital works and IT projects both in the Cabinet Office and both Houses of Parliament.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total cost of mortgage tax relief in Scotland in each year since 1982–83; what is the estimated cost for 1994–95 and 1995–96; and what would have been the costs in 1994–95 and 1995–96 if relief had been available at 25 per cent. for both years.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Estimates for the years in question are given in the table.
  120
  This estimate is based on information which can be found in tables 5.2D and 9.1E, G, H, I and J of the January edition of "Financial Statistics".

  International Monetary Fund
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current policy towards Russia within the IMF.

  Mr Nelson
  Discussions are continuing on an IMF standby agreement linked to a strong programme of economic reform. I look forward to a successful outcome.

  Government Spending
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) actual and (b) budgeted Cabinet Office and other spending, as classified in the 1995–96 Red Book, in each year from 1979 to 1994, at 1993 prices; what were the reasons for any material increase in real expenditures in this area; and what was the estimated annual actual expenditure on (a) direct funding to the Cabinet Office, (b) direct funding to the House of Commons and (c) direct funding of the House of Lords for each year from 1979 to 1994 at 1993 prices.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to provide budget figures on the same basis as the actuals which are shown in the 1995–96 Red Book. Expenditure by the Cabinet Office and other spending as classified in the 1995–96 Red Book were as follows:

  Cost of mortgage interest relief in Scotland

  £ million

  1982–83

  140

  1983–84

  190

  1984–85

  260

  1985–86

  350

  1986–87

  300

  1987–88

  310

  1988–89

  370

  1989–90

  470

  121

  Cost of mortgage interest relief in Scotland

  £ million

  1990–91

  530

  1991–92

  420

  1992–93

  340

  1993–94

  280

  1994–951

  2300

  1995–961

  3240

  1Assumes, by convention, no changes from current interest rates.

  2Relief at 20 per cent.

  3Relief at 15 per cent.

  The estimates for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are approximate and are based on the regional distribution of mortgages shown by the 1993 family expenditure survey applied to the United Kingdom total estimates for these years.

  The corresponding costs in 1994–95 and 1995–96 for relief at 25 per cent. are estimated to be £380 million and £410 million respectively.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcom Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the total departmental expenditures and planned expenditure on trade and industry by his Department and its predecessors for each year from 1979 to 1998 in 1993 prices; showing also expenditures on research and development and expenditure data for industrial support.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Total expenditure figures in cash terms for the DTI and its predecessors from 1979–80 are available as follows:"The Government's Expenditure Plans", published in January of each year by Her Majesty's Treasury for the period to 1990–91:
  Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Energy Departmental Reports, published in February/March of each year, for the period from 1991–92 to 1992–93:
  Department of Trade and Industry Departmental Reports published from 1993–94 onwards which reflect the merger in 1992 with the former Department of Energy.

  Figures for 1993–94 and forward year plans to 1997–98 will be included in the next edition of the Department of Trade and Industry's departmental report, due to be published in late February or early March this year.

  These publications also include details of spending on industrial support. Details of spending on research and development, also in cash terms, are provided in the "Annual Review of Government-funded R and D" published each year from 1983 to 1992 and subsequently replaced by the annual "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology". Plans for 1997–98 are not yet available, but will be included in the 1995 edition, due to be published in early summer 1995.

  The cash terms figures may be adjusted to reflect 1993–94 prices by means of the GDP deflators which are shown in table 6A.1 on page 131 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96". Copies of documents referred to above which have already been published are available in the Library of the House. The remainder will be placed in the Library upon publication.

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which countries were listed as likely diversionary routes for the avoidance of sanctions against Iraq in the letter from his Department to various British exporting companies dated September 1990; and why those countries were selected for mention.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The letter sent to a large number of British companies in September 1990 concerning UN sanctions against Iraq did not include a list of countries.

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by the Department or agency.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information in respect of civil servants in my Department and its agencies for the calendar year 1994 is as follows:

  Description and cost

  Title

  Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme

  Objectives

  To help senior managers to develop their strategic leadership skills. Allowing them to apply these skills in the workplace.

  Organisation

  Templeton college, Oxford

  Total cost

  £10,575

  Number of attendees

  2

  Responsibilities of attendees

  Senior Managers in the Government Office for the South East

  Evaluation

  Verbal feedback and written course appraisal from trainees on specific forms. Follow-up forms sent to trainees and line managers eight weeks after the course to assess how effective it had been.

  No DTI staff have attended any other training or tuition courses in that period where the cost for the individual exceeded £5,000.

  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West, (Mr. Flynn)Official Report, 20 December 1994, column 1045, on the import of biological and chemical warfare weapons materials and their precursors, what are the reasons for the unavailability of the information requested.
  123
  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom classification of commodities for overseas trade is based on the harmonised commodity description and coding system, an internationally agreed system of classification which incorporates the headings of the combined nomenclature of the European Communities. This classification does not specifically identify the materials in question. As a consequence, the official trade statistics of the United Kingdom cannot distinguish between the materials in question and related commodities. An analysis of import licences issued by this Department would not provide the required information because it is unlikely that an individual import licence would be required for many of the commodities concerned.

  Nuclear Materials Trafficking
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 20 December to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, (Mr. Cousins)Official Report, columns 1043–44, what additional funds Her Majesty's Government have offered the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet its intensified activities to combat nuclear materials trafficking.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As I stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 20 December 1994,Official Report, columns 1043–44, the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency will resume its discussions on the director general's report on illicit trafficking at its meeting in March. Any detailed consideration of funding issues would be premature in advance of this meeting, which will establish the nature of IAEA involvement.

  Departmental Employees
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and, of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Appointment

  Commenced

  Ended

  R.J. Dent Esq.

  Baring Brothers

  1 August 1980

  1985

  J.N. Scott Esq.

  The General Electric Co.

  1 August 1980

  1986

  Sir Jeffrey Benson

  National Westminster Bank

  1 September 1981

  1987

  W.J.A. Dacombe Esq.

  Rea Brothers plc

  1 August 1982

  1986

  M.D. McWilliam Esq.

  Standard Chartered Bank

  1 August 1982

  1987

  W. Hogbin Esq. CBE

  Taylor Woodrow International Ltd

  1 August 1983

  1988

  W.G. Barrett Esq.

  Midland Bank

  1 August 1983

  1986

  R.H. George Esq. CB

  Celluware Group

  1 June 1984

  1991

  E.L. Brooks Esq

  Rothmans International plc

  1 November 1984

  1991

  P.W. Bulfield Esq

  J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co.

  1 October 1985

  1988

  T.W.B. Sallitt Esq. CBE

  Hawker Siddeley Group

  1 April 1986

  1990

  Sir Peter Leslie

  Barclays Bank plc

  1 September 1986

  1992

  A.G. Gormly Esq. CBE

  Trafalgar House plc

  1 February 1988

  1994

  Hon. D. Douglas-Home CBE

  Morgan Grenfell and Co.

  1 March 1988

  1993

  S.M.F. Harris Esq.

  Guardian Royal Exchange

  1 March 1988

  1991

  Prof. K. Scholes

  Sheffield Business School

  1 April 1988

  1991

  D.G. Eustace Esq.

  British Aerospace plc

  1 August 1988

  1992

  F.M.P. Riding Esq.

  Lloyds Bank plc

  1 August 1988

  1991

  R.T. Fox Esq. CBE

  Kleinwort Benson Group

  1 July 1991

  —

  Sir Derek Thomas KCMG

  N M Rothschild and Son Ltd.

  1 October 1991

  —

  C. Smallwood Esq.

  TSB Group plc

  1 October 1991

  1994

  Sir Robert Davidson

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  1 October 1991

  —

  Viscount Weir

  The Weir Group plc

  1 November 1991

  —

  124
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Headcount of women in the Department of Trade and Industry by grade level at 1 April 1991–1994

  Grade level

  19911

  19921

  1993

  1994

  G3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  G7

  117

  129

  162

  176

  EO

  1,061

  1,067

  1,113

  1,054

  AO

  1,964

  1,944

  2,020

  1,886

  AA

  1,815

  1,756

  1,636

  1,395

  Total number of women employed in Department

  5,617

  5,592

  5,700

  5,309

  1The Department of Energy joined DTI in 1992. The figures for 1991 and 1992 therefore exclude former Department of Energy staff.

  Grenade Launcher Exports
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of grenade launcher exports in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The published information is not sufficiently detailed to identify the value of exports of specific weapons. The information available for harmonised system commodity code 9301 0000—"military weapons (other than revolvers, pistols, swords, cutlasses, bayonets, lances, etc.)"—is published in Central Statistical Office business monitors MM20 and MQ20, "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Export Credits Guarantee Advisory Committee
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all of the members of the Export Credits Guarantee Advisory Committee, with their corporate or other affiliation for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:
  125

  Appointment

  Commenced

  Ended

  J.W. Melbourn Esq.

  National Westminster Bank

  1 November 1991

  —

  G.W. Lynch Esq.

  Hiscox Syndicates Ltd.

  1 July 1993

  —

  B.P. Dewe Mathews Esq.

  J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co.

  1 July 1993

  —

  T.M. Evans Esq. CBE

  Foster Wheeler Ltd.

  1 August 1993

  —

  Sir Frank Lampl

  Bovis Construction Group

  1 August 1993

  —

  D.B. Newlands Esq

  The General Electric Co.

  1 August 1993

  —

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what remuneration the members of the Export Credits Guarantee Advisory Committee receive.

  Mr. Needham
  Members of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council receive no remuneration for their services.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what selection criteria there are governing appointments to the Exports Credits Guarantee Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Needham
  Members of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council are appointed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and are drawn from senior levels of the banking, commercial and industrial sectors. Members are chosen for their expertise in their particular field and their experience of export credit business.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the occasions when the Export Credits Guarantee Department has advanced credits to cover the export of land mines over the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Gas Market (Competition)
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for consultation on the choice of areas for the extension of competition in the gas market which he has proposed would be introduced from 1996 to 1998.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have today published a consultation document jointly with the Director General of Gas Supply, Clare Spottiswoode, on the choice of the initial areas for the phased extension of competition into the gas market between 1996 and 1998.

  Subject to enactment of the proposed Bill by Parliament, we propose a first phase starting in April 1996 which would introduce competitive gas supply to a geographic area of Great Britain containing up to 500,000 premises which consume less than 2,500 therms of gas a year. A second phase starting from a date in 1997 would extend competition to an area or areas containing a total of 2 million such premises. Finally, from a date in 1998, it is intended that the entire gas market in Great Britain, some 18 million premises, should be open to competitive supply.

  We intend to announce the prospective areas chosen as soon as possible, so that, subject to parliamentary consideration of the Bill, all may plan accordingly. Once we have considered the responses to the document, my aim is to make an announcement early in March.
  126
  The initial phases are important steps in the proposed move to full competition at the national level in 1998. They will provide an opportunity to ensure the satisfactory operation of the new management and computer systems necessary to ensure the accurate measurement, balancing and allocation of gas. Systems will also be needed to ensure the orderly handover of responsibility where a consumer decides to change supplier. The phased introduction of competition will allow those responsible for these systems time to ensure their fully satisfactory operation.

  It will be convenient if the area chosen is geographically well delineated and coincides with existing administrative boundaries and clearly demarcated part of the gas pipeline network. We should like the area chosen to contain examples of the full cross section of types of premises and customer and include both urban and rural environments. The area chosen should provide a good test of the arrangements for measuring gas and so on, and handling changes of customer.

  Subject to these other factors, we consider it would also be reasonable, in choosing the initial area to benefit from competition, to take into account the pattern of regional transportation charge differentials which were introduced in October 1994. The independent suppliers have said that they expect to offer average savings of some 10 per cent. on current BG prices. Within that pattern, they may—or may not—choose to pass on the differential transportation charges, which amount to around plus/minus 2 per cent. of final prices. I have noted in this context the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Select Committee that
  "areas likely to be disadvantaged by cost reflective charges should be included amongst those selected".

  In the consultation document, we are seeking views on the choice of the initial area in 1996. We are also seeking views as to whether the area for the second phase in 1997 should be:

  (i) a single geographic area (enlarging the area for the first phase); or

  (ii) split between two or more distinct areas (of which the first phase area would be one or part of one).

  There may be some technical arguments in favour of the first alternative. On the other hand, the second alternative would enable more than one area to gain experience of competition.

  In order to gain as much information as possible from the initial phases of competition, the Director General of Gas Supply may invite consumers and appropriate representative groups and persons to supply information to help her monitor the development of competition. It will therefore be helpful if representative organisations in the area concerned are prepared to assist in this process. Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the issues

  127
  related to the initial phases of competition during the passage of the forthcoming Gas Bill.

  The consultation document has been sent to all local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales as well as to all Members of Parliament, consumer groups and the gas industry. Copies have also been placed in the Printed Paper Office in the House of Lords. The deadline for responses is 24 February.

  Further copies of the document can be obtained from the Library of the Office of Gas Supply, 16 Palace street, London SW1E 5JD, telephone 0171 932 1602/3/4.

  British Coal
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the land and property in the Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley constituency which currently remains in the ownership of British Coal Property.

  ECGD experience on defence business—(£ million) for specific markets requested

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–91

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Bahrain

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brunei

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Egypt

  0

  0

  0

  12

  0

  11

  111

  70

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  India

  0

  7

  0

  219

  0

  19

  1

  17

  0

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Indonesia

  0

  54

  24

  0

  109

  83

  51

  6

  3

  0

  3

  2

  442

  6

  Jordan

  0

  30

  0

  0

  15

  0

  202

  91

  99

  0

  0

  0

  14

  0

  Kenya

  0

  0

  0

  0

  108

  0

  0

  0

  43

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kuwait

  0

  0

  0

  73

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  580

  Malaysia

  0

  0

  28

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  187

  272

  377

  19

  Nigeria

  0

  39

  278

  3

  47

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oman

  305

  62

  61

  0

  4

  17

  37

  0

  0

  0

  350

  0

  44

  344

  Pakistan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Philippines

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Qatar

  0

  80

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  0

  129

  218

  Saudi Arabia

  0

  0

  24

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  450

  0

  0

  0

  225

  750

  Sri Lanka

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Thailand

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Turkey

  0

  0

  0

  75

  8

  70

  0

  0

  0

  31

  24

  0

  1

  0

  UAE

  0

  0

  96

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  188

  0

  0

  356

  0

  ECGD total capital goods and project business experience—(£ million) for specific markets requested

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1991–94

  Bahrain

  17

  64

  4

  20

  7

  2

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  35

  32

  Brunei

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Egypt

  25

  58

  77

  41

  157

  35

  202

  118

  5

  111

  21

  59

  12

  0

  India

  52

  42

  627

  224

  75

  36

  86

  83

  5

  80

  70

  13

  102

  209

  Indonesia

  9

  150

  566

  301

  249

  140

  73

  48

  67

  52

  150

  124

  450

  100

  Jordan

  188

  42

  1

  26

  18

  0

  240

  103

  152

  41

  0

  0

  14

  0

  Kenya

  5

  4

  48

  14

  126

  3

  50

  23

  45

  1

  128

  0

  0

  0

  Kuwait

  0

  18

  12

  73

  18

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  8

  0

  614

  Malaysia

  0

  43

  32

  0

  19

  0

  226

  0

  0

  0

  256

  697

  377

  19

  Nigeria

  272

  246

  1,041

  471

  121

  0

  23

  0

  34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oman

  305

  66

  415

  306

  41

  77

  66

  0

  0

  0

  350

  0

  45

  413

  Pakistan

  16

  0

  25

  0

  8

  1

  1

  0

  6

  0

  0

  41

  37

  12

  Philippines

  37

  52

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  37

  29

  0

  19

  0

  Qatar

  0

  85

  4

  3

  1

  0

  1

  5

  0

  5

  5

  0

  129

  218

  Saudi Arabia

  0

  19

  58

  12

  27

  52

  0

  15

  450

  0

  0

  17

  225

  751

  Sri Lanka

  0

  12

  39

  32

  54

  0

  80

  2

  5

  0

  0

  11

  63

  0

  Thailand

  4

  34

  5

  7

  4

  23

  10

  0

  13

  8

  0

  0

  25

  6

  Turkey

  16

  4

  0

  75

  8

  165

  38

  49

  125

  55

  51

  175

  130

  112

  UAE

  0

  0

  96

  0

  0

  1

  0

  33

  0

  188

  0

  0

  356

  0

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average political risk premium for Export Credits Guarantee Department cover for exports to Saudi Arabia for each six-month period since January 1991.
  128
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 January 1995]: The land and property owned by British Coal are matters for the corporation and I will draw the hon. Member's interest to the attention of the chairman.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what value of export credits for capital goods and projects were advanced (i) in total and (ii) in respect of defence exports for each year since 1980 and for(a) Pakistan, (b) India, (c) Nigeria, (d) Indonesia, (e) Jordan, (f) Kenya, (g) Sri Lanka, (h) the Philippines, (i) Saudi Arabia, (j) Malaysia, (k) Turkey, (i) Qatar, (m) Thailand, (n) Kuwait, (o) the United Arab Emirates, (p) Bharain, (q) Oman, (r) Brunei and (s) Egypt.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The values requested are set out in the following tables:

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: For reasons of commercial confidentiality, the ECGD does not make public premium rates for individual countries.

  Railway Station, Stratford
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in the last six months civil servants in his Department met persons representative of interests in Stratford, London, to discuss matters relating to proposals for a new Stratford station.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: There have been no meetings between civil servants in this Department and persons representative of interests in Stratford in the last six months, although officials here have been kept well apprised of Stratford's interests in the proposals for a new station.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions and on what date he, Ministers or former Ministers in his Department met persons in Stratford, London, to discuss matters relating to the implications of a new railway station at Stratford.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: On 13 January 1994, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) when Minister for Trade, met the Stratford promoters group; and on 28 April 1994 I visited Stratford and was briefed by local representatives on the implications of a new railway station.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if the Sunday Fairs Act 1448 (27 Hen VI c 5) is in force; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the Statute of Northampton 1328 (2 Edward III c 15) is in force; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if the Statute (1331) 5 Edward III (5 Edward III c 5) is in force; and if he will make a statement;

  The proportion of pensioners with income from occupational pensions with the mean and median amounts for those in receipt

  Percentage with occupational pension

  Mean amount (£ per week)

  Median amount (£ per week)

  All pensioners

  60

  71.70

  37.80

  Single male pensioners under 75

  55

  67.90

  31.20

  Single female pensioners under 75

  60

  52.90

  31.60

  Single pensioners under 75

  59

  53.90

  31.50

  Pensioner couples under 75

  73

  97.10

  54.80

  Single male pensioners aged 75 and over

  51

  56.50

  23.50

  Single female pensioners aged 75 and over

  47

  50.10

  24.30

  Single pensioners aged 75 and over

  48

  51.70

  24.10

  Pensioner couples aged 75 and over

  68

  78.20

  41.50

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1 per cent., amounts rounded to the nearest 10p.

  2. Estimates are drawn from the 1992 family expenditure survey and the GAD 1991 occupational pension schemes survey, at July 1992 prices.

  3. Single pensioners are defined as those over state pension age, couples are those where the husband is over state pension age.

  4. Couples aged under 75 are defined by the age of the husband.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples who have total gross weekly incomes of £0 to £50, £51 to £100, £101 to £150, £151 to £200, £201 to £250, £251 to £300, £301 to £350, £351 to £400, £401 to £450, £451 to £500 and £500 and above.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The available information is in the table. Owing to difficulties with sample sizes, it has been 130
  (4) if the Sale of Horses Act 1555 (2 and 3 Phil and Mar c 7) and the Sale of Horses Act 1588 (31 Eliz I c 12) are still in force; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if the Fairs Act 1871 (34 and 35 Vict c 78) and the Fairs Act 1873 (36 and 37 Vict c 37) are still in force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  With the exception of the Fairs Act of 1871 and 1873, all of the statutes mentioned have been repealed. The Fairs Acts of 1871 and 1873 empower my right hon. and learned Friend to make an order either abolishing certain types of fair or changing the day or days on which such fairs are held.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the proportion of pensioners receiving income from an occupational pension identified as(a) all pensioners, (b) single male pensioners aged under 75 years, (c) single female pensioners aged under 75 years, (d) single pensioners aged under 75 years, (e) pensioner couples aged under 75 years, (f) single male pensioners aged 75 years and over, (g) single female pensioners aged 75 years and over, (h) single pensioners aged 75 years and over and (i) pensioner couples where at least one partner is aged 75 years and over; and if he will provide figures for the mean and the median amount received for the latest year in which figures are available.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is in the table.

  necessary to amalgamate some income bands in order to provide reliable estimates.

  Weekly gross income distribution— pensioner units 1992 pensioners couples

  Up to £150

  Up to £200

  Up to £250

  Up to £350

  Over £350

  Number (000s)

  900

  600

  300

  400

  400

  Percentage

  36

  22

  12

  16

  14

  131

  Single pensioners

  Up to £100

  Up to £150

  Up to £250

  Over £250

  Numbers (000s)

  2,700

  900

  500

  400

  Percentage

  60

  21

  11

  8

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole per cent. and may not sum to 100.

  2. Estimates are drawn from the 1992 family expenditure survey.

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

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants for benefit under the chronic bronchitis and emphysema regulations were turned down because the X-ray did not show category 1 pneumoconiosis; and of these in how many a post mortem examination revealed evidence of pneumoconiosis.

  Mr. Hague
  By 30 November 1994, 14,600 out of 44,594 claims for benefit had been disallowed because an X-ray did not show at least category 1 pneumoconiosis. The information requested in respect of post mortem examinations is not available.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants for benefit under the chronic bronchitis and emphysema regulations had to obtain fresh X-rays because of over-exposure of previous X-rays.

  Mr. Hague
  Any necessary X-rays are obtained by the Benefits Agency. Information on the number of any new X-rays required because of over-exposure of previous X-rays is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants for benefit under the chronic bronchitis and emphysema regulations received new X-rays before examination.

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

  Family Incomes
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average net incomes before and after housing costs, after tax and benefits of(a) a lone mother of two children working 20 hours per week paying an average council rent and (b) a married man with two children and a dependent non-working wife working 40 hours per week paying an average council rent; and if he will give details of the calculation of each benefit to which they may be entitled on the basis of hourly pay rates of (i) £3.50, (ii) £4 and (iii) £5.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested can be found in the Government Statistical Service publications "Tax Benefit Model Tables, April 1994" published on 21 July 1994, and "Additional Tax Benefit Model Tables, October 1994", published on 20 October 1994. Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Benefits
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide figures for his Department's expenditure on income support, attendance allowance and disability living allowance for claimants with preserved rights between 31 March 1993 and 31 March 1994.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Estimated quarterly expenditure on claimants who were receiving either income supply only or income support and attendance allowance/disability living allowance is as follows:

  £ million

  May 1993

  736

  August 1993

  696

  November 1993

  653

  February 1994

  612

  Separate data are not collected on attendance allowance or disability living allowance for people in residential care and nursing homes who are not also in receipt of income support.

  Source:

  Income support quarterly inquiries.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people had preserved rights to the higher level of income support between 31 March 1993 and 31 March 1994.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information on income support for people in residential care and nursing homes is contained in the quarterly statistical inquiry based on sample data. The number with preserved rights are:

  Number

  May 1993

  284,000

  August 1993

  267,000

  November 1993

  249,000

  February 1994

  233,000

  Source:

  Income support quarterly inquiries.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent by his Department on income support and attendance allowance or disability living allowance for new claimants in independent care homes since 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the form requested. Estimated total expenditure on claimants who were receiving either income support only or income support and attendance allowance/disability living allowance for the 12 months from May 1993 is £73 million.

  Separate data are not collected on attendance allowance or disability living allowance for people in residential care and nursing homes who are not also in receipt of income support.

  Source:

  Income support quarterly inquiries

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claiming residential allowance were placed in (a) residential care homes and(b) nursing homes during each month from April 1993 to March 1994.
  133
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the form requested. The total numbers in receipt of residential allowance based on sample data are:

  Number

  May 1993

  2,000

  August 1993

  17,000

  November 1993

  30,000

  February 1994

  44,000

  Source:

  Income support quarterly inquiries.

  Information is not available split between residential care and nursing homes.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of residential allowance were in independent residences or nursing homes on 31 March 1993.

  Table 1: Disability living allowance claims and awards

  March-October 1993

  November 1993-March 1994

  April-October 1994

  Claims received

  298,000

  174,000

  294,000

  Awards made

  155,000

  84,000

  136,000

  Source:

  100 per cent. Count.

  Table 2: First awards of disability living allowance by type of disability

  March-November 1993

  December 1993-February 1994

  March-November 1994

  Physical

  162,000

  48,000

  171,000

  Mental

  32,000

  9,000

  32,000

  Source:

  5 per cent sample.

  Analytical services division.

  Notes:

  1. The information in tables 1 and 2 is from different sources and is collated by different periods.

  2. Table 1—a claim may be received in one period but decided in another.

  3. Table 2—figures are first awards arising from initial claims, reviews or appeals. The breakdown of type of disability is made by reference to the main disabling condition recorded by the adjudication officer initially deciding the claim.

  Incapacity benefit
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount of benefit is payable to a recipient with no children at school and a wife under 60 years under the new incapacity benefit scheme.

  Mr. Hague
  The basic rate of incapacity benefit will be payable where there is no entitlement to a child dependency increase, or the person cannot be treated as entitled, and the spouse is under age 60.

  For the first 28 weeks of sickness the basic rate is £44.40, from week 29 to week 52 it is £52.50, and from week 53 it is £58.85.

  People with a terminal illness, or who are receiving the highest rate of the care component of disability living allowance, will be able to get the long-term rate of £58.85 from week 29.

  An age addition may be payable at one or two rates depending on the age of the person when his incapacity for work began. If his incapacity began before age 35, the age addition is £12.40. Where the incapacity began when aged 35 to 44, the age addition is £6.20. No age addition
  134
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Residential allowance was introduced on 1 April 1993. Most people who were in residential care and nursing homes on 31 March 1993 have preserved rights to the higher levels of income support and would not be entitled to residential allowance. Information is not available for those who subsequently claimed residential allowance because they do not have preserved rights to the higher levels of income support.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for disability living allowance were(a) received and (b) approved between (i) March to October 1993, (ii) November 1993 to March 1994 and (iii) April 1994 to October 1994; and how many in each case were from people whose principal disability was (1) physical and (2) mental illness.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the format requested. The information available is in the tables.

  is payable if the person is aged 45 or over when the incapacity began.

  Note:

  The rates given are subject to parliamentary approval.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to uprate annually all benefits that claimants of the incapacity benefit may be entitled to; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 requires the Secretary of State to review annually the rates of incapacity benefit.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the difference in the payments made to claimants under the invalidity benefit and the new incapacity benefits scheme for a person aged 30, 40 or 50 years where there is(a) and adult dependant under 60 years and (b) a dependant over 60 years.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table. Some further assumptions have been made to support the examples, as explained in the notes.
  135

  Age 30 £

  Age 40 £

  Age 50 £

  Invalidity benefit

  106.50

  101.90

  98.00

  Long-term incapacity benefit

  Spouse under 60

  71.25

  65.05

  58.85

  Spouse 60 +

  106.50

  100.30

  94.10

  Notes:

  1. In the case of invalidity benefit, the spouse's age is not a relevant factor.

  2. Assumes spouse does not have earnings/occupational pension in excess of relevant earnings limit and does not receive a benefit in own right.

  3. Assumes no earnings-related additional pension payable with invalidity benefit.

  4. In the case of incapacity benefit, an increase is payable for a spouse aged 60 and for an adult dependant if the claimant is entitled or treated as entitled to a child dependancy increase, regardless of adult dependant's age.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by the Department or agency.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information in respect of both the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is given in a list of six pages that is being deposited in the House Library. My agencies bought no training with a total cost in excess of £5,000.

  French Foreign Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the French Government in regard to the proliferation consequences of the sale of nuclear technology by France to the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. David Davis
  We are not aware of any sales of nuclear technology by France to China which could contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

  Council of Europe
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will support the formal adoption of recommendation 1235 (1994) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe relating to psychiatry and human rights by the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom and the other member states of the Council of Europe are studying recommendation 1235 of the Parliamentary 136
  Assembly. We will decide in due course whether we are able to support its adoption by the Committee of Ministers.

  Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the Russian Federation over the potential proliferation consequences of the decision of the Russian Government to rebuild the damaged nuclear power plant at Bushehr in Iran.

  Mr. David Davis
  We have expressed our concern to the Russians that their decision to rebuild the damaged nuclear power station at Bushehr could have proliferation consequences.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what stipulations were set by the non-nuclear weapon state members of the European Union upon France, as President-in-office of the EU, in representing EU political opinion at the final preparatory committee meeting of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference in New York on 23 to 27 January.

  Mr. David Davis
  France, as current President of the EU, has been co-ordinating an EU statement on NPT extension for use at the NPT extension conference's fourth preparatory committee on 23 to 27 January. As with other intergovernmental exchanges of this kind, comments on EU draft statements are circulated in confidence. The final text will have to be acceptable to all EU member states.

  Harjit Singh
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Indian Government regarding the case of Harjit Singh.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have raised the case of Harjit Singh with the Indian Government on several occasions. We understand that a case of habeas corpus brought by Harjit Singh's father is still before the courts, although the proceedings are moving very slowly.

  Departmental Employees
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and, of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:
  137

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total Women

  3,048 (98 PAT)

  3,061 (115 P/T)

  3,081 (154 P/T)

  3,029 (152 P/T)

  Grade 3 level

  Figures not available

  5

  4

  5

  Grade 7 level

  Figures not available

  113 (2 P/T)

  127 (7 P/T)

  135 (11 P/T)

  Executive Officer level

  Figures not available

  791 (14 P/T)

  772 (30 P/T)

  794 (37 P/T)

  Administrative Officer level

  Figures not available

  1,302 (28 P/T)

  1,293 (53 P/T)

  1,245 (53 P/T)

  Administrative Assistant level

  Figures not available

  218

  207 (20 P/T)

  172 (6 P/T)

  Notes:

  1. These figures cover all FCO grades including the DS and the ODA.

  2. (P/T = Part-Time).

  Trident
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding his Department's assessment of the perception of overseas Governments of the recent deployment by Britain of the Trident nuclear system.

  Mr. David Davis
  Our NATO allies fully accept the United Kingdom's deployment of Trident as part of our and NATO's strategy of war prevention. It is not for us to comment on the perceptions of others.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Pakistan's anti-narcotics legislation, with particular reference to the law providing for the death sentence and forfeiture of property for those involved in drug trafficking.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 20 January,Official Report, column 746.

  Peace Talks, Nairobi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made representations to the Government of Sudan that it should recognise and co-operate with the UN observer of the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development peace talks in Nairobi.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is for the IGADD states to decide whether they want the appointment of a UN observer to the peace process. Discussions between them and the Sudanese Government are continuing.

  Croatia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Croatia in respect of Krajina and the future deployment of UNPROFOR in the region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I discussed the Croatian Government's position on the extension of UNPROFOR's138
  mandate with Mr. Sanader, the Croatian deputy Foreign Minister, on 11 January. I made clear our deep concern and regret over this development, which puts at risk the prospect of finding a peaceful solution to the problems in the United Nations protected areas in Croatia. Along with our EU partners, we have called upon the Croatian Government to reconsider their decision.

  Drug Liaison Officers
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the contribution drug liaison officers on attachment to British diplomatic posts overseas make to his Department's efforts to develop international co-operation against the illicit drug trade.

  Mr. Baldry
  British drug liaison officers, who are attached to diplomatic posts in a number of countries, play an important role in developing international co-operation in the fight against the global menace of the illicit drug trade. They are fully integrated into the work of the posts concerned, and carry out their duties in close co-operation with local law enforcement agencies.

  In their work, these officers fully observe Home Office guidelines. These state that no police officer or public informant should counsel, incite or procure the commission of a crime and make it clear that an informant should be instructed that he must not act as agent provocateur.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Councils in November and December 1994.

  Mr. David Davis
  I attended the Foreign Affairs Councils in November and December.

  The Council of 28 to 29 November covered the following subjects:
  On the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment, Mr. Delors introduced the main themes for the Essen European Council. He said that there would be two discussions, one focusing

  139
  on White Paper themes generally, and the second on employment questions.
  Ministers agreed to release a first tranche of 15 mecu of the 35 mecu of EU macro-financial assistance to Albania. The release of the second tranche, 20 mecu, will depend on a favourable Commission report on progress in economic and political reform in Albania and a subsequent Council decision.
  Foreign Ministers held discussions with Mr. Perez and Mr. Arafat and issued a statement which reaffirmed their determination to continue their support for the middle east peace process, both politically and economically.
  Ministers reviewed preparations for the CSCE summit in Budapest—5 to 6 December.
  The Commission introduced a support package of some 200 to 300 mecu for Northern Ireland.
  The Council agreed to put forward for consideration at Essen the interim report of the Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophoria.
  Ministers discussed preparations for the interim conference on the EU's stability pact initiative to be held in the margins of the CSCE summit in Budapest.
  A partnership and co-operation agreement between the EU and Moldova was signed on 28 November.
  The Council approved a negotiating mandate for Europe agreements with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
  Ministers discussed the presidency's draft pre-accession strategy for the associated countries of central and eastern Europe. The text was agreed, apart from a passage on cumulation of rules of origin.
  The Council discussed the Commission's communication on a strategy for strengthening the EU's political and economic links with the Mediterranean countries, in preparation for a further discussion at the Essen European Council.
  Ministers reviewed prospects for the Association Council with Turkey on 19 December. The presidency underlined the importance of concluding negotiations on customs union at the Council.
  The presidency reported on progress in the negotiations with Israel, Morocco and Tunisia. The agreement with Israel was close to conclusions, but the agreements with Morocco and Tunisia were delayed by unresolved questions on access for agricultural products to EU markets.
  The Council approved a draft report, to be issued by the Essen European Council, on measures to tackle illicit trade in nuclear materials.
  Ministers discussed a Commission proposal to provide balance of payments assistance to Ukraine.
  The Council discussed the EU position for the ministerial conference on the mid-term review of the Lome convention, to be held in Brussels on 30 November and 1 December. Agreement was reached on a package of measures to be put to the ACP countries on the programming of aid.
  The Council discussed progress in implementing the Uruguay round agreements. It reaffirmed the determination of the Community and the member states to ratify the agreements before I January 1995.
  Discussion of the Commission proposal for the Council to approve the OECD agreement on shipbuilding subsidies was postponed until 19 December.
  On Rwanda, the Council called for the UN to give high priority to actions to stabilise the region. Ministers supported a regional refugee conference, and endorsed an immediate rehabilitation programme to the value of 67 mecu, agreed by the development council.
  In a brief discussion of trade and the environment, the Commission confirmed it was preparing a Green Paper on the subject, and expected this to issue next year.
  On relations with the European Parliament the Council noted progress on comitology and temporary committees of inquiry. There was a brief discussion over lunch about some member states' difficulties with the draft implementing provisions for the right to
  140
  vote and stand in municipal elections of other member states—Article 8B1.
  At the Council of 19 to 20 December 1994, the following subjects were discussed:
  The presidency listed items for action during the remainder of its tenure. M. Juppe highlighted five French presidency priorities.
  On relations with the European Parliament, the Council agreed texts on comitology, temporary committees of inquiry and consolidation of existing Community legislation. Denmark voted against the decision on TCIs. These texts were then adopted by the Commission and the EP at an inter—institutional conference on 20 December.
  The Council unanimously adopted a directive which implements the right of EU citizens to vote and stand in municipal elections in member states of which they are not nationals.
  An association Council with Turkey was held in the margins. It was agreed that a further association council should be held early in the French presidency.
  The EEA Council on 20 December reaffirmed its wish to strengthen the political dialogue on foreign policy with a view to developing closer relations in spheres of mutual interest. The Norwegians are now preparing proposals for a framework for political dialogue under the EEA which they will present to the French presidency.
  There was a discussion on ways in which the peace process in the former Yugoslavia could be taken forward.
  The Council agreed to discuss Russia during the French presidency on the basis of an options paper.
  The Council agreed a new Community generalised system of preferences, to come into force on 1 January 1995. There were two votes. On the creation of a new scheme for industrial products the United Kingdom abstained, and set out its reasons in six statements for the minutes. The scheme passed by qualified majority. Renewal of the scheme for agricultural products was agreed unanimously; this scheme will be reviewed during 1995.
  Agreement in principle was reached on the EU/Israel agreement. The agreement is now expected to be signed at the January FAC. There was no progress on the EU/Morocco and EU/Tunisia negotiations. Morocco has rejected the Commission's offer on access for tomatoes and courgettes. The question of Tunisian olive oil quotas remains unresolved.
  The Council agreed to endorse the results of the Uruguay round, comprising the Marrakesh final act, the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, the ministerial declarations and decisions attached to it, the understanding on commitments in financial services, plurilateral agreements on bovine meat, dairy products, civil aircraft and Government procurement, and the bilateral EC agreements with Australia on coal and with Uruguay on bovine meat. The Council also agreed an accompanying package of EC implementing legislation. All the above texts were formally adopted by the Council of Ministers on 22 December. All the necessary processes have thus been completed to allow the Community to ratify the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation: the instruments of ratification of the Community and the member states are expected to be deposited in Geneva on 30 December.
  The Council received a progress report from the presidency on the three EU/United States working groups established at the July 1994 EU/United States summit. The groups' work covers central and eastern Europe, drugs and international crime, and the mechanisms for EU/United States political co-operation.
  The Council confirmed its negotiating directives, originally adopted in December 1991, for the Commission to negotiate a co-operation agreement between Euratom and the United States. The new agreement is to replace the existing United States/Euratom agreements of 1958 and 1960, the second of which expires on 31 December 1995.
  The Council approved the OECD agreement on shipbuilding subsidies and authorised the Commission to sign the agreement. Signature took place in Paris on 21 December. The Council adopted a Commission proposal that the Commission and Council should make a joint declaration at the signing ceremony to the effect that

  141
  they would monitor the implementation and respect of the agreement by all parties.
  The Council agreed the adjustments necessary to the EFTAn accession treaty following the non-accession of Norway.
  The chairman of the Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia gave an oral report a progress. This was a follow-up to the interim report of the Consultative Commission, which was presented to the Essen European Council. The consultative commission will submit its final report to the Cannes European Council, in June.
  The Council approved concluding decisions allowing the entry into force of the Europe (association) agreements with the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria and the free trade agreements with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Ministers approved in parallel implementing regulations governing the operation of the four Europe agreements.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the size of the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland in 1979; and what it is now.

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1979, Harland and Wolff had a recorded turnover of £67.3 million. The company was privatised in 1989 and turnover in 1993 was £103 million.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the total number of persons serving in the RUC in the ranks of(a) constable, (b) sergeant, (c) inspector, (d) chief inspector, (e) superintendent and (f) chief superintendent as at 31 December 1994.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Rank

  Number

  Constable

  6,264

  Sergeant

  1,410

  Inspector

  490

  Chief Inspector

  163

  Superintendent

  122

  Chief Superintendent

  35

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of members of each rank of the RUC broken down by(a) perceived religious affiliation and (b) gender.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as given in the table:

  Community background

  Gender

  CB11

  CB22

  CB33

  Male

  Female

  Constable

  5,597

  454

  213

  5,512

  752

  Sergeant

  1,269

  115

  26

  1,336

  74

  Inspector

  429

  45

  16

  468

  22

  Chief Inspector

  139

  23

  1

  158

  5

  Superintendent

  102

  18

  2

  121

  1

  Chief Superintendent

  30

  5

  0

  35

  0

  Notes:

  1Perceived Protestant community.

  2Perceived Roman Catholic community.

  3Other.

  142
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the normal consultative arrangements which exist between the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Chief Constable and other senior officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary attend frequent and regular meetings both with the Secretary of State and with the chairman and members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. My officials are in frequent contact with both the RUC and the authority, and there is a wide variety of groups comprising the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, dealing with matters of common concern.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what aspects of the situation relating to promotions to the rank of assistant chief constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary are currently under consideration; when this process commenced; what are the difficulties; when the issue is likely to be resolved; and if he will list all the stages in the promotion process for the rank of assistant chief constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, including selection for the senior command course, when the Chief Constable makes a specific input to that process.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Appointments to the rank of ACC are made under the provision of section 7(1) of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. The process is currently the subject of proceedings by way of judicial review; it is not appropriate to comment further pending the outcome of those proceedings.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what comments Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary's 1994 report makes on the need for corporate policy decision making within the senior command of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and what has been the Chief Constable's response to this.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 6 of appendix A on page 40 of the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on the Royal Ulster Constabulary 1994, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The Chief Constable, who is responsible for the direction and control of the RUC, has carefully considered HMI's concerns but believes, given the size and complexity of the RUC, that the systems in place are fully sufficient for corporate decision making. These systems include twice weekly meetings with those assistant chief constables with operational roles and, pending the appointment of a Deputy Chief Constable (Support Services), fortnightly meetings with the assistant chief constables with support service responsibilities; a monthly meeting attended by all chief officers; and a force policy executive, comprising the Chief Constable and his two deputies, which takes all major policy decisions.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the salary of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; how long the present Chief Constable has been in post; whether his family residence is in Northern Ireland; to what amount of housing allowance he is entitled; on how many nights during 1994 he was present in Northern Ireland; and if he will list those periods of longer than four nights' duration
  143
  when the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was out of Northern Ireland during 1994.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The salary of the Chief Constable is £85,350 per annum and he has been in post since 1 June 1989.

  The Chief Constable resides in Northern Ireland with his wife at RUC headquarters and has done so since 1 June 1989. He does not receive housing allowance but to provide some respite from the domestically undesirable nature of his accommodation, above force headquarters, he receives a non-pensionable allowance of £4,355.04 per annum.

  The Chief Constable was in Northern Ireland on 242 nights in 1994. The Chief Constable was outside Northern Ireland on eight occasions for periods of more than four nights; four of those occasions were on official business. When outside Northern Ireland, whether on leave or business, he is always contactable and has been so contacted when appropriate.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost to the policing budget of travel, and all associated expenses by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary during 1994.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost of the Chief Constable's travel in the course of his duties in Northern Ireland cannot be disaggregated. Travel outside Northern Ireland on police duties cost £20,505.33 during 1994; associated expenses totalled £1,931.28.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was informed by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland of its intention to conduct a public survey on the future of policing in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The chairman of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland wrote to consult the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary about the arrangements that the authority intended to make for obtaining the views of people about matters concerning policing, on 18 November 1994. At that stage the date on which the authority was to announce its initiative had not been decided. The secretary of the authority informed

  Greenmount College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  Loughry College of Agriculture and Food Tecchonology

  Enniskillen College of Agriculture

  Agriculture

  Horticulture

  Agriculture

  Food Technology

  1990–91

  47

  218

  26

  46

  165

  1991–92

  40

  217

  30

  45

  206

  1992–93

  47

  221

  28

  39

  228

  1993–94

  32

  242

  27

  61

  223

  1994–95

  51

  276

  39

  39

  240

  Each year there were sufficient places available for all qualified applicants for full-time courses.

  In line with the Government's objective of improving the level of education and training of the national work force, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland is committed to meeting the education and training needs of the Province's agri-food industry.

  Following a strategic review of the Department's activities, consideration is being given to a rationalisation of its education and training service. Under the proposal, the Department would retain three colleges but courses in agriculture would be delivered through Greenmount and
  144
  RUC headquarters of the proposed date of lire announcement on 30 December 1994.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account he has taken of the article published on 1 January written by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the establishment of a commission for policing in Northern Ireland; and if it is the Government's intention to implement this suggestion; and to what extent the suggestion was derived from general consultation with his senior command colleagues or the staff associations.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have noted with interest the Chief Constable's article on policing published in The Sunday Times on 1 January 1995 in response to an open letter from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) published on 11 December 1994, which contained a suggestion that a Northern Ireland commission on policing be established. I understand that the Chief Constable had consulted a number of senior colleagues and that such a commission is the method preferred by the Police Federation of Northern Ireland which represents some 97 per cent. of the RUC. My right hon. and learned Friend does not, at this stage, intend to establish a commission and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on 15 December, Official Report, columns 739–40.

  Agricultural Colleges
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full-time students attended(a) Greenmount college, (b) Enniskillen agricultural college and (c) Loughry college in each of the past five years; if there were sufficient places for the number of applicants each year; and if he will make a statement on the futures of these three agricultural colleges.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The number of full-time students enrolled at the three colleges run by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland for 1990–91 to 1994–95 was as follows:

  Enniskillen colleges, leaving Loughry college to concentrate its resources and facilities on furthering its aim of being a centre of excellence and a focus for food industry development within Northern Ireland.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Data Protection Act 1984
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the number of complaints
  145
  alleging breaches of the Data Protection Act 1984 received in each of the latest available three years for (a) each county in Wales, (b) for Wales as a whole and (c) for the United Kingdom; how many prosecutions were brought; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Data Protection Registrar is responsible for administering the Data Protection Act 1984. I understand that statistical information about complaints is not kept on a geographical or county basis. The latest available information relating to complaints and prosecutions—including details, in the case of the latter, of the court concerned—can be found in the 10th report of the Data Protection Registrar, laid before Parliament on 5 July 1994.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he makes for rurality in determining the formula for funding the probation service in England and Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The formula takes into account the differing staff costs of providing probation services in different parts of the country. A recent review of the formula by the Home Office, the Central Probation Council and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation concluded that an additional allowance based directly on rurality would not be justified.

  Riot Shields
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether United Kingdom policing authorities or his Department are testing or have tested electro-shock riot shields or weapons in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such tests have been conducted by my Department. I have no details of any such tests that may been conducted by police authorities in respect of equipment used to protect officers against ferocious dogs.

  Mr. Gerry Hall
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Gerry Hall has ever applied to his Department for a section 5 permit for the building of militarily sensitive equipment, including electro-shock equipment.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the announcement will be made on the distribution of section 11 funding to local authorities, with special reference to Bradford.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 17 January,Official Report, column 382.

  Hypnotists
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been of hypnotists in connection with their trade in each of the last five years.
  146
  Mr. Maclean
  Information held centrally shows one prosecution from 1989 to 1993. This occurred in 1991 and resulted in a conviction.

  The 1994 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the activities of hypnotists in each of the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1993, we received three letters about stage hypnotism from hon. Members or members of the public. In 1994, we received 39 such letters, and five parliamentary questions about the subject were asked. In addition, the Adjournment debate on stage hypnotism on 12 December 1994,Official Report, columns 745–52, was initiated by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) participated.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to(a) regulate the activities of hypnotists and (b) require the registration of hypnotists.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In an Adjournment debate on stage hypnotism on 12 December 1994, I announced that there was to be a review of the workings of the Hypnotism Act 1952 which regulates public performances of stage hypnotism. The review is now in hand.

  Woodcock Inquiry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the estimates, both in capital and running cost terms, for the implementation of Sir John Woodcock's recommendations.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of implementing in full the proposals contained in the report of Sir John Woodcock's inquiry in respect of England and Wales as forecast for each financial year for which figures are available; and if he will break down the costs by recommendation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Detailed costs of implementing the recommendations contained in Sir John Woodcock's report on Whitemoor are currently being assessed by the Prison Service.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when proposals will be forthcoming following his Department's consultation paper "Wheel Clamping on Private Land".

  Mr. Maclean
  We are considering what action it might be appropriate to take. We will make an announcement when our proposals are ready.

  Private Clegg
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the imprisonment of Private Clegg in Her Majesty's Prison, Wakefield.

  Mr. Howard
  Private Clegg is at present imprisoned at HMP Wakefield, on temporary transfer from Northern Ireland, following the dismissal by the House of Lords last Thursday of his appeal against conviction for murder.
  147
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made clear, decisions on Private Clegg's release are a matter for him.

  In giving judgment, the House of Lords expressed concern about certain aspects of the law of murder. I can confirm that, together with colleagues, I am reviewing the law in the light of the concern expressed by the House of Lords.

  Card Systems
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider setting up a committee to consider the developing technology of card systems, and the potential demand for such systems from Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women currently serving a life prison sentence in a prison in England or Wales have been informed they will never be released from prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 16 January 1995,Official Report, column 333. The 15 prisoners mentioned in that answer comprise 14 men and one woman.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of private detectives by Government Departments on public agencies; if he will issue guidelines about their use; what representations he has received on the civil liberty implications of such use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally. We have not received any representations on the civil liberty implications of the use by Government of private detectives nor have we any plans to introduce guidelines in this area. But 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 current inquiry into the industry.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require the organisers of the national lottery to conduct a survey of public opinion before determining the disbursement of funds to charities.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Disbursement of lottery proceeds for charitable expenditure is the responsibility of the National Lottery Charities Board. It is a principle of the lottery that the operator, Camelot, has no role to play in the disbursement of proceeds. I shall be issuing the board with directions as to the matters which it must take into account in making grants, but within that framework it will be responsible for deciding its own policies, practices and procedures. The current draft directions include the 148
  need to make grants to small, local organisations and those without immediate popular appeal as well as to large, national high-profile bodies. It is for the board to determine what factors to take into account before determining its policies. I understand that the board will be undertaking detailed consultation with the charitable and voluntary sectors before reaching decisions on these matters.

  Police (Traffic)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in respect of his decision not to include enforcement of road traffic regulations in the list of core functions for police authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no list of core functions for police authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend announced last October the key objectives for policing for 1995–96. Following consultation with ministerial colleagues and others he decided that it would not be right to include a traffic objective, but this does not mean that road traffic regulations will not be enforced. In promulgating the key objectives, my right hon. and learned Friend made plain the importance the Government attach to road safety, and the reduction of road traffic accident casualties.

  It is open to police authorities to include traffic objectives as they consider fit in the local objectives which they will be expected to set each year.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were dedicated to traffic enforcement for each of the last five years for which figures are available by police authority.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for the years 1989 to 1993 is set out in the table. Figures for 1994 are not yet available. The collection of data for the Metropolitan police began only in 1994.

  Officers dedicated to traffic enforcement by police authority (1989–1993)

  Police Authority

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Avon and Somerset

  253

  259

  268

  266

  208

  Bedfordshire

  94

  99

  101

  80

  73

  Cambridgeshire

  125

  120

  125

  126

  107

  Cheshire

  235

  203

  201

  206

  206

  City of London

  37

  33

  37

  34

  33

  Cleveland

  96

  97

  93

  94

  87

  Cumbria

  132

  131

  133

  132

  128

  Derbyshire

  157

  154

  153

  146

  155

  Devon and Cornwall

  241

  241

  239

  238

  227

  Dorset

  108

  112

  111

  95

  97

  Durham

  130

  135

  134

  113

  115

  Dyfed-Powys

  104

  106

  101

  94

  105

  Essex

  259

  262

  274

  272

  293

  Gloucestershire

  82

  84

  83

  83

  82

  Greater Manchester

  455

  474

  467

  462

  425

  Gwent

  105

  103

  100

  95

  90

  Hampshire

  263

  263

  261

  343

  269

  Hertfordshire

  159

  156

  155

  157

  159

  Humberside

  164

  161

  161

  161

  160

  Kent

  156

  172

  208

  234

  230

  Lancashire

  305

  292

  287

  282

  276

  Leicestershire

  78

  76

  84

  122

  111

  Lincolnshire

  85

  86

  103

  99

  94

  Merseyside

  329

  367

  359

  338

  349

  Norfolk

  118

  127

  114

  116

  119

  North Wales

  134

  134

  137

  136

  125

  North Yorkshire

  156

  161

  147

  139

  132

  149

  Officers dedicated to traffic enforcement by police authority (1989–1993)

  Police Authority

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Northamptonshire

  89

  100

  98

  102

  99

  Northumbria

  251

  253

  253

  244

  249

  Nottinghamshire

  182

  189

  187

  163

  160

  South Wales

  266

  256

  248

  247

  231

  South Yorkshire

  206

  208

  213

  219

  202

  Staffordshire

  233

  234

  240

  233

  226

  Suffolk

  94

  97

  87

  85

  83

  Surrey

  225

  202

  203

  213

  209

  Sussex

  245

  239

  238

  247

  243

  Thames Valley

  326

  341

  354

  344

  345

  Warwickshire

  104

  127

  126

  126

  126

  West Mercia

  119

  142

  132

  127

  120

  West Midlands

  449

  446

  462

  441

  428

  West Yorkshire

  384

  392

  391

  384

  357

  Wiltshire

  101

  96

  103

  104

  115

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority the budget allocated for road traffic enforcement(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of overall expenditure for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not held centrally

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from senior police officers about the proposed privatisation of the running of the police national computer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  One formal representation was made by the then president of the Association of Chief Police Officers to my predecessor, which supported the principle of market testing the hendon data centre but expressed concern about the timing of the exercise. Representatives of the association have been consulted on the same matter more recently, and have expressed similar views. I will shortly be announcing our conclusions with respect to the future management of the Hendon data centre.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the 1995–96 police grant allocation on the number of police stations, and their hours of opening in the North Wales police force area.

  Mr. Maclean
  The draft report "The Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1995–96" sets out the principles on which proposed allocations of resources have been made for 1995–96. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  It is for the police authority and the chief constable to decide what their priorities are and on what they spend their allocation of police grant.

  Police (Abnormal Operations)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which constabularies' applications for special payments for a one-off abnormal operation 150
  have been successful during the past five years; and what percentage of their annual budget the cost of that operation represented.

  Mr. Maclean
  One application for a special payment of grant has been successful during the past five years, from Northumbria police authority. The estimated additional expenditure incurred represented 6.4 per cent. of budget.

  Police, Shoreham Harbour
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost of the police operation at Shoreham harbour; and what percentage of the annual budget for Sussex constabulary this operation will represent.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that the total estimated cost of the police operation at Shoreham harbour at 19 January was £2.2 million. This represents about 1.7 per cent. of the force budget for 1994–95.

  Weapons Scanners
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the use of scanners to detect offensive weapons in places of public entertainment.

  Mr. MacLean
  This operation is not collected centrally.

  North Wales Police
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the 1995–96 police grant allocation on recruitment of police, special constables and graduate recruits for North Wales police.

  Mr. Maclean
  The responsibility for the recruitment of police officers, special constables and graduate recruits to the police lies solely with the chief officer of the police force concerned. No assessment of the impact of the 1995–96 grant allocation on recruitment for North Wales police has been undertaken centrally.

  Martin Fenton
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to release on licence Martin Fenton, currently serving a life sentence for murder.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Mr. Fenton's case has been reviewed twice by the parole board—most recently in October 1992—but the board has not yet recommended that Mr. Fenton is safe to release. My right hon. and learned Friend has no power to release a mandatory life sentence prisoner without a positive parole board recommendation.

  The next review of Mr Fenton's case by the parole board will begin in July 1995.

  Frederick West
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the total cost of the Frederick West operation to the Gloucestershire constabulary to date and (b) the estimated cost of the

  151
  entire inquiry; and what percentage of the annual budget these sums represent.

  Mr. Maclean
  As at 19 January, the estimated total cost to date was £1.4 million. This represents 2.6 per cent. of the force budget for 1994–95. The additional cost to the force is some £670,000 or 1.2 per cent. of budget.

  The chief constable is not able at present to make a firm estimate of the total costs expected to be incurred.

  Prisoners (Release on Licence)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women who were released on licence were recalled to prison during 1994.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provisional data for 1994 show that there were 291 men and four women recalled from parole licences under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and under earlier legislation and 20 men and no women recalled from life licences. The latest available data for those recalled under sections 38, 65 and 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and for 1993 when there were 33 men and no women recalled for breach under sections 38 and 65 and 22 men and no women recalled for reoffending under section 40.

  Vehicle Crime
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what were(a) the costs of vehicle crime in England and Wales for 1993 and (b) his Department's expenditure on related research that year; and what is the planned expenditure for 1994 and 1995.

  Mr. Maclean
  Our estimate of the total cost of vehicle crime during 1993 was £2.7 billion. This figure includes estimated property loss, and insurance costs, damage, security expenditure, inconvenience costs and criminal justice/police costs.

  Home Office expenditure on vehicle-related research totalled approximately £70,000 in 1993 and £72,000 in 1994. Planned expenditure for 1995 is approximately £90,000.

  Identity Cards
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest policy on identity cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced last October that the Government plan to publish a Green Paper on identity cards in the spring of this year.

  The Green Paper will set out options for a national identity card scheme. We will consider the possibility of introducing an identity card scheme in the light of the responses received to this consultation document.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the private companies that have been consulted by his Department over the possible introduction of identity cards.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Home Office has not entered into formal consultations with any private companies about the possible introduction of identity cards. The forthcoming Green Paper on identity cards will provide an opportunity for private companies to make their views known.

  Electric Shock Equipment
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which British police forces have electric shock anti-riot equipment; in what quantities; and for what purpose;

  (2) who authorised the supply of electric shock riot shields to police forces in England and Wales for test purposes; how many were purchased then; and to which forces they were supplied.

  Mr. Maclean
  Chief officers of police are responsible for deciding what equipment to obtain for their forces, either for testing or introduction. In the case of the Metropolitan police, the Commissioner requires my right hon. and learned Friend's agreement to defensive equipment. I understand that no force has obtained any form of electric shock equipment for use against people, or for testing for this purpose, although a number of forces have small numbers of electric shock shields and prods for use against ferocious dogs. Details of the numbers or distribution of such equipment are not available centrally.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many section 5 certificates have been granted in the last two years which relate specifically to electric shock weapons and to which companies.

  Mr. Maclean
  Electric shock weapons are prohibited by section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 and cannot be possessed without the authority of the Secretary of State. No company has been granted authority specifically to possess electric shock weapons in the last two years.

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by the Department or agency.

  Mr. Howard
  No part of my Department, including its agencies, has purchased any training, tuition or course, over the past 12 months, costing more than £5,000 for a single member of staff. The immigration and nationality department purchased five courses for 73 middle and senior operational managers at a total cost of £33,000. These were provided by a mix of in-house training staff and external consultants. Evaluation is by discussion between course members and their line managers. My Department has also made considerable investment in information technology training. A total of 19 courses for 127 members of staff on information technology and computer hardware costing more than £5,000 each have been purchased by the immigration and nationality department, the police national computer data centre and the Home Office's research and planning unit. Total costs were, respectively, £26,000, £36,250 and £74,000. The overall costs are a consequence of the number of information technology staff requiring training in implementing and using new systems and software.

WALES

  Defective Buildings, Flint
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action (1) he has taken following the copy letter dated 6 April 1994 from Clwyd county council chief fire officer to the National House Building Council regarding properties at Palace close, Flint and Balmoral close, Flint; and what is his opinion of the conformity to building regulations;

  (2) what request he has received to use his default powers under the Building Act 1984 with regard to Royal Gardens, Flint; what action he has taken; and if he will request a formal opinion of the nature and extent of the defects reported to him.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has received a request from Mr. C. Gavin of 15 Palace close to use his default powers under section 116 of the Building Act 1984. However, the Secretary of State uses these powers only in cases where there appears to be a manifest failure by a local authority to carry out a specific function under the Act.

  My right hon. Friend has no statutory basis on which he can express an opinion on conformity with the building regulations in this case. It was for NHBC Building Control Services Ltd. to consider what action might be necessary following the chief fire officer's letter to it.

  Blood
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future chain of command of the blood transfusion services in north Wales; what consultations he has hade with the Secretary of State for Health, the National Blood Authority, in England, and the National Blood Transfusion Service, in Wales, on this issue; and what representations he has received concerning his policies.

  Mr. Redwood
  Management of the blood transfusion service in north Wales is the responsibility of the National Blood Authority and representations about the future of this service are for the Secretary of State for Health. My officials were kept informed of progress on the review of services in England and these discussions are continuing. I will shortly be consulting on the future management of the Welsh blood service.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and the management of National Blood Transfusion Services—Wales regarding the screening of donors and recipients for hepatitis C.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Health Common Services Authority and National Blood Transfusion Services —Wales are being kept fully informed about the "look-back" exercise for hepatitis C.

  Internet
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the percentage of Welsh businesses connected to the Internet system.

  Mr. Redwood
  It has been estimated that in the United Kingdom as a whole some 30 per cent. of businesses are 154
  connected to the Internet. I am not aware of any reliable estimate of the comparable figure for Wales.

  Ambulance Personnel (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce the same early retirement settlement for ambulance personnel in Wales as is proposed for England.

  Mr. Richards
  In view of the level of provision made in 1993–94, there are no plans to introduce a further early retirement scheme for ambulance personnel in Wales in the current financial year.

  Tourist Rail Links (VAT)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the effect on tourist facilities in Wales of the imposition of value added tax on tourist rail links; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The application of VAT is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who announced on 29 November that services relating to entertainment or recreational activities and car parking at airports, which include passenger transport, will become wholly standard-rated. The measure will affect a limited range of businesses in Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Wales tourist board on the imposition of value added tax on tourist rail links and its likely effects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The chief executive of the board has written to me about this matter.

  Strategic Development Scheme Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total strategic development scheme expenditure to be allowed in Wales in 1995–96; what proportion of this will be spent in Gwynedd, and of this figure, how much in the voluntary sector; and if he will make a statement on any difficulties arising with regard to securing sufficient suitable projects for Gwynedd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The strategic development scheme's total budget for 1995–96 is £57 million, of which £5,900,000–10.4 per cent.—has been allocated to local authorities in Gwynedd. Some £464,645 will be spent on voluntary sector projects in Gwynedd. Before submitting bids, authorities are asked to consult widely within their local communities, with development agencies, the voluntary sector and other appropriate interested bodies. The selection and priority of the bids are a matter for those local authorities.

  Home Renovation Grants
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in(a) Wales and (b) Alyn and Deeside are waiting for home renovation grants; and what steps he is taking to provide funds for the delivery of these grants.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The figures requested are not held centrally. Since the grant system was introduced in 1990, more than £1.04 billion has been made available for renovation in Wales, with Alyn and Deeside receiving
  155
  some £14.9 million. For 1995–96, we have increased the money available for renovation to £198.5 million.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of equine infectious anaemia there have been in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of equine infectious anaemia have occurred in Wales since 1985.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning the requirement for adapting council houses for those suffering disability.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for local councils to determine the priority they attach to adaptations for individuals with disabilities. A council may carry out adaptations or tenants may apply for disabled facilities grants.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details of the number of dwellings provided by housing assoiciations for each district council and for Wales as a whole, for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of dwellings provided by housing associations in each district and in Wales as a whole is published annually in table 5.2 of Welsh housing statistics. Additionally, the numbers of dwellings provided during 1992–93 under the acquisition initiative were published in appendix 3 of Welsh housing statistics No. 13 1993. Copies of the publication are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the starting date applicable to the Tai Cymru policy framework for assisted ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The relevant regulation—statutory instrument No. 2895 of 1994—came into force on 8 December 1994. I expect the first sales of properties to take place during the financial year 1995–96.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details of the amount invested in housing provision in Wales from(a) grants from Tai Cymru, (b) transfers from local authorities and (c) private investment from banks and building societies, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information sought will be covered in the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98: Departmental Report by the Welsh Office and the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales" which is due to be published on 9 March 1995.

  Health Authorities (Financial Allocations)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to inform health authorities of their financial allocation for 1995–96.

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend will he announcing the financial allocations for 1995–96 to health authorities shortly.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the specific different circumstances in 156
  Wales which led him not to publish the consultation paper inviting views on the desirability of introducing a licencing system for homes in multiple occupation in England and Wales on which the Department of the Environment is consulting in England.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department of the Environment document covers England only. My right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman, other Welsh Members of Parliament, local authorities and interested organisations seeking their views on this issue.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the identifiable costs of administration within his office for grant-maintained schools; and what estimate he has made of costs which cannot be readily separated from general educational expenditure.

  Mr. Richards
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Health Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consult the chairmen of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales concerning potential savings from rationalising accommodation and other management running costs expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Such matters are kept under constant review.

  National Curriculum Assessment
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the results from the 1994 national curriculum assessment in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  A summary of the results submitted is shown in the following table. The results represent 8.2 per cent. of pupils eligible for assessment at the end of key stage 1 and 11.4 per cent. of pupils eligible for assessment at the end of key stage 3. This low level of response means that no statistically valid conclusions can be drawn from the data as regards the whole of Wales.

  Table 1: The percentage of pupils achieving level 2 and above at the end of Key Stage 1 (7-year-olds). A typical 7-year-old is expected to be at level 2.

  Tests Per cent.

  Teacher Assessments Per cent.

  English

  1—

  76

  Speaking and Listening

  1ߞ

  82

  Reading

  78

  77

  Writing

  66

  69

  Spelling

  69

  70

  Handwriting

  81

  81

  Mathematics

  1ߞ

  77

  Using and applying mathematics

  1—

  76

  Number

  79

  81

  Algebra

  1—

  77

  Shape and space

  1—

  73

  Handling data

  1—

  75

  157

  Table 1: The percentage of pupils achieving level 2 and above at the end of Key Stage 1 (7-year-olds). A typical 7-year-old is expected to be at level 2.

  Tests Per cent.

  Teacher Assessments Per cent.

  Science

  1—

  84

  Scientific investigation

  1—

  80

  Life and living process

  1—

  86

  Materials and their properties

  1—

  84

  Physical processes

  1—

  81

  Welsh: Insufficient data submitted

  1 Not subject to National Curriculum tests.

  Table 2: The percentage of pupils achieving level or above at the end of key stage 3—14-year-olds. A typical 14-year-old is expected to achieve level 5/6

  Tests Per cent.

  Teacher assessments Per cent.

  English

  48

  52

  Mathematics

  53

  59

  Science

  59

  66

  Welsh: No data submitted

  —

  —

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Homes Board
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the remuneration and emoluments and expenses paid to each member of the Scottish Homes board in each year since it was established.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have asked the chairman of Scottish Homes, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member with the relevant information.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish his consultation document on an accountability framework for fundholding general practitioners; and who will be included on the list of those to be consulted on this framework.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposed consultation document on an accountability framework for GP fundholders is due to be issued for consultation within the NHS in Scotland in the near future. Bodies which will be consulted will include GP fundholders, the Scottish general medical services committee of the British Medical Association, Royal College of General Practitioners, health boards, NHS trusts and local health councils.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioner fundholders in Scotland(a) are to participate and (b) have expressed an interest in participating in pilot studies under the primary care purchasing initiative for the purchase of all health care services; where these fundholders are located; and when the pilot studies will begin.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following information relates to the proposed pilot studies to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of GP fundholding 158
  practices which purchase all health care services on behalf of their patients in collaboration with their health board.

  To date approximately 30 GP fundholding practices in the following health board areas have expressed interest in participating.

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Tayside

  Some further expressions of interest from fundholding practices are expected.

  It is intended to mount up to six pilot studies in a range of areas but no final decisions have been reached about those practices which will participate. The pilot projects are expected to commence during 1995–96.

  Asthma Medication Costs
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the expenditure on general practitioner prescribed anti-asthma medication and preparations in each health board in Scotland in terms of(a) net ingredient cost and (b) net ingredient cost per capita for the last two years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information by health board and Scotland for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 is set out in the table. The costs shown are based on the value of the ingredients before the deduction of any discount and relate only to inhaled and oral adrenoceptor stimulants, inhaled steroids, inhaled antimuscarinic bronchodilators and theophylline preparations.

  Cost of medication £ million

  Cost per patient on GP lists (£)

  Health Board

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  2.751

  3.202

  6.11

  7.17

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3.019

  3.465

  7.72

  8.85

  Borders

  0.771

  0.879

  7.22

  8.20

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0.963

  1.076

  6.30

  7.02

  Fife

  2.105

  2.373

  6.00

  6.76

  Forth Valley

  1.723

  2.001

  5.95

  6.90

  Grampian

  3.098

  3.541

  5.88

  6.64

  Greater Glasgow

  6.135

  7.187

  6.02

  7.12

  Highland

  1.067

  1.247

  5.02

  5.87

  Lanarkshire

  3.775

  4.442

  6.46

  7.61

  Lothian

  4.620

  5.230

  5.78

  6.51

  Orkney

  0.097

  0.109

  4.84

  5.45

  Shetland

  0.077

  0.100

  3.38

  3.35

  Tayside

  2.943

  3.430

  7.20

  8.36

  Western Isles

  0.117

  0.142

  3.89

  4.73

  Unallocated prescriptions

  0.058

  0.054

  —

  —

  All Scotland

  33.319

  38.478

  6.21

  7.17

  Elderly People
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Highland regional council about attacks on vulnerable
  159
  elderly people in their homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such representations have been received from Highland regional council.

  Arts Courses
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school leavers, in the last year for which figures are available, entered courses run by colleges of(a) music, (b) art, (c) drama, (d) dance and (e) other arts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Low Moss Prison
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are to use the area of the resettlement unit at Bishopbriggs to extend facilities at Low Moss prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The suitability of this area for prison service facilities is one of a number of possible options currently being examined. No decisions have been taken; and any proposals for the use of this area would require to be the subject of an application for outline planning consent.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the eligibility for financial assistance under highlands and islands objective 1 status allow for applications for maintenance of rail services regionally; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the highlands and islands objective 1 programme, assistance from the European regional development fund can be provided towards rail infrastructure projects. EC funds cannot be used to provide a revenue subsidy.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the incidence of, and extent to which, highlands and islands objective 1 European funding has resulted in corresponding reductions in his Department's financial allocations and expenditure within the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  European Community spending, including that in the highlands and islands under objective 1, is dealt with in the public expenditure survey as an integral part of the expenditure programmes for which I have responsibility. EC rules on additionality preclude the use of objective 1 funds to substitute for other forms of public expenditure.

  Electro-Shock Weapons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date his Department gave ICL Technical Plastics a licence to produce electro-shock weapons in the United Kingdom.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Electric shock weapons are considered to be prohibited under the provisions of the Firearms Acts. Their manufacture, possession and sale, therefore, require the specific authority of my right hon. Friend. No such authority has been granted to ICL Technical Plastics.

  Ferry Transport
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) cars, (b) commercial vehicles and (c) passengers and the volume and value of freight originating from or destined to Scotland which was transported to or from mainland Europe by ferry via English ferry ports in the most recent five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his letter of 31 October to the hon. Member of Linlithgow, what progress his officials have made in monitoring the use of Kyocera titanium fibres in relation to hip replacements.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 January 1995]: As explained by my noble Friend the Minister of State in his letter to the hon. Gentleman of 31 October, although Kyocera included the possible use of titanium fibres in hip replacement implants in its patent application it is not yet developing the material into a marketable product for use in hip replacement applications. The Medical Devices Agency is taking the lead in monitoring developments in this area and will keep the other United Kingdom Health Departments informed.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations took place to ascertain the most suitable specification for the new communications system in the Scottish ambulance service control room in Aberdeen; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The Scottish ambulance service consulted within the service to establish its communications requirements and agreed the specification in consultation with the Scottish Office directorate of telecommunications which provided appropriate technical advice.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an analysis of the response to the consultation on trust status for the Scottish ambulance service; what consideration he has given to this analysis; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 January 1995]: An analysis of the responses is as follows:

  Body/individual

  1Number consulted

  Supporting the application

  No clear view expressed

  Not Supporting the application

  Health boards

  15

  4

  3

  1

  NHS Trust and DMUs

  51

  14

  7

  0

  Local health councils

  19

  6

  7

  2

  Regional and District councils

  65

  3

  15

  15

  MPs and Euro MPs

  80

  0

  1

  16

  Trades Unions/Trade councils

  12

  0

  0

  3

  Emergency services

  16

  0

  3

  0

  Universities

  12

  1

  1

  0

  161

  Body/individual

  1Number consulted

  Supporting the application

  No clear view expressed

  Not Supporting the application

  Health related organizations

  20

  4

  11

  5

  Community councils

  1,000

  5

  19

  38

  Political parties/organizations

  0

  0

  0

  4

  GPs, pharmacists, members of the public

  2,000

  2

  4

  7

  Total

  3,290

  39

  71

  91

  Note:

  1 Number of the Application Documents issued for consultation.

  Copies of all comments received in response to the public consultation have been retained by the Common Services Agency and are available for inspection. A copy is available for inspection in the Library of the Scottish Office, St. Andrew's house, Edinburgh.

  Following an extensive consultation exercise including 34 public meetings held throughout Scotland, 201 responses were received. Only 91 of these specifically indicated opposition to the application. Consideration was given to all the comments made and to the report and recommendations made by the Common Services Agency. The application was considered against the published criteria of benefits for patients, management competence, involvement of clinicians and other health care professionals in management and financial viability. My right hon. Friend announced on 25 November that he had given his approval to the application after appraisal against the criteria.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the letter of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 2 August 1994, what evidence he has had from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority about the use of ovarian tissue in research; and what action he proposes to take.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: No such evidence has been received. I understand that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has not received any application for the use of ovarian tissue for research purposes in the period since I wrote to the hon. Member on 2 August 1994.

  Lorries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he is making of the impact of 40-tonne lorries on secondary roads and bridges in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: Regional and islands councils, as local roads authorities, are responsible for assessing the impact of 40-tonne lorries on secondary roads and bridges in Scotland. Bridges which form part of the trunk road network are being assessed, and strengthened where appropriate, by the Scottish Office.

  Bridges
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of increased help for new unitary local authorities for the strengthening of bridges.
  162
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: Bridge assessment and strengthening is one of the Government's special objectives in determining local authority capital allocations for roads and transport in Scotland. Full consideration is given, within the resources available, to the proposals contained in local authorities' transport policies and programmes documents and financial plans for bridge assessment and strengthening. There will continue to be arrangements to ensure that adequate financial resources are available to cover necessary work when the new unitary local authorities assume their responsibilities.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his policy in respect of the future management and disposition of common good funds by the new unitary authorities in Scotland after April 1996;

  (2) if he will require new unitary authorities to restrict decisions on the disposition and management of common good funds to the new councillors representing the area for which the common good fund was established;

  (3) if he will ensure that the new unitary authorities are unable to apply common good resources to any subject which can be financed by normal local authority funds.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: Subject to complying with the current statutory requirements, local authorities have complete discretion as to the management and disposition of common good funds. Authorities must have regard to the interests of the inhabitants of their area and, with common good property, must have regard to the interests of the inhabitants of the area to which the common good related prior to 16 May 1975. The existing arrangements will continue to apply after April 1996.

  Management and disposition of common good funds may be addressed in the decentralisation schemes which will be drawn up by the new councils. Community councils will be formally consulted on the draft schemes, which will also be subject to public consultation.

  Retail Development
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the new national planning policy guideline on retail development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: I expect to issue a draft national planning policy guideline on retailing for public consultation very shortly.

  Churches
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances churches are classed as business users for water rates; and, if he has any plan to reclassify charitable bodies, including churches.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: All occupiers of premises connected to the public water supply may be liable to pay water charges. Churches are liable to pay either the non-domestic water rate, at the reduced levy applicable to such premises, or metered water charges.

  We have no plans to change this prior to restructuring of Scotland's water and sewerage services. At that point,

  163
  it will be for the new water and sewerage authorities to determine future methods of charging for their services.

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list operations cancelled by Aberdeen Royal Hospitals in each month since June 1994.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: This information is not collected centrally. The chairman of the Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS trust has been asked to provide the information to the hon. Member.

EDUCATION

  City of Westminster Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received relating to the City of Westminster Bill[Lords]; and what was her response.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There has been correspondence with Westminster city council about the need for clause 9 of the Bill which would relieve the local education authority of its duty under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 to build a new school at Moxon Street. No other correspondence about this aspect of the Bill has been received.

  Annual Capital Guidelines
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received from local education authorities regarding the 1995–96 annual capital guideline figures since their announcement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To date, some 14 LEAs have written to officials, identified concerns on the telephone, or made a request to bring a delegation to see me.

  Schools (Capital Spending)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much central Government support for capital spending in schools has changed in real terms between 1986–87 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Between 1986–87 and 1993–94, there was a 57 per cent. real terms increase in central Government capital support for schools. That covers spending on local authority and voluntary schools and, since 1989, grant-maintained schools.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the education standard spending assessment of Hereford and Worcester county council.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The increase in Hereford and Worcester's education standard spending assessment for 1995–96 is higher than the national average. Allowing for the reform of inter-authority recoupment, the authority's provisional education SSA will be 2.3 per cent. higher than in 1994–95.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made with regard to the progress of Ofsted.

  Mr. Forth
  Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, the head of Ofsted, is responsible for the new school inspection arrangements. The Secretary of State shares with him the objective of ensuring that all publicly funded schools are independently inspected on a four-year cycle. The new arrangements have got off to a good start. By the end of this academic year, roughly half of all secondary schools, and a significant minority of primary schools, will have been independently inspected and a copy of the report sent to every parent.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the progress of the working party established to consider the provision of nursery and pre-school education.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress she is making in achieving a nursery place for all children over three years of age.

  Mr. Forth
  The task force, established by my right hon. Friend, is consulting widely and is considering a range of options to achieve the Prime Minister's commitment to provide a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish them to take it up. As the expansion is achieved, we want to ensure that it will add to the choice parents have among a range of provision—public, private and voluntary. My right hon. Friend will be making an announcement about progress in due course.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much Government funding was given during 1994 for the provision of nursery school education within the Greater London area.

  Mr. Forth
  For the purpose of determining standard spending assessments, the education component of standard spending, net of specific grants, is divided into five sub-blocks—under-fives, primary, secondary, 16-plus, and other education. There is no SSA for nursery school education as the under-fives sub-block notionally includes spending on rising fives in primary schools as well as pupils in nursery schools and classes. The total of the under-fives SSA sub-block for London local education authorities in 1994–95 is £189.87 million.

  Schools, Shropshire
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the adequacy of current class sizes and academic achievement in local education authority schools in Shropshire.

  Mr. Forth
  Average class sizes in Shropshire are lower than average class sizes nationally. In 1994, 46.2 per cent. of 15-year-olds in Shropshire maintained schools obtained five or more GCSE grades A*-C, compared with 38.2 per cent. for LEA-maintained schools nationally.

  Research Links
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about the
  165
  development of research links between universities and industry.

  Mr. Boswell
  There are many examples of universities and industry working together for their mutual benefit. We have asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to take into account in its funding for research the policies set out in the White Paper "Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology". This includes developing the method for rewarding universities and colleges which collaborate in generic research with industry.

  Three-tier Schools System
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many education authorities have a three-tier system in their schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1994, 32 local education authorities were operating a three-year system in all or in part of their area.

  Higher Education
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she last had a meeting with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals regarding the impact of Government policy on higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend last met the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on 2 December 1994, and discussed a range of matters, including matters relevant to the impact of Government policy on higher education.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many disabled pupils in Britain who were in mainstream primary schools have been denied mainstream secondary places in 1994.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally. The special educational needs code stresses the need for careful planning for transfer between phases: if parents remain dissatisfied with a local education authority's decision about their child's special educational needs they can appeal as appropriate to the SEN tribunal or an independent appeal committee established by the relevant admissions authority.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools in Britain in 1994 have had adaptations to allow full access for disabled students.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not held centrally. From May this year, we will be conducting a survey of the accessibility of all schools. This survey will be completed biennially and comparing these results with those produced in future years' surveys will provide an indication of the amount of adaptation undertaken during that period.

  School Budgets, Derbyshire
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on school budgets in Derbyshire for 1995–96.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It will be up to Derbyshire county council to decide what to spend on the various services for which it is responsible, including schools. Derbyshire's166
  education standard spending assessment will increase by 0.7 per cent. in 1995–96.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will visit the Makerfield constituency to discuss the funding of local education authority schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Student Poverty
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to address the issue of student poverty.

  Mr. Boswell
  There is no evidence of widespread student poverty. For those eligible for mandatory awards and student loans, the total support available has risen slightly in real terms since 1990 when loans were first introduced. It will increase by 2.5 per cent for the 1995–96 academic year. Other students can apply to local education authorities for discretionary awards. The access funds can provide additional assistance to full-time students in particular need.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of pupils on the assisted places scheme receive a free place.

  Mr. Forth
  Over 40 per cent. of assisted place holders received a free place in the academic year 1993–94.

  Class Sizes
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research her Department has undertaken into the relationship between class size and educational standards.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has not undertaken such research itself, but monitors work generally in this field.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what additional funding and resources she proposes for children with special needs in the next financial year.

  Mr. Forth
  Education standard spending assessments will rise on average by 1.2 per cent. in 1995–96 and the special educational needs code of practice will encourage schools to make most effective use of their budgets for special educational needs pupils. In addition, grants for education support and training from the Department for Education to local education authorities in support of special educational needs will increase by some 15 per cent.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to make provision, in the entire education service from nursery to higher education, for children identified as being affected by attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

  Mr. Forth
  The responsibility for making provision for school children with special educational needs, including,
  167
  those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, rests with schools and local education authorities. The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, issued by the Secretary of State under the Education Act 1993, gives guidance to schools and LEAs on their responsibilities towards all pupils with special educational needs of all kinds. District health authorities and NHS trusts must inform the parents and the appropriate LEA when they form the opinion that a child under the age of five may have special educational needs.

  The Further Education Funding Council and LEAs are statutorily required to take account of the needs of students in further education with all kinds of learning difficulties. In higher education, the Secretary of State's initial letter of guidance to the Higher Education Funding Council for England asked it to consider how it could best meet the needs of students with learning difficulties. Universities are able to make the provision they consider appropriate for students with learning difficulties.

  Teachers' Morale
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she had made of the proposed system of league tables on the morale of the teaching profession.

  Mr. Forth
  School and college performance tables are now well established, not least because they help ensure that the achievements of individual schools and colleges are fully recognised. The views of the representatives of the teaching profession are sought each year on the format and content of the tables.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the future of religious education and the daily act of worship in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have no plans to change the law requiring religious education and daily collective worship to be provided for all registered pupils at maintained schools. These activities make an important contribution to pupils' moral and spiritual development.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will investigate the circumstances surrounding the extension of the employment contract of the chief executive of the Student Loans Company; who took the decision, if she approved the extension; and what considerations led to the contract being extended.

  Mr. Boswell
  The decision to offer Mr. Harrison an extension of his contract as chief executive was taken in November 1993 by the board of the Student Loans Company, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend's predecessor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Departmental Employees
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many employees for which her Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and, of these, how
  168
  many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of women employed by the Department at the specified grades over the past four years is as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  31

  44

  39

  45

  EO

  208

  218

  269

  280

  AO

  403

  410

  446

  416

  AA

  265

  287

  224

  208

  Overall

  1,096

  1,150

  1,186

  1,233

  Private Finance Initiative
  Sir Nicholas Scott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans her Department has for encouraging the use of the private finance initiative in education.

  Mr. Boswell
  In December last, we issued the booklet "Education Means Business" which sets out opportunities for private investment in education. This was sent to all higher and further education institutions, grant-maintained schools and all other secondary schools, maintained special schools, local education authorities, diocesan bodies and teachers' organisations together with banks, solicitors and accountancy firms and other businesses that have expressed an interest in PFI and education. Copies were placed in the Library of the House.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Further Education Funding Council and the Funding Agency for Schools maintained registers of businesses and education providers who are interested in pursuing privately financed projects and put interested parties in touch with each other.

  The Department—working together with the higher education funding councils and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals—is organising a conference for universities and the private sector to encouraged further private investment in higher education. It is to be held on 23 March at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. We arc considering whether it would be beneficial to organise similar conferences for the further education and schools sectors.

  The Department's PFI unit is arranging a number of visits to schools and LEAs with the objective of promoting PFI.

  As announced at the time of the last Budget, we are making changes from 1 April 1995 to the allocation of capital and recurrent grants to both higher and further education funding councils. This will enable them to give higher and further education institutions more flexibility to decide how to finance capital projects and, in particular, more scope to use private sector finance. In addition, further education institutions will have the same ability as the higher education institutions to use Exchequer-funded assets as security for loans.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will set out for each of the next steps agencies in her Department, whether they have acquired their own headquarters buildings and, if so, at what
  169
  purchase cost or annual rental; how many support staff they have acquired which were not required when their operations were within her Department; how many of them publish periodical journals and at what annual cost; how many have fleets of executive cars or single executive cars and at what annual cost; how many have spoecifially designed logos and at what cost; how many have corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has only one next steps agency, the Teachers Pensions Agency. The operational and managerial matters of the Teachers Pensions Agency are the responsibility of its chief executive, Mrs. Denyse Metcalfe. I have asked her to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Denyse Metcalf to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 23 January 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Teachers' Pensions Agency, I have been asked to let you have information about the Agency as requested in your Question to the Secretary of State for Education about the operation of the Department's Next Steps Agencies.
  The TPA was launched as an Agency in April 1992 and has continued to occupy premises in Darlington on a site shared with the Department. It has no separate headquarters building. As well as sharing a site with the Department the Agency also obtains most of its support services from the Department under a Service Level Agreement, although it has its own Personnel and Training Section of 5 staff of whom 2 were additional posts in support of delegated freedoms stemming from the Agency's Framework Document.
  The TPA produces an information sheet which it sends to the employers (approximately 3,500) of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme members each term. The cost of this publication is £6,000 annually.
  The Agency has one 'pool' car which is owned by the Agency and used by the Chief Executive and other staff for seminars and visits to employers. The annual cost of the car in 93/94 was £1,900.
  The Agency has a logo which was produced as a result of an 'in house' competition for which a token amount of £150 was paid to the member of staff who produced it. The Agency has not corporate clothing and the use of a logo on stationery does not result in any increased costs.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for(a) English, (b) mathematics and (c) history the publications, guidance and teaching material which has been sent to schools concerning the national curriculum since 1988; and if she will give the cost for each subject.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the information requested in the case of the statutory documents setting out study requirements for the current national curriculum in English, mathematics and history.

  For the revised national curriculum which comes into effect in August 1995, however, the statutory documents for the 11 subjects and the two supporting compilations were produced as a single project. It is not possible therefore to disaggregate the production and distribution costs of the individual subjects, but the production cost and the estimated distribution cost of the entire revised national curriculum are shown, along with the names of the relevant documents. Distribution is currently under way.

  The table also lists publications since 1988 relating to non-statutory curriculum guidance and the assessment of pupils in English, mathematics and history, although in
  170
  some cases the documents cover all three core subjects—English, mathematics and science. I will write to the hon. Member with cost details as soon as possible.

  1. Statutory documents containing attainment targets and programmes of study for the current National Curriculum

  Production costs £

  Distribution costs £

  English in the National Curriculum

  840,000

  242,000

  English in the National Curriculum (1991)

  1757,000

  1198,000

  Mathematics in the National Curriculum

  231,000

  74,000

  Mathematics in the National Curriculum (1991)

  736,000

  153,000

  History in the National Curriculum

  1These figures are estimates.

  Statutory documents containing Attainment Targets and Programmes of study for the revised National Curriculum coming into effect in August 1995

  English in the National Curriculum

  Mathematics in the National Curriculum

  History in the National Curriculum

  The National Curriculum

  Key Stages 1 and 2 of the National Curriculum

  Production cost—entire National Curriculum—£1,167,000

  Estimated distribution costs—entire National Curriculum—£255,000

  Non-statutory curriculum guidance, and publications related to assessment of pupils

  a. Curriculum guidance

  English

  1989 Non-Statutory Guidance (Key Stage 1)

  1990 Non-Statutory Guidance (Key Stages 1–4)

  1990 Aspects of English

  Mathematics

  1989 Non-Statutory Guidance

  1991 Non-Statutory Guidance

  1990 Using and Applying Mathematics (Book A)

  1990 Using and Applying Mathematics (Book B)

  1991 Mathematics Programmes of Study:

  INSET for Key Stages 3 and 4

  1993 Mathematics Programmes of Study:

  INSET for Key Stages 1 and 2

  History

  1991 Non-Statutory Guidance

  1992 History at Key Stage 2: an introduction to the non-European study units.

  1993 Teaching History at Key Stage 3

  1993 Teaching History at Key Stage 1

  1993 Teaching History at Key Stage 2

  b. Assessment of pupils

  The core subjects—English, mathematics and science combined

  Key Stage 1

  1991 Children's Work Assessed

  1992 School Assessment Folder

  1992 Core Subjects Reference Notes

  1992 Core Tasks

  1993 School Assessment Folder

  1993 Children's Work Assessed

  1993 Core Tasks

  1994 School Assessment Folder

  1994 Core Tasks

  1995 Assessment Arrangements

  Key Stage 2

  1994 School Assessment Folder

  1994 Children's Work Assessed

  1995 Assessment Arrangements

  171

  1995 Special Arrangements

  Key Stage 3

  1991 Teacher Assessment at KS3

  1991 Teacher Assessment in Practice

  1992 School Assessment Folder

  1993 School Assessment Folder

  1993 Materials to Support the End of Key Stage Tests

  1993 Guidance on Special Arrangements

  1993 Test Timetable

  1993 Test Guidance Notes

  1994 End of Key Stage Assessment Arrangements

  1994 Test Timetable

  1994 Guidance on Special Arrangements

  1994 Test Guidance Notes

  1994 Reporting and Recording Leaflet

  1995 School Assessment Folder (booklet 1)

  1995 School Assessment Folder (Booklet 2)

  1995 Test Timetable

  1995 Special Arrangements Timetable

  English

  Key Stage 1

  1991 En 1 Speaking and Listening

  1992 Children's Work Assessed

  1992 Reading and Spelling

  1993 Reading and Spelling Tasks

  1994 Reading and Spelling Tasks

  1995 Tasks

  Key Stage 2

  1993 Pilot Tests

  1994 Pilot Tests

  1995 Tasks

  Key Stage 3

  1992 Pupils' Work Assessed

  1993 Assessing En 1

  Information on the 1993 Tests

  1993 English Anthology

  1993 Sample Test Questions

  1994 Level 1–3 Tasks

  1994 Test Guidance Notes

  1995 Levels 1–3 Tasks

  Mathematics

  Key Stage 1

  1992 Optional Tasks (mathematics and science combined)

  1994 Optional Mathematics Pack

  1995 Mathematics Tasks

  Key Stage 2

  1993 Pilot Tests

  1994 Pilot Tests

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £ million

  outturn

  estimate

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges1

  3.021

  3.498

  3.848

  4.051

  4.184

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  0.535

  0.652

  0.949

  0.857

  0.832

  National Council for Educational Technology

  4.660

  4.961

  5.658

  5.506

  5.391

  Further Education Unit2

  3.871

  3.129

  3.545

  —

  —

  National Youth Bureau3

  0.571

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Youth Agency4

  —

  1.840

  1.495

  1.344

  1.394

  Education Assets Board

  0.552

  0.500

  0.858

  0.784

  1.401

  School Examinations and Assessment Council5

  7.730

  10.532

  12.383

  4.139

  —

  National Curriculum Council5

  7.340

  7.698

  8.135

  3.091

  —

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority6

  —

  —

  —

  21.998

  34.000

  Teaching as a Career Unit

  1.487

  1.402

  1.407

  1.064

  1.194

  Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council7

  1,104.255

  993.158

  1,034.601

  —

  —

  172

  1995 Tasks

  Key Stage 3

  1991 Teacher Assessment at KS3

  1992 Pupils' Work Assessed

  1992 Materials to support the Assessment of MA 1

  1993 Sample Test Questions

  1993 Assessing Ma 1

  1993 Pupils' Work Assessed

  1994 Level 1&2 Tasks

  1995 Level 1&2 Tasks

  History

  Key Stage 1

  1993 Children's Work Assessed (history and geography combined)

  Key Stage 3

  1992 Teacher Assessment at KS3

  1993 Pupils' Work Assessed

  University Students
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to help university students living below the poverty line and not in receipt of social security benefit.

  Mr. Boswell
  The student income and expenditure survey for 1992–93 conducted on behalf of the Department revealed no evidence of widespread student poverty, for those students prepared to take the concessionary student loans on offer. The total support available through the main rates of grant and loan will increase by 2.5 per cent. for the 1995–96 academic year. Income support and housing benefit continue to be available to students in certain vulnerable groups. The access funds, which will be increased by about £1 million to around £28 million for 1995–96, can provide additional assistance to full-time students in particular need.

  Public Bodies (Grants)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the grants given to non-governmental organisations by her Department in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Boswell
  The grants given to the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department are listed in the table. Those made to the research councils and to the Sports Council, formerly sponsored by the then Department of Education and Science and now by the Office of Public service and Science and the Department of National Heritage respectively, are published in the appropriation accounts, copies of which are in the Library.
  173

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £ million

  outturn

  estimate

  Universities Funding Council7

  1,836.708

  1,782.142

  1,806.426

  —

  —

  Higher Education Funding Council for England8

  —

  —

  0.500

  2,810.626

  3,436.076

  Further Education Funding Council8

  —

  —

  24.417

  2,706.066

  2,847.058

  Funding Agency for Schools9

  —

  —

  —

  0.674

  237.026

  Teacher Training Agency10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.932

  Special Educational Needs Tribunal11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.220

  1Merged with British Council December 1993. Henceforth sponsored by Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  2Subsumed in Further Education Funding Council grant from 1993–94.

  3Wound up in 1991 and replaced by the National Youth Agency.

  4Established April 1991 incorporating National Youth Bureau and Council for Education and Training in Community Work.

  5Wound up in 1993.

  6Established October 1993 incorporating School Examinations and Assessment Council and National Curriculum Council.

  7Wound up March 1993.

  8Established April 1993. Preparatory costs in 1992–93.

  9Established April 1994. Preparatory costs in 1993–94. 1994–95 estimate net of annual maintenance grants, which are recouped in full from local education authorities, and loan repayments.

  10Established September 1994. Preparatory costs only.

  11Established September 1994. Programme costs only.

HEALTH

  Cancer
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to assist cancer sufferers to live at home with the appropriate and necessary level of support.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities are required to contract for specialist palliative care services to meet the assessed health needs of their populations. We have increased the amount of funding made available to health authorities for specialist palliative care from £8 million in 1990–91 to nearly £48 million this financial year. This financial commitment has helped to ensure that palliative care is increasingly available in all settings, including in the patient's own home. The development of the right services to enable people to live in their own homes wherever this is possible and sensible is a key objective of the new community care arrangements. The expert advisory group on cancer also recommended that treatment should be provided as close to the patient's home as is compatible with high-quality, safe and effective treatment.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health trusts have set energy saving targets comparable to those set by health authorities given in "Climate Change: The UK Programme".

  Mr. Sackville
  Some 387 national health service trusts have established energy targets for the period to March 1996 and beyond.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by each health authority in the United Kingdom towards the energy saving target given in "Climate Change: The UK Programme".

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service energy savings programme commenced in April 1991 with a target set to reduce national energy consumption by 15 per cent. over the five years to 1995–96. The broad total savings achieved in England to date amount to 7.9 per cent.
  174
  It is not possible to give totals for each health authority or national health service trust.

  Additional energy savings have been projected from April 1994 to March 1996 amounting to 8.3 per cent.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each local authority in England the special transitional grant for 1994–95; and if she will indicate for each local authority the funding that would have been received by that authority if the distribution formula had been the same as that used for 1993–94, and indicate the difference between the two.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 March 1994,Official Report, column 308.

  Long-term Care
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what national criteria she has stipulated against which she will judge whether the definitions of access to long-term health care which the district health authorities will be negotiating with their local authorities next year are reasonable and equitable;

  (2) what financial recompense she will require to be made to local authorities required to provide a substantial part of long-term care which is elsewhere available under the NHS.

  Mr. Bowis
  We shall shortly be issuing guidance to health authorities on their responsibilities for continuing health care. Under this guidance, all health authorities will be required to review their current arrangements and to ensure they are securing an adequate level of continuing health care to meet the needs of their population.

  NHS Uniformity
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring mechanism she has requested the National Health Service Executive put in place to ensure that there is consistency of definitions between authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Executive in consultation with the NHS, has commissioned national standards for the data items, including definitions, which
  175
  all NHS authorities have agreed to collect regularly, both for local NHS management and returns to the centre. The regulation of these standards is governed by the joint Department of Health-National Health Service Committee for Regulating Information Requirements.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanism is in place to ensure equity between different areas of the country as regards the availability of different forms of treatment on the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Our policy objective is to secure, through resource allocation, over time, equal opportunity of access to health care for people at equal risk. A weighted capitation formula is used as the basis for allocating hospital and community health services revenue to regional health authorities. The formula weights their population for age, need, and for geographical variation in the cost of providing services. It is for health authorities to determine, taking full account of national priorities, set out in the annual priorities and planning guidance, how best to use the resources available to them to meet local needs.

  Stress-related Diseases
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of deaths among(a) men and (b) women in each of the last five years were a consequence of stress-related diseases.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on death certificates about causes of death is given in terms of diagnosis. Stress may be a contributory factor in deaths from a number of diseases, but is not a separate diagnostic category. It is therefore not possible to say what proportion of deaths from any disease are stress related.

  Children's Homes
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the study being prepared by the social services inspectorate into unregistrable children's homes will be(a) completed and (b) published.

  Mr. Bowis
  I expect the report to be submitted within the next few months. A decision on publication will be made thereafter.

  Children (Placement)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are currently placed with non-relatives under the arrangements for the Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991; and in what percentage of these placements a taxable fee is being paid directly to the non-relative or to an agency.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information collected centrally relates only to children looked after by local authorities. At 31 March 1993 approximately 43,000 children looked after by local authorities were placed in foster care with non-relatives or in residential accommodation, and would have been subject to these regulations. Of these, 27,000 were in foster care. The total includes about 2,000 children with agreements for a series of short-term placements, who will not all have been so placed on that date.

  Where placements are with a foster family, the percentage of foster carers that receive a taxable fee—reward payments—is very small.
  176
  In all cases where placements are with an agency, the fee, less expenses accepted by the Inland Revenue, would be regarded as taxable income.

  Conception
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surveys she has conducted to establish which scientists argue that conception in human reproduction occurs days later than fertilisation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The accepted scientific view is that pregnancy does not occur until the fertilised ovum implants in the womb, which is usually around six days after fertilisation.

  Laparoscopic Operations
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the recently issued guidelines, by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, on the subject of laparoscopic operations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  No representations have been received about these guidelines, which were contained in a report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists working party on training in gynaecological endoscopic surgery, the publication of which we welcome.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will require the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to introduce an accreditation procedure for surgeons wishing to perform laparoscopic operations.

  Mr. Sackville
  We welcome the recent decision by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to introduce compulsory training in endoscopic surgery, including issuing certificates of competence to those who have had satisfactory reports.

  Ambulance Response Times, Bolton
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the target ambulance response times for Bolton;

  (2) on how many occasions, numerically and as a percentage over the last two years, target ambulance response times for Bolton have not been met.

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities are responsible for setting and monitoring performance standards for the emergency and urgent ambulance services in the district(s) they cover, which must as a minimum accord with national standards. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Wigan and Bolton district health authority, for details of the services in Bolton.

  Mrs Elizabeth Bailey
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the report of the inquiry into the part played in the death of Mrs. Elizabeth Bailey of Bolton by(a) hospital bed availability and (b) ambulance response time.

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of the sad circumstances of Mrs. Bailey's death. My right hon. Friend does not expect to receive further reports. It is for the local health authorities to consider any lessons to be learned for the operation of the health services in Bolton.

  Specialty Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for each financial year since 1989–90 the numbers of(a) hospital spells and (b) finished consultant episodes in NHS hospitals in England recorded in the NHS Executive's fast-track monitoring returns for (i) acute specialties, (ii) geriatrics, (iii) mental illness, (iv) mental handicap, (v) maternity, (vi) well babies and (vii) all specialties.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The numbers of finished consultant episodes for ordinary and day case admissions in national health service hospitals in England are published in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England: Financial Year 1993–94, copies of which are available in the Library. These are the definitive figures which supersede the provisional forecasts from the National Health Service Executive's fast-track monitoring returns. Information on hospital spells is not collected within the fast-track system.

  Family Health Services
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for each year since 1974–75 total spending on family health services for each NHS region and for the special health authorities(a) in cash terms, (b) adjusted using the GDP deflator and (c) adjusted using the NHS pay and prices index.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: A regional breakdown of all family health services expenditure from 1992–93 will be placed in the Library. Regional figures for earlier years are not readily available on a comparable basis but national totals of FHS expenditure from 1974–75 will also be placed in the Library. Figures have been adjusted to 1993–94 prices using the GDP deflator. The only available FHS inflation index is based on costs in the non-cash-limited part of the FHS and is not applicable to these figures which incorporate both cash-limited and non-cash-limited FHS expenditure. Special health authorities do not incur expenditure on family health services.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for each financial year since 1989–90 the numbers of day case admissions to NHS hospitals in England recorded in(a) the hospital episode system and (b) the NHS Executive's fast-track monitoring returns for (i) acute specialties, (ii) geriatrics, (iii) mental illness, (iv) mental handicap, (v) maternity, (vi) well babies and (vii) all specialties.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The number of day case admissions for each speciality group from the hospital episode statistics system for each financial year 1988–89 to 1992–93 is given in the annual publication "Hospital Episode Statistics, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  The National Health Service Executive's fast-track monitoring returns are used to produce provisional forecasts which are not routinely published. The final definitive figures of day case admission in NHS hospitals are published in "Ordinary and Day Case Admissions for England: Financial Year 1993–94", and copies are available in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the annual cost of employing a factory inspector.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The average annual cost at 1994–95 prices to the Health and Safety Executive of employing a factory inspector 1B, the main grade deployed on inspection work, is £45,387.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many cases relatives of(a) existing factory inspectors and (b) administrative staff have been recruited in (i) area offices, (ii) HQ Bootle or (iii) London in the administrative executive and clerical grades; if he will issue instructions to prevent this practice; and if he will take appropriate disciplinary action.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No statistics are kept of relatives employed in Health and Safety Executive offices.

  The recruitment of all staff in the HSE meets the civil service Order in Council rules dealing with fair and open recruitment. The existing rules about recruitment of relatives are sufficiently clear and stringent and no disciplinary action is needed.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors are due to be recruited in 1995; and when the recruitment will take place.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  A current recruitment competition aims to recruit approximately 60 factory inspectors.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many premises were inspected by the factory inspectorate(a) in 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information about the number of premises inspected is not readily available since some premises received more than one visit. The number of planned inspection visits carried out by the field operations division's factory, agriculture and quarries inspectors is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Number of inspections

  1992–93

  157,426

  1993–94

  152,014

  Visits were also paid for a range of other purposes, such as to follow up complaints and to investigate accidents.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the names and full costs of all consultants currently used by the Health and Safety Executive and those used in 1993–94.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Available information for 1993–94 is given in the following table. A similar list for the current year is not yet available.
  179

  Names and costs of consultants—1993–94

  Consultant

  Cost (£)

  P. A. Consulting Group

  22,424.72

  MaST Western Ltd.

  1,796.20

  Dr. Fitzgerald

  141.00

  Elintech

  64,918.75

  Easesystems Ltd.

  13,236.94

  R. M. Consultants

  2,806.75

  Dr. P. Knight

  194.95

  W. L. Pugh Mining Engineer

  1,044.00

  Strata Control Technology Pty Ltd.

  13,612.89

  Mr. Essery

  10,000.00

  Mr. Sibson

  10,000.00

  Mr. Hiles

  15,928.00

  Miss Caws QC

  2,931.25

  Mr. Burgess

  238.60

  Disc Europe

  60,000.00

  Compel plc

  1,890.00

  Retix UK Ltd.

  700.00

  Amtec Consulting

  870.00

  Level 7 Ltd.

  16,218.65

  Admiral Software Ltd.

  1,000.20

  Uden Computer Consultants

  33,929.37

  Mica Computing Services

  772.40

  Sensory Systems

  125.00

  Yale Consulting

  38,315.00

  E2E Systems

  8,510.64

  SiSL

  34,042.55

  Hoskyns Group

  13,846.74

  Cognos Ltd.

  29,594.31

  Triad Special Systems

  490.95

  Comtex (UK) Ltd.

  4,815.00

  Kinesis Computing Ltd.

  149,398.12

  Professor Sir William Wade QC

  5,581.25

  Patrick Thomas

  455.49

  Keisley Harris

  7,167.50

  Capita

  42,881.00

  Denham-Nash Ltd.

  18,926.80

  W. S. Atkins

  42,955.66

  Ernst and Young

  15,000.00

  Allan H. Webb

  5,922.01

  Hunterskill

  31,114.05

  Turner Williams

  28,107.34

  ROSPA

  19,470.58

  University of Nottingham

  4,200.00

  John Enderby

  502.26

  Shreeveport

  2,440.00

  KPMG

  27,672.14

  Ian Sharland Ltd.

  7,680.00

  Institute of Occupational Medicine Ltd.

  125.00

  BMRB International

  3,466.00

  TQM International Ltd.

  34,771.46

  Pointing Consulting Services Ltd.

  15,537.47

  Business Planning and Research International

  13,899.74

  Taylor Nelson AGB plc

  18,623.75

  Dr. P. Buley

  4,857.69

  Mr. A. B. Martin

  16,817.62

  Mr. A. J. Linehan

  6,511.36

  Dr. J. Patrick

  1,552.17

  Mr. J. Hannaford

  3,074.82

  Dr. D. Hicks

  2,044.61

  Sir Alan Cottrell

  10,000.00

  Professor E. Smith

  13,747.50

  Mr. G. L. Potts

  21,072.00

  Dr. R. E. Long

  11,944.97

  Mr. D. Stallard

  4,999.62

  Total

  996,914.84

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Health and Safety Executive will open the files held in area offices on individual firms' inspection history to members of the public on demand without payment of any fees.
  180
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Under the code of practice on access to government information and the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, the Health and Safety Executive will make available, on request information about inspections it has carried out at particular premises, subject to the exempted categories of information in the code and the regulations.

  Where the HSE uses significant resources to make information available, it will make reasonable charges for such information as it is entitled to do under both the code and the regulations.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many premises liable to inspection by the Health and Safety Executive have not had a full basic inspection by the Health and Safety Executive in the last(a) five, (b) seven, (c) nine, (d) 11 and (e) more years; and what will be the inspection backlog for 1994–95.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information about the elapsed years since full basic inspections were carried out by the Health and Safety Executive to premises for which the HSE has inspection responsibilities, can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Although elapsed years is one consideration in determining inspection priorities, more account is taken of the degree of hazard and risk posed to employees and the public. Inspection programmes are selected each year to match the resources available, and there is no inspection backlog.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the target number of basic field inspections for 1995–96 in the field operations division of the Health and Safety Executive; and how many premises in total the Health and Safety Executive is now responsible for inspecting.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The 1995–96 plan of work for the field operations division of the Health and Safety Executive is still in preparation and the target number of inspections is not yet known. HSE inspectors are responsible for enforcing health and safety legislation in over 650,000 establishments.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the Health and Safety Executive is alleviating the problem of work-related stress among its staff.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive's safety policy is clear in establishing divisional management responsibilities for dealing with issues such as stress at work. Guidance to divisional line managers is currently provided in the Employment Department group personnel handbook. This guidance augments the high level of awareness within the HSE's divisions of the risks associated with work-induced stress. While recognising the difficulties posed by non-work stresses, it sets out a practical approach to identifying and combating workplace stress. The HSE's 1995 staff attitudes survey will provide monitoring of its effectiveness in managing this issue.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes in the complement of principal inspectors of factories is being planned for the Health and Safety Executive area offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The complement of principal inspectors—factory, agriculture and quarries—in area offices is being reduced for 1995–96 by approximately 34, as part of the process of restructuring some parts of
  181
  the Health ad Safety Executive in order to allow the executive to recruit more inspectors for front-line activities. The HSE has agreed to the recruitment of some 60 of the latter during 1995–96.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the ratio of managers to managed grades in the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive has many staff whose work involves a mixture of supervisory and personal work. The ratio of those staff whose work is entirely or mainly managerial to other staff at 1 January 1995 was 1:18.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what personnel policies the Health and Safety Executive has to deal with husbands and wives working in the same office of the Health and Safety Executive; and what consideration he has given to making a formal statement banning such arrangements.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Employment Department group policy on partners working with each other is set out in the ED group personnel handbook. This broadly ensures that partners should not have line management responsibilities, should not have a disciplinary role and should not act directly over the other in financial matters.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff were made redundant following market testing in the Health and Safety Executive in 1993–94.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to reduce the Health and Safety Executive front-line services; and what is the consequence for 1995–96 and 1996–97 of the recent public expenditure round for the Health and Safety Executive front-line services in area offices.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Following the reduction in its financial provision, I have asked the Health and Safety Commission to safeguard the front-line work of the executive, including inspection, guidance, advice and enforcement, by building on the executive's record of continuing efficiency improvements.

  The commission will be announcing details of its planned deployment of resources in its plan of work for 1995–96, due to be published in the early summer.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the employees of the Health and Safety Executive have had their child care costs met by the executive; what is the grade of staff involved; and on what basis this assistance is made available.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No Health and Safety Executive staff have their child care costs full met by the executive. Currently, a total of 25 people have a place at one of HSE's two workplace nurseries on Merseyside at a subsidy of £45 per week—pro rata for part-time use—which is around 50 per cent. of the full weekly cost.

  The grades involved are two grade 7s, two senior information officers, one inspector, two higher executive officers, one scientific officer, five executive officers, 11 administrative officers and one administrative assistant. Additionally, there are currently 14 holiday play schemes at various locations throughout the country which assist parents with child care during school holidays. The numbers of staff assisted, their grades and the degree to which they are financially assisted varies from scheme to scheme but, in the main, the HSE's contribution is in the
  182
  form of some basis set-up and running costs depending on the scheme.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Health and Safety Executive has been seeking volunteers for early retirement from factory inspectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive has been seeking volunteers for early retirement from a wide range of senior staff within the HSE, including at principal inspector level and above. This exercise, which is resulting in the early retirement of 85 staff in March 1995, was caused by the need to restructure some parts of the HSE in order to allow the HSE to recruit more inspectors for front-line inspection.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resources were available to the field consultant group of the Health and Safety Executive,(a) in 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following staffing resources were available to the field consultant groups of the Health and Safety Executive in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  As at 31 March 1994

  As at 1 November 1994

  Specialist inspector grades

  99.50

  96.75

  Scientific grades

  28.50

  29.50

  Total

  128.00

  126.25

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors in the area offices of the Health and Safety Executive are suffering from work-related stress; and whether the Health and Safety Executive has a contingency budget for legal claims against the executive for any of its staff suffering work-related stress.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It is not possible to say how many factory inspectors are under stress currently, or whether that is causing them suffering. It is also very difficult to separate work-related stress from non-work-related stress or to measure it accurately because stress-related illness can manifest itself in a variety of ways. There is no Health and Safety Executive budget for claims of this kind.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the cost of the regional tier of field management in the field operations division of the Health and Safety Executive in 1995–96.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The regional tier of field management in the field operations division of the Health and Safety Executive in 1995–96 is expected to be unchanged from that in the current year. The 1995–96 payroll cost of the regional directors, their support managers and secretarial services is £496,000.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many relatives of existing employed staff have been recruited at Health and Safety Executive headquarters, Bootle; and whether such recruitments are within civil service personnel rules.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No statistics are kept on the recruitment of relatives within Health and Safety Executive headquarters, Bootle. All recruitment meet civil service Order in Council regulations about fair and open recruitment.
  183
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current hourly rate of security and messengerial staff at the Health and Safety Executive headquarters at Bootle, Merseyside.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The security staff at the Health and Safety Executive headquarters at Bootle are employed by a private contractor, and I am unaware of their wage rates.

  The current hourly rate for messengerial staff employed at HSE HQ at Bootle is £4.71 per hour.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further contracted-out operations the Health and Safety Executive plans in 1994–95.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive has no further contracted out operations planned for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what legal provisions allow the Health and Safety Executive to exclude premises from its future inspection programmes; what classes of premises are being excluded; and what procedures are in place to allow challenges to this practice.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are no legal provisions concerning the exclusion by the Health and Safety Executive of premises from its future inspection programmes.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what steps his Department intends to take to inform speakers of Bengali, Gujerati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu of the availability of the Health and Safety Executive leaflet "Your Health and Safety-a guide for workers";

  (2) what steps his Department intends to lake to publicise the availability of the Health and Safety Executive leaflet "Your Health and Safety—a guide for workers".

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This leaflet was published in English and five Asian languages in November 1994. The Health and Safety Executive initially distributed a package including an advertising poster and copies of the leaflet in each language to around 3,000 organisations including community centres, citizens advice bureaux, legal advice centres and ethnic minority libraries. Copies of the leaflet were sent, with a press release, to the ethnic minority press and all local radio stations broadcasting in ethnic minority languages. The leaflets are available free of charge from HSE books. Demand so far has been high: over 180,000 copies of the leaflet have now been distributed.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what commercial involvement Ernst and Young has with the information technology division of the Health and Safety Executive; and what steps have been taken by him or by the commission to avoid conflicts of interest in the case of commissioners who have other dealings with Ernst and Young.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Ernst and Young is nearing the end of an assignment to assist the in-house bid for the market test of the Health and Safety Executive's information technology services. Their appointment followed a competitive tendering exercise in which four consultancy firms submitted tenders and were interviewed by a panel. To avoid any conflicts of interest, tenderers were required to provide CVs of staff who would be involved in the work. The decision to use Ernst and Young was taken by 184
  the executive in accordance with civil service rules. The commission was not involved in the decision.

  Construction Regulations
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Construction (Designed Management) Regulations and approved code of practice will be approved; when they were submitted to him; and what factors were responsible for the length of the interval.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 were signed on 19 December 1994 and consent given to the code of practice, which was approved by the Health and Safety Commission on 3 January 1995. Both were submitted to the then Minister of State on 18 March 1994 and passed to me following the Cabinet changes on 20 July 1994.

  Making new regulations is an important ministerial responsibility. It was necessary to be absolutely certain that this complex package of regulations was as fair and reasonable as possible and this inevitably took time.

  Job Advertisements (European Commission)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about advertisements for United Kingdom-based European Commission jobs, with particular reference to any restrictions on the nationality of applicants.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The wording of advertisements for jobs with the European Commission is a matter for the Commission.

  Offshore Safety Division
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which trade union representatives the contracted-out administrative support at the offshore safety division office at Norwich; and what is the average hourly wage rate(a) at the offshore safety division office at Norwich and (b) other area Health and Safety Executive offices.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The administrative support staff at the offshore safety division office in Norwich are employed by Manpower plc, and I am unaware of either their wage rates or trade union representation.

  The average hourly rate for administrative staff employed at Health and Safety Executive offices is £4.47 per hour—excluding additional allowances paid to staff working in the London area.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the meetings of the Health and Safety Commission and its industrial advisory committees will be open to the press and public under the open government initiative.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Under the code of practice on access to government information and the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 the Health and Safety Commission and its advisory committees will normally release information about the decisions it has taken and the facts and analyses behind those decisions, subject to the exempted categories of information in the code and regulations. The commission believes that to open its
  185
  meetings to the press and public would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion, as is recognised in the code and the regulations.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many copies of "Fraud, Theft and Impropriety" have been issued; and if all members of the Health and Safety Commission have received a copy.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The leaflet "Fraud, Theft and Impropriety" was issued on a ratio of one copy for each member of the Health and Safety Executive's staff. The members of the Health and Safety Commission were not issued with this leaflet.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in chronological order, all regulations and directives arising from article 118A of the amended treaty of Rome, stating in each case the title and objective, the number as published in the Official Journal of the European Community and the relevant United Kingdom Act and regulation, where applicable; and if each instrument is part of the work programme envisaged by the social charter, adopted by some member states in 1989.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the information is contained in a number of tables, I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Fishermen (Redundancies)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fishermen have been made redundant as a result of the existing decommissioning scheme offered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is not available.

  Departmental Employees
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is given in the following table:

  Women in the Employment Department group

  Grade level

  April 1991

  April 1992

  April 1993

  April 1994

  Grade 3

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Grade 7

  128

  160

  182

  197

  EO

  9,756

  11,711

  11,792

  10,322

  AO

  20,401

  23,718

  23,925

  23,424

  AA

  2,241

  2,422

  2,366

  1,902

  Total women in ED group

  36,879

  42,344

  42,340

  38,786

  Labour Statistics
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were(a) the hours worked per week, (b) the number of full-time workers and (c) the number of part-time workers in each year since 1979.
  186
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The available information from the labour force survey is given in the following table. There are no comparable figures before 1983.

  Total actual weekly hours of work, and full and part-time classification of all employees and self-employed Great Britain

  Quarter

  Total actual hours worked per week (millions)

  Number in full time employment (thousands)

  Number in part time employment (thousands)

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Spring 1983

  787

  18,253

  4,336

  Spring 1984

  777

  18,244

  4,828

  Spring 1985

  802

  18,401

  4,943

  Spring 1986

  805

  18,398

  5,036

  Spring 1987

  810

  18,529

  5,230

  Spring 1988

  857

  19,163

  5,402

  Spring 1989

  885

  19,936

  5,546

  Spring 1990

  885

  20,114

  5,612

  Spring 1991

  866

  19,561

  5,633

  Seasonally adjusted (quarterly survey introduced)

  Spring 1992

  808

  18,917

  5,689

  Spring 1993

  807

  18,556

  5,807

  Spring 1994

  816

  18,529

  5,990

  Autumn 1994

  —1

  18,722

  6,004

  Note:

  1 Not yet available.

  Source:

  Labour force survey.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many schemes have been approved and at what total value in pound sterling for each of the member states of the European Union and for Wales and Scotland under objective 4 of the European social fund since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The current objective 4 of the European social fund was created by the structural fund regulations passed in July 1993. Plans for implementing it in eight member states were provisionally approved by the Commission in November 1994. It is not possible to say how many schemes other member states have approved.

  As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, no schemes have been approved under objective 4. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the then Minister of State on 25 January 1994, Official Report, column 223.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Diary Farmers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the approximate average net profits for dairy farmers were in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on incomes of full-time dairy farms and other farm types is collected in the farm business survey and published each year in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom". The latest edition, "Farm Incomes in United Kingdom 1992–93", shows estimates of several different measures of income for
  187
  dairy farms in 1991–92 and 1992–93. Definitions of these income measures are contained in appendix 2.

  To illustrate longer-term trends in incomes, index series are also given for net farm income, occupier's net income and cash income back to 1986–87—table 1.1 and appendix 1, tables 1 and 2—the earliest year for which data are available on a consistent basis.

  "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1993–94" will be published in spring.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what are the requirements for IACS applications in England and Wales in 1995.

  Mr. Jack
  I have consulted closely with the industry on the detail and the timing of the IACS arrangements for 1995 to ensure that they are kept as straightforward as possible.

  I am pleased to be able to announce that, as a result of pressing strongly for a UK deadline later than 31 March 1995 to meet farmers' needs, we will be applying the latest possible date of 15 May.

  The IACS explanatory booklet and forms will be issued in March. The documentation is designed to be as helpful and as easy to follow as possible given the complex nature of the rules.

  I recognise that farmers will want to do as much as they can in advance to prepare for IACS. The mapping and field data requirements set out in the 1994 guidance note on mapping and field data requirements will continue to apply in 1995.

  No maps will be required where applications relate only to forage area. Nor will they be required for arable area, provided the land was registered as eligible for future arable payments in 1993 or 1994 and has not changed significantly since then. Applicants will need to supply a single national grid reference number for each field and the Ordnance Survey map sheet reference in order to comply with the basic requirements of the IACS rules. Fields which have been permanently amalgamated, divided or which are on more than one map sheet must have a single field number for 1995.

  Fields which are on more than one map sheet must, from 1995, be allocated a new number based on the centre point of the whole field. If farmers obtained new numbers on a different basis in 1994, they do not need to provide another number this year. Estimates of area will continue to be accepted, but if areas are found to be over-declared, we have no option but to apply the strict penalties set out in the rules.

  I strongly urge farmers to obtain any necessary maps, field numbers and area measurements from the Ordnance Survey or other professional advisers as soon as possible and not leave this to the last minute, otherwise they risk missing the application deadline.

  Melatonin
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are in place to monitor and control the use of melatonin in the breeding of lambs.

  Mrs. Browning
  One marketing authorisation has been issued for the use of melatonin in the breeding of lambs.
  188
  This product is available on prescription only and must be used under the direction of a veterinary surgeon. Any suspected adverse reactions to the use of medicinal products should be reported to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The state veterinary service is responsible for the enforcement of legislation which protects the welfare of the lambs and their mothers.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what survey his Department has conducted into external research; and what research his Department has conducted into(a) the administering of melatonin to ewes, (b) the breeding cycles of ewes artificially induced and (c) the risks to humans of consumption of sheep meat from flocks in which melatonin is used to control artificially the breeding cycles of ewes.

  Mrs. Browning
  No research is currently being funded by MAFF into the use of melatonin in the breeding of lambs. However, a three-year project investigating the use of melatonin and light treatment as a new method of producing autumn lambs, was funded in 1986. Before any veterinary medicinal product is authorised to be placed on the market in the United Kingdom, it is carefully assessed by the licensing authority, which consults independent scientists, against the statutory criteria of safety—including to the animal, the operator and the consumer of meat and meat products—quality and efficacy. This applies to medicinal products containing melatonin.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have been pursued against sheep breeders for the conditions under which they have reared winter lambs born as a result of the administering of melatonin to their mothers in each of the past three years.

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statistics his Department compiles on the use of melatonin in the breeding of lambs.

  Mrs. Browning
  The use of a medicinal product, once authorised, is a matter for the marketplace to determine and not for the licensing authority. My Department therefore compiles no statistics on the use of melatonin in the breeding of lambs.

  Lambs
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are in place to monitor and control the conditions under which winter lambs are reared.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to any livestock on agricultural land. Subordinate legislation and the associated welfare code lay down more detailed requirements for the welfare of sheep. The state veterinary service is responsible for the enforcement of these provisions.

  Agricultural Council
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome: of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 23 January.
  189
  Mr. Waldegrave
  As I had signalled beforehand, I took the opportunity of this Council to explain the public concern about the transport of farm animals and the conditions in which calves are reared for veal in some member states. I stressed my determination to see that the law requiring freedom of trade is upheld. But I also emphasised the urgent need for the Community as a whole to recognise these concerns, which are being expressed widely, not just in the United Kingdom, and to take effective measures as soon as possible to improve the standards for the welfare of farm animals.

  I am glad to say that a considerable number of Council members agreed with British concerns. Five Ministers pointed out that, like the UK, they had already banned the use of veal crates. There was wide support for, and no dissent from, my proposal that the review of the directive, planned for 1997, that allows the use of this method should be brought forward, the Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Fischler, undertook to produce a report as soon as possible. All also agreed to make a determined effort to adopt rules on transport: this will be on the Council's agenda at its next meeting.

  The only other substantive debate was on the Commission's proposals for adjusting the support system for sugar. I regretted that the Commission had not seized the opportunity to propose more radical changes. I urged that, in so far as sugar quotas might have to be cut to keep within the general agreement on tariffs and trade limits on subsidised exports, these cuts should be targeted on the surplus-producing member states. I also underlined the need to guarantee adequate supplies of raw sugar for the refining industry. The Council will return to these proposals at its next meeting.

  I welcomed the appearance of the Commission's proposal creating a link between set-aside and arable land taken out of production for environmental and forestry purposes, and urged its speedy adoption.

DEFENCE

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by the Department or agency.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not held in the form requested and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Discipline (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the circumstances in which a service man may find himself liable to disciplinary action when refusing drugs or vaccine in a theatre of war.

  Mr. Soames
  In operational circumstances where it is regarded as reasonable to issue an order for service personnel to receive drugs or vaccines to protect them 190
  against the threat of biological or chemical warfare agents, refusal of such a lawful order might render members of the armed forces liable to disciplinary action. The lawfulness of the order could be raised as an issue in the disciplinary proceedings, and the individual's rights would be taken into account. Any such case would turn on its own merits, including the fact that such vaccines and drugs could be life saving in operational circumstances.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to monitoring for health effects after administration of the drugs and vaccines administered to service men, either during or after Operation Granby, with particular reference to compounds that were unlicensed at the time of administration.

  Mr. Soames
  All aspects of the health of service personnel are monitored, in peace and war, as a matter of routine. During the Gulf war, routine monitoring did not detect any adverse effects to health which would warrant special additional monitoring either during, or after, Operation Granby.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to administering toxicology and virology tests to all those suffering from illness related to Operation Granby; and what was the reason for not doing so.

  Mr. Soames
  Individuals who believe that they are suffering from unexplained illnesses as a result of service in Operation Granby are offered a medical examination through my Department's Gulf assessment programme. The special tests employed on this programme are tailored to the particular requirements of each patient after considering the medical and occupational history, the reported symptoms and clinical signs found on examination. If indicated, these special tests can include toxicological and virology tests.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), of 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1179, if he will set out the reasons why the specific counter-measures adopted against potential biological warfare by British forces in Operation Granby in the Gulf war are classified.

  Mr. Soames
  Information relating to the specific counter-measures adopted against potential biological warfare by British forces in the Gulf war could be useful to terrorists and potentially hostile intelligence services. Its continued classification is to protect British troops who may face a biological warfare threat in the future.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to compiling a list of all recipients of the drugs or vaccines administered during Operation Granby, with particular reference to prescription-only medicines, with a view to recording them on the recipient's medical records; and what were the reasons for not doing so.

  Mr. Soames
  Standard peacetime procedures involve records of vaccines and prescribed medication being kept on every individual's service medical documents. Under operational conditions, individual service medical records are not held locally for logistic reasons, and a field medical documentation system is invoked. During
  191
  Operation Granby, vaccinations or prescribed medications are entered on a nominal roll for later transfer to individual records. Given the repaid repatriation and demobilisation of personnel at the end of the conflict, it is likely that some individual medical records were not fully annotated. As a result, no reliable comprehensive list of recipients could be now compiled.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from whom and by what means plague vaccine, batch No. 10H03A, was obtained.

  Mr. Soames
  Details of specific medical counter-measures employed by British forces against potential biological warfare threat during Operation Granby remain classified.

  Nerve Agent Immobilised Enzyme Alarm Detector
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether NAIAD can be triggered by the toxic compound given off from jet engines.

  Mr. Soames
  Nerve agent immobilised enzyme alarm and detector is designed to be used in conditions where it would not normally be in close proximity to jet engines. Nevertheless, NAIAD was extensively evaluated against a wide range of aircraft engine effluent during acceptance tests for military use. Out of the 18 aircraft type evaluated, in only one case was alarm condition attained. It follows that, although NAIAD is not commonly triggered by compounds emitted from jet engines, circumstances might arise in which this could happen.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the inclusion of electro shock-batons which formed part of the Al-Yamamah defence deal was known to Ministers or civil servants.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 17 January 1995,Official Report, column 452.

  Defence Housing Executive
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the salary and length of contract of the new chief executive of the defence housing executive; and what is the estimated cost of establishing the defence housing executive.

  Mr. Soames
  Arrangements for the appointment of the chief executive have yet to be finalised. It is not possible to apportion costs between the establishment of the defence housing executive and the work undertaken previously to establish a housing trust.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the individuals and companies who have been employed as paid consultants by his Department to advise on the management of the married quarters estate during the last three years.

  Mr. Soames
  Since January 1992, the following consultants have provided my Department with advice on the future arrangements for the services' married quarters estate:192

  Firm

  Subject

  Ashurst Morris Crisp

  Legal

  Trowers and Hamlins (and Counsel)

  Allen and Overy

  Government Property Lawyers

  Macklay Murray and Spens

  Legal (Scotland)

  Henderson Boyd and Jackson

  Shepherd and Wedderburn

  Robson Mclean

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Business and Finance

  Price Waterhouse

  NatWest Markets

  UBS

  Chapman Hendy

  Housing

  Alistair McIntosh

  Cluttons

  Surveys and Valuation

  Chestertons

  DTZ Debenham Thorpe

  Knight, Frank and Rutley Savills

  Valuation Office Agency

  Recruitment and Assessment Service

  Recruitment

  Government Actuary's Department

  Pensions

  Major General J.F.J. Johnston CB CBE (Retd)

  Chairman designate of Housing Trust

  Crown Housing Trust
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 451, if the chief executive of the Crown housing trust has or will be, receiving the £20,000 bonus which is linked to performance.

  Mr. Soames
  The bonus is payable in April this year on the anniversary of the chief executive designate's appointment. The final amount will, however, depend on performance over the year.

  Royal Navy Armaments Depot, Trecwn
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce the successful tenderer for RNAD Trecwn.

  Mr. Soames
  It is too early to say when a successful tenderer will be announced.

  Tremoram
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to release documents on work on the chemical tremoram; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer Tuesday 17 January 1995]: These records will be reviewed in accordance with the terms of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. If release does not prejudice the Government's undertaking not to aid the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, they will be released in due course.

  Documents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will release the reference numbers and title of all
  193
  documents relating to works at Nancekuke that are more than 30 years old but have not been released for public inspection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer Tuesday 17 January 1995]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out his reasons for not releasing the document reference 195/155956, which refers to work undertaken more than 30 years ago.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer Tuesday 17 January 1995]: There is no document with this reference. W0195/15956, however, is closed for reasons of continuing sensitivity. The release of the report would enable others to acquire details of weapons technology that would be contrary to our commitment of non-proliferation.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of vacant dwellings currently owned by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
  194
  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer Tuesday 17 January 1995]: As at 31 December, my Department owned 12,408 vacant dwellings in the following categories:

  Number

  Service married quarters

  9,992

  Former married quarters in the process of sale

  2,160

  MOD civilian houses

  218

  Former civilian houses in the process of sale

  38

  Discussions are currently taking place with the Housing Corporation on an enhanced programme of short-term leasing to housing associations for married quarters which are temporarily surplus to our requirements. However, the majority of the vacant service married quarters are not surplus but are undergoing or awaiting major maintenance, held for future deployments, or form part of the management margin needed to ensure that accommodation is available for entitled service families.

  Of the vacant civilian houses, 71 are leased properties awaiting return to Dumbarton district council, 97 are houses recently taken over from the United States air force awaiting occupation by Ministry of Defence police and the remainder are mainly properties in secure areas which cannot be sold for security or safeguarding reasons.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark

Newbury Bypass
The Earl of Carnarvon The Earl of Carnarvon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, after full public consultation and two public inquiries, the Secretary of State for Transport has delayed the construction of the A.34 western bypass at Newbury.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, in view of the unusual degree of continuing public interest in this road scheme, the Secretary of State for Transport wishes to be quite sure that the proposed bypass is the right solution. Therefore, he has suspended progress on the scheme and asked the Highways Agency to look again at the plans for the bypass, to explore other options and to report back.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that somewhat innocuous Answer. Is he aware that the A.34 for three-and-a-half miles between Tothill and Newbury is the only single carriageway between the south of Spain and Scotland? Is he further aware of the crucial significance of that route to the economy of the south east, particularly the ports of Southampton, Newhaven and Portsmouth? Will he draw the worry of the people of that area to the attention of the Secretary of State, who, I hope, will change as soon as possible his damaging decision?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we recognise the significance of the route and the problems that traffic congestion causes in the Newbury area. That is why we have put a great deal of work into addressing the problem. But we want to be sure that we have the right solution to address that difficult problem.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State's decision was taken on the back of the report from the Standing Advisory Committee for Trunk Road Assessment on traffic generation? Will he further confirm that that report emphasised traffic generation in the case of urban schemes, motor widening and estuarial crossings and did not blame the building of bypasses for traffic generation? Therefore, is it not the case that that need not have been a factor in the decision made by the Secretary of State? Does he agree that traffic flows on that piece of road are nearly as high as they are on the nearby six-lane M.4 and that therefore, whether or not any traffic is generated, this bypass is needed now? Will he accept that it was probably needed 10 years ago and will certainly be needed in the future?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the conclusions of the SACTRA Report were not the reason for the Secretary
966
of State's decision to put the scheme on hold pending further review. We welcome the SACTRA Report. It portrayed the theme of traffic generation through extra road building. We shall take the conclusions of that report into account when looking at future road building schemes.
Lord Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, with regard to the Department of the Environment's air quality management scheme, can the Minister explain how Newbury, which has a serious pollution problem already caused especially by the high concentration of heavy goods vehicles in the congested traffic area, can meet the clean air standards without this very important bypass?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we do not deny the problems that exist in terms of congestion on this important piece of road. But we want to make sure that the right solution is developed for Newbury. That is why we shall look again at all practical options.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House how he reconciles that decision with the contents of a letter dated as recently as 31st October 1994 from Mr. Watts, the Minister for Railways and Roads, to the chairman of the Newbury Bypass Supporters' Association? He wrote:
"I am quite satisfied that the bypass is urgently needed … I can see no grounds for further delaying this much needed scheme".
May I add, as a lifelong resident in the village of Newtown that I am dismayed by what is happening? Newtown is bisected by the A.34 in its present form and is a village hopelessly and sadly damaged, as is the neighbouring village of Burghclere. A rising out of the supplementary Question of the noble Earl, will the Minister say whether the Government have taken into account in their costings the relative cost of building this bypass and the vast cost to industry of five-mile queues of lorries south of Newbury trying to go north from the ports and another five-mile queue of lorries to the north of Newbury trying to go south to the ports?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I note the details of the letter which was read out by the noble and learned Lord. In the ultimate eventuality it is for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, as the proposer of any new road scheme, to have the final decision on whether or not to go ahead. This project has not been cancelled. It has been suspended but the orders are still current. As I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State has asked the Highways Agency to review all practical options in order to address this very difficult situation of traffic congestion in the Newbury area.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the view of many of us his original Answer was far from innocuous? Will he indicate, by giving us a definite date, how soon a decision will be announced and the appalling delays, to which the noble Earl and others referred, obviated?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not in a position to give my noble friend the answer he requires. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of

967
State said that he expects to be able to make an announcement in time for the publication of the road scheme starts for the 1996–97 year. I recognise the opinions expressed in the House this afternoon and will convey them to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I welcome the Government's reassessment of the benefit of road building generally, but will the Minister accept that to block all roads is as illogical as promoting road building as the only solution to public transport problems? Will he accept also that those concerned about pollution arising from major road building are also concerned about pollution in towns?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. An efficient trunk road network is vital to the economic and environmental well being of the country. Therefore, blocking all road schemes is not the answer to any of these problems.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Government's decision to delay this bypass has been met in the area with amazement and suspicion, bearing in mind that the public inquiries have been held and it is now around 15 years since the scheme was first embarked upon? Cannot the Minister tell the House in a little more detail why the delay occurred? Is it because the present route is not satisfactory? Is it the view of the Government that the route should be shifted from the west of Newbury to the east of Newbury? That is worrying many people and they are entitled to know what government thinking is on this problem.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the anxieties of the people of Newbury. But they are aware also of the anxieties of those who oppose the scheme. We do not hold a firm view as to alternative proposals. However, we shall be looking at all practical options to give the Secretary of State the information that he needs to make sure that the right solution is put forward for the people of Newbury.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what consultations were undertaken by the Secretary of State before he engaged in this damaging change of mind? Is it not a fact that he forgot to consult the Minister for roads in relation to this matter until three days before he made his announcement? Is it right that he made a superficial visit to the area but did not engage in any consultation with local authorities, who were in favour of the scheme, before making the announcement? Meanwhile, is it not correct that the damage to the environment will continue now for several years without any hope of relief and that all the criteria set out by the inspectorate and accepted by the inspector were met? Why did the Secretary of State behave in this absurd way?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I stated that even after going through the statutory process, after the public inquiries, ultimately the decision to proceed with a road scheme such as this is one for my right
968
honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He visited the site; but he took into consideration all the issues and that was the basis for his decision to suspend the scheme for the time being.

Religious Worship in Schools
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to change the law requiring daily religious worship in schools.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to change the law. The daily act of collective worship helps to establish a positive ethos in a school and makes an important contribution to pupils' spiritual and moral development. The existing legal requirements give schools considerable flexibility in the organisation and content of collective worship.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that most secondary schools and a number of primary schools do not hold daily religious assemblies? Therefore, in spite of what the Minister says, they are breaking the law. Will he agree, first, that the main reason for this situation is that there is inadequate space in many schools to hold such assemblies? Secondly, does he accept that there is also a legitimate reluctance on the part of many teachers to participate in such assemblies? And, thirdly, is he aware that the faith of many pupils in this country these days does not permit them to take part in such assemblies, which have to be of a mainly Christian character? How can the Government tolerate such a situation? Is not reform long overdue?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to answer broadly the noble Lord's latter questions, there is a great deal of flexibility which will accommodate all those problems. In relation to the earlier matter, in the past few years we have seen around five schools which were not performing properly in this area. All those situations were resolved.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the General Synod Board of Education—a policy-making body of the Church of England—is not at this moment pressing for a change in the law although it is consulting widely on the issue? In view of what the Minister said regarding the significance of the act of collective worship in pupils' spiritual and moral development, does he agree that ill-prepared and ill-conducted acts of worship are not conducive to those aims? Will he further accept that training is necessary for heads, for members of staff, and for those who visit schools to conduct such acts of worship, and that therefore the resources for such training should be found?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to continue my practice of answering the last question first, we believe that perhaps the best way of approaching the issue is for schools to involve local professionals in this job. With

969
regard to the other remarks made by the right reverend Prelate, we shall look with interest at any decisions which the Church may reach.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree entirely with the Minister on the need for the spiritual and moral development of pupils in our schools. However, does he not consider it a violation of the United Kingdom's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to impose an act of predominantly Christian worship on schools where most of the children are Moslem, Hindu or Sikh?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we do no such thing. The rules allow a great deal of flexibility to a school. If it finds itself in the situation where the majority of its pupils, or even a substantial minority of its pupils, are not of the Christian faith, it has the ability to adapt its worship appropriately.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that, despite what has been said about policy in this country, the limits of bleak 19th century materialism have been starkly exposed in recent years? Would he not further agree that pupils in schools have never been in greater need of being shown the values of spiritual and moral aspects of life and what Rudolf Otto once referred to as,
"the human response to the mysterium tremendum"?
In that connection, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister to take note of a publication which was written by Clive Andrews a few months ago on behalf of city technology colleges which—with all their emphasis on science and a skills-based curriculum—have nonetheless insisted on an enthusiastic presentation of the spiritual values.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear what the noble Lord says.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the present law was decided on after full discussion in both Houses of Parliament only a few years ago and that no general opinion has formed so far expressing a desire or need for it to be changed?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is understandable that the established Church should be in favour of the present situation. But is it not the case that the established Church is not now the Church of the majority of the people of this country? Therefore, if one were to consult not only the established Church but also people who attend other churches or do not go to church at all, might one not get a different answer?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as my noble friend said so well a moment ago, we discussed this matter at length quite recently. I believe that we should stand by our decision at that time.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, whatever one's faith, denomination or
970
background, one cannot understand the culture of the English, at least, without reading the Bible in the King James version?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my father would have agreed with that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is really not the time for what would be an extremely fascinating debate on all these matters. But did I misunderstand the noble Lord? Did he say that only five schools are failing to comply with the legislation? The overwhelming evidence is that between 40 and 90 per cent. of schools are not complying with the legislation. Does the noble Lord's department believe that only five schools are not complying because it has asked only five schools? It is quite a serious matter.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the mechanism by which these matters come to our notice is that if parents are dissatisfied with the worship in schools they bring that to the attention of the governors. If parents are dissatisfied with what the governors propose, the parents can bring that to the attention of the LEA. Only if that stage fails does it come to our notice.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am aware that there are still two very interesting Questions to come. Perhaps we should go on to the next one.

United Nations 50th Anniversary
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they are making to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Charter of the United Nations on 26th June 1945.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government will hold a major commemoration ceremony in Westminster Hall on 26th June to mark the United Nations 50th anniversary.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Has not the Security Council system, despite its limitations, helped to prevent world war, the main intention in the Charter? But is not further international agreement now needed, because the Charter excludes United Nations intervention in civil wars, and they are now the causes of much distress, destruction and slaughter? In these present difficult circumstances, will my noble friend convey congratulations to General Rose at the end of his daunting mission, and good wishes to General Smith, his successor?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments and, of course, we shall pass congratulations to General Rose and warm wishes to his successor. Equally, it is the case that during the period of its existence the United Nations has been a very significant element in the avoidance of widespread war

971
around the globe. My noble friend points to the problem posed by the increasing threats to order in the world from civil war. The United Nations is addressing that problem, as are the member states, as can be seen from the kind of thinking that is contained in the document Agenda for Peace and the recently published supplement to Agenda for Peace.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord in favour of the United Nations and what it is doing and I also recognise the generally co-operative nature of the Foreign Office in planning the events for 1995. But will the Minister accept that the group of people who need to be educated and influenced most of all are young people in schools? Will the Government ensure that the United Nations Association and the Council for Education in World Citizenship are effectively enabled with some financial support to ensure that they can bring the message to young people in their schools?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his helpful remarks. I understand that Her Majesty's Government are offering £25,000 to the National Committee, which is part of the UK United Nations Association, to be used to provide information and to try to disseminate the kind of facts to which the noble Lord has referred.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the conditions set by Her Majesty's Government for the re-entry of Great Britain into UNESCO have now been met and, indeed, have been met for some considerable time? Can he think of any better way of celebrating 50 years of the United Nations than the re-entry of Great Britain into the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am not in a position, because I simply do not know the answer, to give a definitive yes or no to my noble friend. But I shall certainly pass on his message to those who are responsible for this matter.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I support exactly what has just been said and I heard with some gratitude what is proposed. I wonder whether nearer the time the Government will consider having a debate on the future of the United Nations. We have had them before but I think it is most imperative that we should recognise the position at the end of this 50 years.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, for his comments and his suggestion. It is my understanding that this is essentially a matter for the usual channels of this House. I also understand that the Government would not wish to stand in the way of this proposal.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the principal difficulty that the United Nations faces in its proper task of maintaining world peace is the lack of financial resources because
972
of countries not paying their dues? In those circumstances will a collection be taken at the service which is proposed?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Beloff for his comments about the financial problems which are besetting the United Nations. He is correct in that one of the greatest difficulties facing the United Nations at present is collecting the contributions which it is owed. Indeed, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said at the General Assembly in September last year,
"the UN works miracles with what we do not pay it".
It is the case that the contributions must be collected. The British Government are also anxious to make sure that contributions are assessed on a capacity-to-pay basis. As regards my noble friend's suggestion of taking the hat round, I dare say that that is a matter best dealt with by the voluntary sector.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as one of the vice-presidents of the United Nations Association's anniversary celebrations this year. Is the Minister aware that November marks the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the constitution of UNESCO? Following what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, has said, have the Government any plans to celebrate that anniversary?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand that it is intended that there will be a service in Westminster Abbey on, I believe, 26th November. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.

EU Statistical Committee: Voting Rights
3.2 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will resist that part of Draft Council Decision (COM(94) 412 final) of 17th November which gives the European Commission the right to vote, on equal terms with each member state, on decisions arrived at by the Committee on Monetary, Financial and Balance of Payments Statistics (COMFBPS).
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Committee on Monetary, Financial and Balance of Payments Statistics is a group of official statisticians drawn from the 15 member states, the European Monetary Institute and the Commission. This committee advises the Commission. We do not seek to change the voting procedures which the committee has established as a means of ensuring that its advice to the Commission is clear and unambiguous. Any legislative proposals which the Commission puts forward as a result of advice from this committee is subject to normal Council voting procedures in which, of course, the Commission has no voting rights.
Lord Bruce of Donnington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his very informative reply. He will doubtless be aware that the proposed decision is in fact a proposed amendment to a decision made on

973
25th February 1991, numbered 115 of that year. Will he inform the House whether this particular item, when it came up for decision at the Council, was on the A list—that is to say, proposals which do not require anything more than a cursory examination? If that is so, who was the Minister representing Her Majesty's Government on the Council concerned? Will the Minister confirm that the existing proposal seeks to legitimise the position of the European Monetary Institute—the new organisation set up under Maastricht—on this particular committee? Is he further aware that that is unique, in that it gives for the first time the right of the Commission as a body to participate in voting with member states? Does the Minister consider that to be a desirable precedent?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his wide-ranging question. If I may, my reply will focus on the end of it. What is being proposed in this case is that there should be a committee of financial and economic statisticians from around the Community in order to advise the Commission, the European Monetary Institute and the member states on technical matters relating to statistics. Therefore, the experts from the various member states, the Commission and the European Monetary Institute have been brought together in this committee.
Bearing in mind that it is a committee of technical experts, it seems appropriate that they should be able to form a collective decision. Since the various non-member state elements have an entirely legitimate role in the compilation of these statistics, it seems to us appropriate that they should be able to vote on a decision which the committee as a whole may reach. That compares quite markedly with any situation where either official policy or legislation is being proposed. In such circumstances it seems beyond argument that it would not be proper for the Commission or the European Monetary Institute to be involved in the kind of way that might be envisaged behind the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in accordance with his reply, it is extraordinary that the committee which has been set up is an advisory committee to the Commission? Therefore, does my noble friend further agree that it is curious that the Commission should take part in a vote on a body which is meant to be advising it on certain matters? As I understood from the answer to the Question, it is an advisory body comprising a collection of statisticians from different member states who are advising the Commission. Therefore, why should the Commission be given a vote on matters which are for its advice?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Elles for that question. As I attempted to point out in my initial supplementary reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the purpose of this committee is to try to form a collective view on technical aspects relating to the collection of statistics. For example, since through EUROSTAT the Commission does collect these statistics, it seems appropriate that it should have an input into the collective decision of the advisory committee.
974
Perhaps I may compare it to a slightly similar domestic committee, the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee, which comprises civil servants, academics and City figures who collectively, using their technical expertise, try to form certain views which they use to advise the Government. I believe that the important distinction here is that this is essentially a technical body rather than a wider political or administrative body.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware, as anyone who has had to deal with official statistics will know, that his opinion that the construction of official statistics has nothing to do with policy is remarkably naive? The way in which statistics are constructed and collected has a very considerable impact on the formation of policy. Will the Minister answer the question of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and inform the House whether this is the first circumstance in which the Commission has been awarded an independent vote in a committee comprising representatives of member states?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I know of no other instance where the Commission has been given this particular power. Having said that, I cannot think of any analogous committee.

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 this Bill he now read a second time. Of all the issues we discuss in Parliament, this is one of the few subjects of which it can be said truly that it affects every man and woman in our country—everyone with regard to the state pension, and a large and increasing number with regard to private non-state pensions.
The Government already spend more on the state retirement pension than any other state benefit. This year we are spending £28 billion, and if we did nothing this would more than double to almost £66 billion by the year 2030. Occupational and personal pension provision in the United Kingdom complements state pension provision. Its development has been of enormous value to individuals, their families and the country as a whole. For most people, their pension rights are their largest financial asset apart from their home.
There are over 20 million people with rights to a pension from an occupational pension scheme. Around 5 million people have appropriate personal pensions and a total of 8 million people use a personal pension to save for retirement. Accrued rights in occupational pensions are worth around £600 billion—over a quarter of all personal wealth in the United Kingdom. We are determined to build on those strengths and encourage more investment by working men and women of all ages in their own pensions future. This legislation is essential if we are to achieve that, and provide the confidence in both the state and non-state provision which people rightly want.

975
There are four major principles underlying this legislation. First, confidence in the security of occupational pensions schemes was undermined by the Maxwell affair and we intend to restore that confidence by improving security. Secondly, equal pension rights for men and women are required by the European Court of Justice rulings. The Bill will bring domestic legislation into line with European law, and will make it easier for contracted-out salary schemes to equalise benefits for men and women for the future. Thirdly, in order to ensure a fair and sustainable basis for state pensions in the next century, we intend to phase in equalisation of state pension age at 65. Finally, we are committed to making personal pensions attractive across a broader age range, introducing age-related rebates for those investing in personal and money purchase pension schemes.
I begin with security in pension provision—the subject of Part I of the Bill and the part that relates directly to the Maxwell affair. Pensions are for many people the most significant single investment they will ever make. They must be confident that the pensions promise of today will indeed be matched by the pension of tomorrow. That is why my right honourable friend Peter Lilley set up the Pension Law Review Committee after the Maxwell affair. Professor Goode and his committee produced an excellent and substantial report. I am sure I speak for the whole House, and indeed for everyone involved in the pensions field, when I express our thanks to Professor Goode and his colleagues for their work. Their recommendations were widely welcomed. We have accepted all the main recommendations and we consulted widely across all pension interests before drawing up this Bill.
As Part I of the Bill makes clear, we now intend to provide a clear framework of statutory obligations on employers, trustees, scheme professionals and others connected with pension schemes. The measures in the Bill will reinforce trust law as the basis for pensions law; bring the management of all schemes up to the level of best practice; give scheme members more influence in the running of their schemes by giving them the right to select at least one-third of the trustees; underline the fact that trustees are responsible for running schemes properly, and give them the tools they need in order to do so; introduce a statutory minimum solvency requirement to maintain the adequacy of pension fund assets; establish an occupational pensions regulator with robust and wide-ranging powers; and set up a compensation scheme.
Like the Pension Law Review Committee, we accept that the great majority of pension schemes are secure and well run, but it is important that we make sure that there is proper security for all schemes' members. At the same time we must not impose such burdens on employers and schemes that we put funded pension provision at risk through over-regulation and unnecessary cost. The provisions strike a balance. They will achieve the desired security, without imposing unnecessary burdens on employers and pension schemes.
976
No system can offer a total guarantee against fraud. However, we will do everything possible to eliminate the likelihood of fraud or other wrongdoing by strengthening the framework of pension provision. First, we shall give scheme members the right to clear and relevant information; to select at least a third of the trustees; and access to a procedure to resolve disputes. Secondly, the Bill will underline the responsibility of trustees to run schemes properly through a general tightening of scheme management and administrative arrangements; a reinforcement of the need to safeguard assets and invest them prudently; and entitle trustees who are scheme members to paid time-off for training and trustees' meetings. Thirdly, the Bill will empower professionals—actuaries and auditors—through requiring them to take instructions from and report to the trustees not the employer, and to report breaches of statutory obligations to the regulatory authority.
Fourthly, the Bill introduces a statutory minimum solvency requirement for salary-related schemes to underpin the employer's pension promise.
This requirement will reinforce trustees' and employers' responsibility for ensuring that schemes are properly funded, thus enhancing security for scheme members. This will provide an objective benchmark for assessing the adequacy of the fund, setting contribution levels and monitoring the fund's performance. It will act as a mechanism for ensuring that schemes have adequate funds to meet contracted-out benefits. Finally, it will provide the measure against which the amount of compensation will be calculated when a successful claim for compensation is made.
We have consulted widely on how such a requirement should be defined in order to balance the concerns of employers, particularly those running large mature schemes, against improving security for scheme members. We believe that we have struck the right balance to give scheme members the security they must have if occupational pensions are to prosper and to encourage employers to run good schemes.
A further line of defence will be the regulatory authority. It will be appointed by the Secretary of State and have powers which carry the full force of the Pension Law Review Committee's recommendations. It will have the power to investigate non-compliance with the law, to impose sanctions and to suspend and disqualify trustees. It will focus its attention on those schemes where there is some reason for unease. It will not monitor all 150,000 plus schemes on a daily basis. That would be an unnecessary bureaucracy. It would not be efficient and it would not be a good use of resources.
The new measures for increasing security will be backed up by a compensation scheme to cover the dishonest removal of funds when the employer is insolvent. It will be administered by an independent pensions compensation board, chaired by the Pensions Ombudsman. The regulatory authority and the compensation board will be quite separate and independent of each other. Both will be fully accountable to Parliament. They will be funded by levies on pension schemes. Taken together, the measures in Part I of the Bill enhance the security of

977
occupational pensions and strike a fair balance between the interests of scheme members and their sponsoring employers.
We also propose to protect the value of pensions in payment. Currently only that portion of a pension which is paid by contracted-out pension schemes in lieu of SERPS has to be protected against inflation. The new provisions will provide for the whole pension to be indexed in line with inflation, up to 5 per cent. a year. SERPS will cease to offer top-up inflation-proofing to those who are contracted-out of the state scheme. This will apply to occupational and appropriate personal pensions for all rights built up after our proposals take effect in 1997.
I turn now to the state pension and Part II of the Bill. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in December 1993 the Government's plans to equalise the state pension ages for men and women by the year 2020, with a phase-in period starting in 2010. The difference in state pension age for men and women is the last big inequality in our benefit system and the Government are committed to phasing it out.
We believe that it is right to equalise at 65 because, first, women are increasingly playing a role equal to men in the economy. They live longer and can expect to work as long as men. Secondly, equalising at 65 will improve the future support ratio between those working and those on a state pension. Lastly, throughout the world, countries are equalising upwards or increasing pension ages for both sexes. This move will help to maintain our international competitiveness while ensuring that the state pension remains affordable. It is also right in the light of developments in occupational pensions.
In 1990 the European Court of Justice ruled that occupational pensions constituted part of pay and must be equal for men and women in respect of pensionable service from 17th May 1990. The great majority of schemes which have equalised their pension ages have done so at 65. The Bill will bring domestic legislation into line with the requirements of European law by requiring schemes to comply with an equal treatment rule which ensures that schemes do not discriminate on grounds of sex. This features in Part I of the Bill.
Parts III and IV of the Bill deal with a number of important pensions issues. The Government recognise that it is difficult for salary-related schemes which are contracted-out of SERPS to equalise their benefits because the current contracting-out requirements are linked to the state pension age which will not be fully equalised until 2020. We are therefore bringing forward provisions which will make it easier for salary-related schemes to achieve equality by replacing the requirement to provide a guaranteed minimum pension with a simpler requirement. In future they will have to satisfy a test of overall scheme quality. The scheme actuary will be required to certify that the scheme provides benefits which meet a statutory standard. That will be set so as to ensure that contracted-out schemes continue to offer an attractive alternative to SERPS for scheme members.
978
Under the proposed new arrangements people who are in contracted-out schemes will no longer build up rights in SERPS which currently provide a top-up of their occupational pension. This new system will be introduced in 1997.
For those who expect to change jobs frequently and for those whose employers do not run pension schemes, personal pensions can be by far the best method of investing for their old age and building up savings. They have an important part to play in giving people choice and flexibility in their pension provision. This Government have already done a great deal to extend choice. We now propose to extend it further.
Our new provisions will fulfil our manifesto commitment to making personal pensions attractive across a broader age range. We shall introduce age-related rebates of national insurance contributions for those personal pensions, known as "appropriate personal pensions" which are taken out in place of SERPS. The rebates will apply also to contracted-out money purchase schemes. At present appropriate personal pensions become less attractive for contracting out of SERPS as people get older. The new structure will mean that most appropriate personal pension holders will be able to maintain their plans until retirement rather than having to contract back in to SERPS.
We propose also to allow individuals on retirement to withdraw an income from their personal pension fund while deferring purchase of an annuity, thus enabling them to maximise their income. Ordinary personal pension holders will be able to draw an income from age 50 up to age 75. Appropriate personal pension holders will be able to draw an income from their protected rights from age 60, for both men and women, up to age 75. There will still be a requirement to purchase an annuity at age 75.
That extra flexibility will make it worthwhile for most personal pension holders to time the purchase of their annuity and enjoy the potential benefits from the investment of their pension fund so as to improve their income in retirement. To allow schemes time to set up the new arrangements, our aim is that most of the changes should come into effect in April 1997.
The equalisation of state pension age will be phased in starting in 2010 and reach the 65-all figure—if I may use that expression—in 2020.
We are grateful for the contributions of all those involved in pensions in developing our proposals through to legislation, and we shall go on consulting them as we develop secondary legislation, and implement the provisions.
This is a major piece of legislation which I wholeheartedly commend to your Lordships. The new arrangements will recognise the needs of all the pensions interests in providing improved security, equality and choice in pension provision. It will encourage greater provision of and investment in occupational and personal pensions provision. It will set the framework for pension provision into the next century and beyond. I beg to move.

979
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that we all thank the Minister for introducing the Bill so clearly. I thank him too for the briefings that he kindly arranged. We are not talking today about one Bill, but three Bills. The first, in the light of Maxwell and the Goode Report, intends to make occupational pensions more secure. A second Bill raises women's state pension age and makes their old age less secure. And a third Bill—the one in the shadows—contains the alarmingly extensive regulatory powers of the Secretary of State, the breach of which in Clauses 106 and 134 will be a criminal offence. In Committee we hope to bring that hidden Bill into the light.
The same test must apply to all the Bills: do they deliver the pension promise that, in return for an appropriate contribution to a scheme of choice, one's pension will be both secure and adequate enough to float one off poverty in old age? There are many good things in the Bill, such as the new disputes procedure, which it would be churlish not to recognise, but one thing the Bill does not do is deliver that pension promise. By that test it fails, unless together we can amend it.
I quote:
"There is a feeling of powerlessness and insecurity about jobs, housing … etc".
I am quoting John Maples, deputy chairman of the Tory party. He could have added, "pensions" because pensions, as we know, extend into old age the security or insecurity, employment or unemployment, health or disability, prosperity or poverty, that has shaped one's working life.
We know that the days of one full-time job with one employer for life have mostly gone. In the 1960s or 1970s people began increasingly to move between employers so that now most men have on average six employers and women five employers during their working lives; in other words, early leavers are now the majority and not an aberrant minority of the working population.
To this mobility was in the 1980s added severe unemployment. Forty per cent. of the population has been unemployed in the past five years, and as many again are expected in the next five years. That affects us all, not just the "Portillo myth" of the feckless minority. In the 1990s has come the casualisation of the workforce. One major retailing company last week followed Burton's example and put 90 per cent. of its full-time staff onto 12-hour-a-week contracts. Those people must now scramble, if they can, to put together a portfolio of fractions of jobs in the desperate hope that they can put together a portfolio of fractions of a pension for their old age.
People are fearful, apprehensive and insecure, and, as John Maples said, they have good cause to be because, without security of earnings, they cannot build up a secure pension. In such circumstances what must the pension promise mean for occupational pensions?
980
Surely, that as employee and pensioner both, one's pension rights are secure from damage if one changes jobs; if one's employer or scheme professional behaves fraudulently; or if one's company merges or winds up.
How much of that pension promise did the Goode Committee recommend? It proposed to strengthen, as the Minister said, the competence and balance of trustees who are required to appoint scheme professionals, and to pursue an investment strategy to ensure their scheme's solvency; and that if they failed to do so, the professionals would whistle blow to a new and active regulator financed independently by the state; together with additional powers for an ombudsman, including the power to award compensation. Yet as The Times, if I may use it almost as a Greek chorus as the Bill proceeds, said on 1st October 1993 in its editorial on Goode:
"In central areas of compensation and minimum solvency requirements, Goode has erred on the side of the employers".
That is a criticism echoed by consumer groups and by the TUC, worried at the employers' continued dominance of the trustees. The Times went on prophetically:
"The Government must not allow its ideological distaste for a paternalistic form of pension provision to stand in the way of protection for 11 million present and future pensioners".
Of course, when it came to the government White Paper less than a year later, that was exactly what the Government did. The Government weakened Goode. The Government weakened the regulator, who became merely a long-stop and, as the authority was to be funded by the industry, effectively diminished it into a form of self-regulation. We all know the efficacy of that.
Goode recommended, but the Government weakened, the statutory two-thirds minimum of trustees on money purchase schemes. The Government weakened Goode's compensation scheme. Above all, the Government weakened the minimum solvency standard by reimporting into pension investment those very equities whose volatility in value contributed to so many pension funds going into liquidation, unable to meet their liabilities. As was stated of the White Paper in The Times, on 24th June 1994, the Secretary of State "has pleased almost nobody".
Goode was an incomplete response to the problems. The Government's White Paper retreated from Goode. Now, six months later, we have the Pensions Bill which further retreats from the Government's White Paper. In particular, the compensation scheme has been limited to the point at which a company goes into liquidation. The Mirror pensioners would have received nothing because the company did not go into receivership. Above all, the Government have so watered down the minimum solvency standard that if companies level down to it, as we fear they may, it will endanger fund after fund.
Swan Hunter, with a £60 million pension fund, would have met the Government's new solvency standard. Yet when Swan Hunter went into liquidation it could not meet its pension liabilities and some pensioners will have their pensions cut by up to 40 per cent. However, it meets the new government solvency standard. The Institute of Actuaries is furious. As was said by Bacon & Woodrow, one of the most respected actuary

981
companies in the country, the Government's changes to the solvency measures "cannot be justified". On 17th December 1994, The Times, if I may quote it yet again, noted,
"widespread anger that several important measures contained in last summer's White Paper have been watered down, providing scheme members less protection".
I can assume only that this is the Government's homoeopathic version of security; the more you dilute it the stronger it becomes.
During the passage of this Bill we will seek to help the Government to deliver the pension promise. As regards trustees, we will seek to increase the number of trustees to the best practice of ICI and Unilever, which have 50 per cent., and add a pensioner trustee. We will seek to protect trustees against unfair dismissal, ensure that they are trained, and review their liabilities. We will also seek to enhance the independence of scheme professionals and consider whether their assets should be held by a custodian. We hope to get the Government to spell out and to strengthen the role of the regulator and give trustees not merely a power but a duty to refer certain matters to him; for instance, the payment of scheme surpluses back to employers. As the regulator takes over so many functions of the state-funded Occupational Pensions Board, and in order to secure its independence, we shall seek to have it funded by the state and not by the industry.
As regards the benefits in the pension promise, we will seek to re-introduce the guaranteed minimum pension within occupational pensions so that poorest members—usually women—do not lose out. Above all, we will seek to ensure that minimum solvency means precisely that—the ability to secure the pension promise. Otherwise it is meaningless. Employees and pensioners alike are owed—literally owed—nothing less.
Finally, with help from the CBI and the NAPF, we will try to ensure fairness between occupational and personal pensions. Personal pensions are suitable for a few; for instance, the well-off, the highly mobile and the self-employed. Instead they were sold to those who could not afford them. As regards men, the average median earnings of personal pension holders is only £9,600 and as regards women it is only £6,300. Nearly one-third had incomes so low that they did not even pay national insurance, which starts at £56 per week. As was said by the Consumers' Association in December, 1.5 million people were wrongly sold personal pensions.
The companies have learnt from their mistakes but, from today's speech, not so the Government. They propose to raise still further the bribes into personal pensions—at the expense of occupational pensions. This folly must stop. We will seek to amend the Bill accordingly in order to protect people from being bribed by the Government into poverty in old age.
I turn to the last part of the Bill. Women have a worse deal in pensions even than in other fields of social security because of their low and intermittent earnings and their childcare and caring responsibilities. It means that only one woman in four receives just some SERPS, only one woman in five receives some occupational pension, and only one woman in six receives a state
982
old-age pension in her own right. So within the framework of occupational pensions for women, we will seek to restore the GMP and give women more protection. We also hope to gain the support of noble Lords on all sides of the House—I am sure that we will—to give women a fair deal upon divorce by insisting that courts must, not merely may, take pension assets into account. As regards disability, at present when a husband goes into residential care he takes all of his occupational pension with him to pay the fees. His wife is left bereft. If she loses him to death she receives half his pension but if she loses him to Alzheimer's disease and nursing care she receives nothing at all. That must be changed.
We also hope to expose the myths upon which rest the Government's proposal to raise women's state pension age to 65. Some of those myths were repeated today by the Minister. The Government insist that we face a demographic time-bomb. That is not true. We are ahead of Europe in that respect; it has already happened. Between 1971 and 1991, the number of people over the age of 65 rose by 1.6 million; in the next 20 years it will rise by only 0.7 million. Even by 2040, three-quarters of our population will be under the age of 65 and we will have the best support ratio bar one in western Europe and within the OECD.
As regards cost, it is not true that we face a financial time-bomb any more than we face a demographic one. The financing cost of elderly people per person of working age will be the lowest but one in the OECD by 2010 and thereafter by far the lowest. In Britain we have proportionately fewer elderly people and they cost us less. The additional cost of ageing during the next 50 years will add less to the social security bill than the rising cost of unemployment during the past five years. Far from the elderly being a social and financial burden on the rest of us, they are a source of social and common wealth. They sustain family life and voluntary work, as your Lordships know.
The real problem is that of unemployed, middle-aged men, 59 per cent. of whom between the ages of 55 and 64 are not in work. Therefore, they do not pay the national insurance to fund their parents' pensions or build occupational pensions and savings of their own. Reduce unemployment, invest in education and training for economic growth, recognise that the growing number of women in work adds to the national insurance base without taking out much extra in the way of pensions over what they currently receive as their husbands' dependants, and we shall be better poised than all our European and OECD competitors to face the next century.
Then why do it? To save £5 billion for the Treasury. Of course, that means taking £5 billion away from some of the poorest members of our society; women without independent incomes of their own. We do not support a rigid retirement age but we believe in a flexible decade of retirement for men and women alike so that they and not the state—and certainly not the Treasury—determine what is best for them. It is called choice.
Men and women alike—I quote again John Maples, the deputy chairman of the Tory party—are becoming fearful. They are becoming fearful about old age. They

983
face insecurity, poverty and uncertainty. If we amend the Bill, together we can slay that fear and deliver the pension promise to which they are entitled.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it will be generally agreed on all sides of the House that this is not the most sexy piece of legislation which has come before your Lordships. It is long, complicated and highly technical but, of course, it is also extremely important.
We do not owe very much to Mr. Maxwell, but it was the scandal of the Maxwell pension scheme which alerted the Government to the need to take action and to make sure that nothing like the Maxwell disaster ever happened again. But of course, no Bill will be able to ensure that nothing like the Maxwell scandal ever happens again because the fact is that if someone is sufficiently determined, brutal, ruthless and unflinchingly dishonest, he can get away with almost anything. It will not be possible to devise any legislation which can really guard against villains of that kind. Therefore, it is extremely important that the legislation before us should make it as certain as possible—and that is as far as one can honestly go—that such a scandal never happens again.
Therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, we must look at the Bill to see to what extent its provisions can give the security which all of us in old age want to have and for which those of us who have it are extremely thankful. It seems to me that the two key points are in relation to the nature and make-up of the trustees and the way in which their activities can be controlled.
As has already been pointed out, the Bill provides that only one-third membership of the trustee board must be in the hands of members. That is less than a great many of the better schemes today already provide. We shall certainly move amendments to provide that at least 50 per cent. of the trustee boards are made up of members and that some of those members should already be pensioners. It is a great advantage to have one or two pensioners on the board because they are completely free from any possible influence exerted upon them by the employers.
Of course, the European Court of Justice said that pensions were a form of deferred wages. Up to a very considerably important point, that is true; but it is not the whole truth because the employer has to pick up the tab if the funds are inadequate. We wish to ensure that the employer does have to pick up the tab if the funds are inadequate. Therefore, it is important that the employer should have representation on the board of trustees if he so wishes. I am not so sure that all employers will so wish. The company for which I worked many years ago now has a trustee board which is made up entirely of members with one exception only appointed by the employer. I was informed only last week that that works extremely satisfactorily. I do not believe that we need to look too closely at the protection of the employer once a good scheme is set up and the necessary safeguards are introduced. Therefore, we shall
984
require that a minimum of 50 per cent. of the boards are made up of members and we may even strive for something better.
The fact that the trustees are made up of elected members does not ensure that the funds will be properly dealt with or that there will be no scandals. We all know that elected persons—and we have had plenty of evidence of it—can be knaves, fools or both. Indeed, Mr. Maxwell was (was he not?) an elected person, a Member of Parliament and a member of the noble Baroness's party.
Secondly, there need to be safeguards other than those provided by member trustees. Therefore, we turn to the question of what should be the powers of the regulator. On these Benches we attach the greatest importance to the authority and real power of the regulator. As I looked at the Bill, I must say that I was totally dissatisfied as to whether the regulator has the powers that he needs effectively to regulate. Whistle-blowing seems to me a very frail mechanism on which to rely if the regulator is to operate effectively. Who is to blow the whistle and when? The idea that the professionals, the actuaries, the accountants, lawyers and administrators should blow the whistle seems to me totally inappropriate.
If an actuary is working for an organisation, it is quite unreasonable to impose on him the additional burden, which may surely involve him in conflicts of interest, of blowing the whistle as well as being the person working for and paid by the organisation against which he is blowing the whistle. That puts him in a professionally impossible position which we should not dream of supporting.
How and when do you blow the whistle? It is not when things are palpably and obviously in a state of near disaster that the whistle needs to be blown. That is probably too late. It is when it looks as though matters are going wrong but nobody is quite sure whether or how they are going wrong. You may think you smell a rat but you are not quite sure whether it is only a mouse. You are not really certain whether it is the time at which you should blow the whistle. I suggest that we forget about whistle-blowing and turn our attention to making the regulator really effective.
It would be a very poor economy to fail to finance the regulator sufficiently for him to be able to make really strong effective dawn raids. I know that it says in the legislation that he is able to do that, but we are talking about 150,000 schemes. Therefore, the regulator will need a proper staff. A phrase which is bandied about today is, "that would be bureaucratic". I dislike bureaucrats as much as most people, but I recognise that in order to get certain jobs done, we have to have a few bureaucrats and we have to pay for them. There will not be a proper scheme of regulation unless there is a totally independent regulator who has adequate staff so that he is able to go in on his own initiative, unwarned, and investigate where there is a need for him to do so. We must forget all about whistle-blowing.
I believe that those are the two major areas at which we must look to see that we provide increased security for pension holders.

985
There are two other aspects to the Bill which are of very great importance. It would be quite wrong of me and of anybody dealing with the Bill not to refer to the very wide range of matters which very closely affect women's interests. I accept that it is absolutely right that the pension age for men and women should, in due course, be the same. I see no reason whatever for saying that women should have equality in relation to most matters but unequal pension ages. Indeed, that should have been corrected a long time ago. It takes a little time to put the matter right but it most certainly must be put right.
I agree—and, indeed, my party has advocated this for a long time—that there should not be a final, fixed retirement age, but that there should be a decade of retirement. I believe that that proposal fits not only the requirements of women but also those of men, especially today—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, in the future— when people have a variety of different jobs and, to quote Professor Handy, will have portfolios made up of different types of employment or activity with which they put together an income for themselves.
We propose the idea of a decade of retirement actuarially calculated so that people can start retiring early with a small pension at a time when they are able, in many cases, to add something to that pension by way of part-time work. I ask the Government to look once again at the possibility of a decade of retirement rather than a fixed retirement age. I should add that if that had an actuarial basis—as it should have—and the early pensions are relatively small, we must consider, as my party has put forward in the past, the fact that, when one reaches what most people—that is, except those in your Lordships' House—would regard as the ripe old age of about 75 or perhaps even 80 years of age, the pension should then be adjusted upwards on the assumption that, by then, people are less likely to be able to have additional earnings or even undertake the DIY which, if one is capable of doing it, saves one a good deal of money.
I ask the Government to consider that point once again and to look at ways in which women will be disadvantaged by the proposals that have been put forward. However, we shall return to that aspect of the matter in greater detail in committee.
There are other questions of very considerable importance to women. I am looking forward very much to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. He has taken up with great gallantry the cause of the widows, so I shall not refer to them. That is a very important aspect of the Bill. I shall leave it to be dealt with by the noble Lord's maiden speech which we are all anticipating with great pleasure.
The question of women in divorce must be examined as regards the way in which the woman who is divorced does or does not receive an adequate share of her husband's pension. I should like to reiterate a. point already made. It is only one isolated incident, but extremely serious to those who are involved. I refer to the position of the wife—although, of course, it could he the other way round and could equally be the husband—when the partner goes into a residential
986
institution suffering from the kind of illness with which one can now live for a considerable time and the whole of the pension money is thereby taken in order to support that person in residential care. I am sure that no one ever intended that such a thing should happen, but plainly it is a very cruel consequence of the present regulations. We now have a good opportunity while the Bill is going through the House to alter the situation.
Another opportunity that must be seized is surely to correct that shameful meanness under which pensioners from this country living in the Commonwealth do not receive an updating of their pensions. A small sum of money is involved. How can we continue to be so illogical and mean as to refuse to update the pensions of pensioners from this country who are living in the Commonwealth? Again, that is a matter to which we shall return in Committee.
Up until now, I have been talking about certain important details in the Bill. However, I should like to impress upon your Lordships' House the fact that this is a matter of great importance quite beyond the issue of the individual pensioner. As I said earlier, there are 150,000 pension schemes in the country. The total assets of the pension companies fall little short of the same amount as the GNP of this country in one year. We are talking about huge sums of money. What happens to such money is of great importance and way beyond the affect that the legislation will have on individual pensioners.
If, 50 years ago, employers, trade unions and the like had had the good sense to negotiate pensions as part of wage agreements, the poverty in this country among old people would have been reduced to a point whereby it would no longer be a problem. However, the position today is that over 70 per cent. of the lowest income pensioners have no pension other than the state pension. Everyone must know that if a person is attempting to live on the state pension alone then that person is living in the very greatest poverty. If those people had had occupational pensions—and I believe that occupational pensions should be made more adequate—then, with one blow, it would have eliminated a great deal of the poverty of this country and we would also have eliminated very heavy costs on social security.
We are now dealing with an approach to some of our most serious and expensive social problems; but we are also dealing with vast sums of money. How will that money be used? There is a conflict here that must be faced. In order to achieve security, there is bound to be a tendency for pension funds to go into gilts. Yet, in this country, we put too little money—not too much—into equities and investment in industry. We must strike a balance so as to ensure that those large sums of money are used in a way which is beneficial to the development of industry and, therefore, to the wealth of the economy from which we ultimately derive all our benefits. We must consider that aspect of the matter. We cannot afford to tie money up in a way which might give benefit in the short run but which will, in the long run, be harmful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to our position in relation to other countries in the European Union. However, I believe that the noble Baroness

987
overlooked the fact that the question of pensions is causing the greatest possible anxiety in those countries. We at least have had more sense than them as regards the funding of our provision for old age. It has been inadequate; but it is a great deal better than theirs.
I should like to refer noble Lords to an extremely good report entitled, The Pension Time Bomb in Europe which was produced by a leading member of my party, Mr. Taverne. Yes, my Lords; Mr Taverne happens to be a member of my party. However, that is not the reason why I am advertising the report. In the document, Mr Taverne draws attention to that great anxiety throughout the European Union and to the fact that, unless the problem is handled, prosperity in the Union will be greatly handicapped. I should point out that we are ahead of the European Union in this area. Indeed, it gives us an opportunity to take the lead in showing the other countries what can be done with properly funded pension schemes which they have not developed for themselves.
As I understand it, Mr Taverne has been asked to talk on the subject in no less than three countries in the European Union. I mention that because I believe it is important that we should have regard to the much wider issues connected with the question of pensions and not merely consider—important though it is—the effect on individual pensioners.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, it may seem a little strange that someone still in his early twenties should choose the subject of pensions for his maiden speech. It may seem even odder that the branch of pensions about which I want to speak—one closely related to our debate today—is war and service widows' pensions.
I am not myself, and have never been, in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force—indeed, my chief interest is in the arts. I am, as yet, unmarried and I shall have to wait 41 years before I am eligible to draw a state pension. Nonetheless, war and service widows' pensions have a special relevance to my own family. My father and grandfather were both in the Army; my mother and grandmother both service widows. But it is only recently that I have learnt just how badly off are many war and service widows. In this anniversary year of the end of the Second World War we naturally want to honour those of all ranks who fought unstintingly for their country and made victory possible. One of the best ways to do this, before any money is spent on celebrations, is to correct the distressing anomalies in war and service widow pensions, thereby easing the lot of many military widows who live in an unacceptable state of extreme poverty and hardship.
I was surprised to discover, as I am sure many of your Lordships will be, that among our Allies, or those against whom we fought, Britain currently pays the lowest rate of service pension to one category of widows. Service widows whose husbands either died in service or retired before April 1973 (and this includes
988
many who fought in the Second World War or Korea) receive a pension of only one-third; that is, 33 per cent., of their late husband's retired pay. 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. Of the 14 comparable Allied and European forces schemes studied by the Officers Pension Society, there is no other country which pays any military widow less than a half-rate pension.
The result of such a policy can be seen in the case of 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 she is entitled amounts to £29.06 a week.
As I am sure your Lordships are aware, the Officers Pension Society and the War Widows Association of Great Britain, backed by all 132 member groups of the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, have set up a campaign to persuade Parliament and the Government to ease the severe restrictions still placed on our war and service widows. In the case of the widow I have just mentioned, the campaign proposes she should be paid not a one-third but one-half of her late husband's occupational pension. That would still only amount to about £44 a week.
The campaign has received overwhelming cross-party support and been strongly backed in an Early Day Motion (No. 186 in the name of Alfred Morris) in another place. Specifically it highlights three groups of widows who are especially disadvantaged, and with your Lordships' indulgence I will speak briefly about each of them in turn. First, I shall discuss war widows. Thanks to a previous campaign in 1989, British war widows' pensions are now more adequate for all those whose husbands died in battle or attributably. There is, however, one restriction still in place—again unique to Britain—which causes particular distress. If a British war widow remarries or is discovered cohabiting she not only loses her entire pension, but, with the exception of a very few officers' widows with reserved rights, will not have it restored should she divorce or be widowed again. (For post–1973 war widows there is an MoD attributable pension which is only restorable against a strict means test).
By contrast, in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Holland, Italy and South Africa, once awarded the war widows pension is never removed. In the case of Australia and New Zealand there is a permanent annuity under a revised scheme. In France, Germany, Norway and Spain, war widows are granted automatic restoration of their pension on second bereavement or failure of the second marriage.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that no one would expect or want war widows to spend the rest of their lives alone, but sadly that is the effect of this ruling. Not surprisingly, few are prepared to run the financial risk of re-marriage—in 1993 only one in a hundred war

989
widows under 60 years of age did so—thus ensuring that they suffer a second enforced loneliness for the rest of their lives.
Because so few war widows change their marital status, granting them a pension for life, regardless of any subsequent change in their status, would be both morally right and involve no extra cost to the state: it is already being borne in 99 per cent. of cases. It should also be noted that according to the National Association of Pension Funds' statistics, more than 84 per cent. of all public and private pension funds in the UK now pay a widow's pension for life regardless of any subsequent changes of status. It seems only reasonable that, in keeping with most current pension schemes, we should honour the war dead by paying their widows a pension for life.
The second and third cases, for service widows, are slightly different. We are here dealing with the widows of military personnel whose death in service or in retirement was not judged to be attributable to active duty. In this less emotive group there have been long-standing inequities, and sadly the 1989 campaign achieved nothing for the two categories I now wish to mention.
First, there is the widow whose husband died or retired before 1973; she is entitled to only one-third of her late husband's occupational pension. The widow I mentioned earlier, who receives only £29.06 a week, comes under this category. She is 74 years old and still has to work to make ends meet.
Then, finally, there is the widow who married her husband after he had retired. Whereas the ruler were quite justly changed in 1978, a widow whose husband had no service after that date today receives no pension whatsoever from the MoD despite his—typically 34—years of service. The financial hardship this restriction causes is dreadful. The campaign proposes that such a widow should receive an occupational pension related to all the years of service of her late husband provided the marriage was entered into during the years when he had a liability of recall to full-time service—normally to the age of 65—and provided the marriage had lasted for at least three years.
Again, pension provision for the widow of a post-retirement marriage with such safeguards is a characteristic of all but one of the 14 comparable schemes examined. It is worth noting that the parliamentary contributory pension fund to which all Members of another place belong, pays every widow of a member who dies a pension of 62.5 per cent. Your Lordships may be asking how the most elderly and vulnerable of the British service widows could be so uniquely disadvantaged. The explanation given by the Government for such omission is the cost of remedial measures. But I have already shown that in the case of war widows, remedial measures would cost virtually nothing. In the case of the service widows about whom we are talking, they are by definition already over 70 and most of them very much more. Helping them in their advanced years could hardly be described as an open-ended or prohibitive financial commitment.
990
As I have studied these matters I have been appalled by what I have found. Fifty years on from the Second World War we should recognise our debt to those whose heroism and sacrifice we shall commemorate later this year. We owe these widows something better than poverty, loneliness and fear.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it falls to me to be the very first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on what I think we would all regard as a most remarkable maiden speech. It was remarkable both for its compassion and, if I may say so, his grasp of technical detail on a subject which is, I think, difficult for all of us. We welcome him very much into the House as the grandson of a very distinguished soldier who I believe won the VC and four DSOs. The noble Lord had a remarkable father who also fought in the Second World War. Although I must confess that I had always thought of the noble Lord as a New Zealander, he tells me that he was in fact born in London. We may all be very pleased that he is as British as the rest of us. We welcome him to the House and congratulate him most warmly on an outstanding maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in the future.
I begin by thanking my noble friend the Minister for introducing this Bill so clearly to us. I wish to say right away that I am in broad agreement with its main aims which, perhaps in shorthand, have been stated as dealing with the scandal and tragedy of the Maxwell affair and with the equalising of pension ages of men and women at the age of 65. I think the backdrop to the Bill on pensions—here I find myself in agreement with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said—is the fact that there is growing concern across the world about how post-retirement is to be funded and at the enormously high costs that this could place on governments and employers. We have to recognise the great demographic changes which are taking place and the greatly increased numbers of old people. It is now, I believe, estimated that the average person lives four years longer than in the days of Beveridge and some, of course, live very much longer still.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that we are making some very good changes, but we should not underestimate the costs which that will place on governments—of any political complexion—employers and individuals. We need to educate the public at large about this huge problem.
It is important that we should deal with this matter, because pensions are of acute importance to individuals. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be provided for can be thankful. But the problems of old age are very real.
It is good news that Britain is leading the way on private pension schemes. We put more money into those schemes than any other country in the European Union and, I believe, than all the European Union countries added together. In 1991 some 10.7 million people of working age were in occupational pension schemes and

991
another 3 million had a preserved pension from former employers. That is higher than in other countries in the European Union and is a most welcome fact.
Turning to Part I of the Bill, it must be right following the Maxwell scandal to legislate to give much greater pensions security. The proposals in the Bill are based on the recommendations of the Goode Committee. As I understand it, they reflect best practice as it is exercised today. We can debate all the details, but the Bill brings into legislation the involvement of members at trustee board level; the setting out of the respective responsibilities of employers, trustees, professionals and members; the introduction of a statutory minimum solvency requirement to ensure that schemes have sufficient funds to pay pensions; the establishment of an independent regulatory authority; the introduction of a compensation scheme to protect against dishonest removal of assets; and a limited indexation of pensions in line with the retail prices index.
We have already been warned that there will be a great deal of debate on those points, but it is important that we have legislation before us which takes account of those matters which have been identified as difficulties, and that we are addressing them. That fact should be widely welcomed.
Of course, it is never possible to legislate against every disaster. After all, who foresaw the Maxwell scandal? However, the Bill gives reassurance to pensioners. I should like to comment on the aspect of whistle blowing. It is my experience—and I am sure that this is true for other noble Lords—that as a member of a board or any other important organisation it is very difficult to know what is happening and whether something is going wrong. One has to ask the right questions if one is to get to the bottom of the matter.
None of this will work unless boards and trustees accept that they must themselves have the highest possible ethical standards. They must not be dependent exclusively on the regulator, because the regulator will never really be able to find out what is happening, whatever extra powers he may be given. At the end of the day, it will depend on those involved knowing what is going on.
I turn now to the proposals to equalise pensions for men and women at 65. That follows a decision of the European court. I have already referred to the cost of pensions in the future. We know that equalising pension ages—which I believe must be right and is long overdue—will result, without any changes, in a doubling of spending on pensions by the year 2025 from just under £30 billion a year to almost £60 billion a year, even assuming constant prices. Equalisation of pension ages at 60 would cost an additional £7 billion by 2025; equalisation at 65 will save £5 billion. Equalisation at 65 will cost £12 billion a year less than equalisation at 60. The idea that that is a cheap option is an illusion and is not one that we should support.
We have to recognise what our competitor countries are doing in this regard. Most European Union, Scandinavian and North American countries either have or are heading for pension ages of at least 65 if not higher. In the United States the pension age will go up
992
from 65 to 67. I understand that even in Denmark it is going up to 67. Therefore, we are not taking action which is out of line with our competitor countries.
This is a serious matter. We talk about the taxpayer, and we are all taxpayers. It also affects employers. Therefore, there must always be a sensible balance between what can be afforded and what should be done.
I realise that the Equal Opportunities Commission is very concerned about this matter. I too have read the material which it has produced. However, there are two ways in which women will benefit from a higher retirement age. One is that they will have a longer working life and therefore have greater opportunity to contribute to a pension. One of the difficulties for women at present is that there are gaps in their employment when they have children or look after elderly parents. A longer career expectation could also help them to defeat what has come to be called the glass ceiling, because at present by the time many women return to their careers employers may think that they do not have long enough to contribute to the company or the organisation before retirement.
It is important to recognise that the changes will not affect any current pensioners or any woman over the age of 45. The scheme will not start until the year 2010 and then will be phased in over 10 years.
I recognise the anxieties in relation to equal opportunities. They have been set out very clearly this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I shall not repeat the figures which she quoted, which I have also seen. However, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can tell us whether there will be any further help for women to accrue pensions during their working life. It is certainly not mentioned in the Bill. However, I wonder whether anything will be included in regulations which would help them to accrue something like the equivalent of 40 years of working life when they have worked for only 20 or 25 years. Perhaps some allowance could be made for a career break when they have children or when they look after elderly relatives, or when they are only able to work part time. I realise that my noble friend may not be able to answer all those points, but it would be immensely helpful at this stage of the Bill if he could say something about the Government's thinking on that important matter.
I should now like to turn to what the Bill does not mention but has been referred to by both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear; namely, occupational pensions on divorce. This matter was first brought to my attention when I was a Foreign Office Minister. Since then I have become aware of its further effects on service wives, and indeed all wives whose husbands work abroad and who accompany their husbands. I have also been approached by the organisation Fair Shares, which is interested in divorce generally.
The wives of those serving in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are at a particular disadvantage because they are unable to pursue a separate career. They therefore cannot possibly earn money for a pension. If the couple divorce and the husband remarries then the husband's pension, when he dies, will go to the

993
second wife and the first wife can be left in dire straits. There can be tragic circumstances in which people who never expected it find themselves dependent on social security.
Others who know far more about the issue than I do will speak further on that subject. However, there seems to be an injustice which should be put right. It also affects all divorced couples as, on the whole, women are not able to pursue a full-time career and earn a pension. As we all know, the number of divorces has risen. In 1987 there were 165,000; in 1991 the figure was 171,000.
I found the Government's response in the White Paper disappointing. I do not understand it. Paragraph 1.45 on page 14 states:
"There is at present no clear evidence of the extent of the problem".
I should have thought that the figures indicate the extent of the problem. I accept that both the Goode Committee and the Pensions Management Institute state that it is a complex problem. However it has been reviewed on at least five occasions since 1969: first, by the Law Commission in 1969 and again in 1977; by the Occupational Pensions Board in 1976; by the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1985; and by the Law Society Family Law Committee in 1991. It hardly seems necessary, therefore, to set up another committee which, if I have understood the matter correctly, is not expected to report until September when the Bill will have become law. It will be helpful to know what the Government believe will happen when the committee reports. If we are unable to achieve anything in the Bill that will be the next point at which some action could occur.
The Pensions Management Institute made a number of proposals in its report on pensions and divorce. Time does not allow me to go into detail. However, the report includes the proposal that courts should have power to share out occupational and personal pension rights between the divorcing parties and for that purpose should be able to issue directions to trustees and others running pension schemes. Other proposals are that arrangements for sharing out pension rights on divorce should cover the working population and pensioners, and that the arrangements should extend to the guaranteed minimum pension or protected rights element of a pension used for contracting out of the state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS).
I recognise that there are a number of complex issues. However, I believe that it has been accepted by all who have reported on the subject that there has been no commonly accepted value to accrued pension rights. There is now such a value following legislation, allowing employees to "carry" their pension from one job to another. The value is known as the cash equivalent or transfer value. That is an important point which could help in the calculations which might be made at a divorce. Underlying most of the proposals is the suggestion that essentially splitting pension rights on divorce amounts to one party forfeiting his or her rights, or assigning them to the divorced partner. In that connection, it would be helpful if the Minister could say
994
anything about the position in Scotland. If that is not possible today, perhaps he would be good enough to write to me on that point.
As the Bill will not become law until 1997, could enabling legislation allowing changes to pension rights on divorce be introduced as soon as possible? This is a matter to which I, and I am sure others, will return in Committee. I hope very much that the Minister will consider the point seriously. I do not believe that such a provision would be more expensive. I recognise that the Inland Revenue gives tax relief for pensions and that if there were more pensioners that relief might increase. However, offset against that has to be set the cost of supplementary benefits for helping the spouse who is disadvantaged on divorce.
I hope that my noble friend will consider the issue carefully. As has already been said, it has support from all parts of the House. I believe that it is an injustice in today's time and age. I hope that the Minister will bring forward amendments which might meet the problems.
That said, I wish to return to my first point. It is an important Bill. It seeks to deal with important issues which have arisen following the Maxwell case and the European Court's decision. I support and welcome the Bill.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his opening remarks and for going through some of the proposals in the Bill in such detail. The spokesmen from the Opposition Front Benches, too, have done much to enlighten those of us on the Back-Benches about the details of the Bill. It has already been mentioned that the Bill is an amalgam of three Bills encompassing the Goode report on Pensions Law Reform; the Government 1994 White Paper, Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions, volumes I and II; European law provisions on equal treatment for men and women; the Barber judgment; the White Paper, Equality in State Pension Age; and government proposals to restructure pensions and break the link between SERPS and occupational pensions.
Cynics have said—far be it from me to join them—that the Bill was drafted at some considerable speed following the collapse of the Government's plans to privatise the Post Office. That left a huge gap in the Government's programme which had to be filled fairly quickly, preferably by some issue that could be seen to be at least partially non-controversial. Therefore we have before us what has been recognised by most experts to be a badly drafted Bill, with the possibility of scores of government amendments to put right the bad drafting, with many more proposals remitted to regulations. That is the background to the Bill.
I do not profess to be an expert on pensions although I have studied them over the years as much as most. However, perhaps I may pay tribute to those voluntary organisations and individuals who have taken the trouble to hold meetings here and elsewhere and to attend in person to discuss with interested Members the details of the Bill and how it affects people who are in work or who have left work. They took a great deal of

995
trouble to bring those issues to our notice. As a result we are far more informed about pensions and the shortcomings of the provisions of the Bill.
I wish to make a few general comments on some issues which interest me. Other speakers have referred to the proposals involving occupational pensions and the complex issue of personal pensions. Those provisions will no doubt be the subject of a number of amendments. I have a number of points to make on those important issues. However, I shall not do so now; I shall wait until we have a further detailed discussion in Committee.
I wish briefly to mention two proposals which have already been touched upon. Clauses 114 and 115 and Schedule 4 to the Bill deal with the equalisation of pensionable age. Of course that is to be welcomed in its broad sense. That is the good news. However, the bad news for most people is the age that the Government have chosen: the men's pension age of 65. For men there will be no change; for women there will be five more years of working before they can draw their state pension. For as long as I can remember (it is a fairly long time) I have been involved with campaigns and organisations campaigning for a reduction of men's pension age to 60—for the equalisation of all pension ages to 60. Had that been granted even halfway through one of the campaigns, it would long since have been in operation and there would be no argument about the great expense and how much it will now cost.
We are, therefore, greatly disappointed that the Government have chosen the age of 65 instead of 60. The more so, since the Government's proposals for full equality in the state pension age, in relation to benefits, will not be achieved for another 26 years. That is another generation. After years and years of discussion, Motions, debates and Bills, it will still be another 26 years before the proposals become totally effective. Many of the ill-effects will be felt by women, as one or two speakers have mentioned.
The Government claim that the reason they are altering women's retirement age now has nothing to do with the campaign that we waged all those years ago. The reason is that they are required to equalise the age under European law but they say that to do so at 60 would be too expensive. In practice, the majority of men between the ages of 60 and 65 are not working because they have retired on good occupational pensions or they have been made unemployed or they receive invalidity benefit. The latter will not last much longer, either.
The proposals will not change that. People in good occupational pension schemes will continue to retire at 60 or even earlier, if they can afford to. People in not so good occupational pension schemes will have to stay on until they are 65 or draw other state benefits, which are also in the process of being cut back. Women are far more likely than men, in our view, to be in that position. So in effect, we shall still have two retirement ages for a long time to come.
I wish to go into two issues which have been briefly mentioned by previous speakers but which deeply affect me and many people outside. One is a matter raised by the Alzheimer's Disease Society, not for the first time.
996
For many years it has been campaigning, with support from Members on all sides of the Chamber. It has been worried about occupational schemes and particularly the effect of residential care on them. Under existing rules, when someone enters long-term care in a residential or nursing home, the whole of their occupational pension is taken up with the costs of care. The society is deeply concerned about the financial impact that that has on elderly couples, in particular on women carers. We have dealt with some of the issues in debates in the recent past, but the difficulties must be repeated as no one seems to be listening.
It is clear, from the cases of which we know, that the wife's income is substantially reduced and women face severe financial hardship as a result of the present way of dealing with occupational pensions. One of the adverse effects concerns the payment of income support to people who would otherwise be unable to support themselves. They now have to rely on state benefits. One carer wrote to me:
"I have no occupational pension myself, I have had to apply for income support which has been granted. But I am left in much poorer circumstances and I have to meet the heating, telephone and repair bills for the house as though my husband were still there".
The fact that he happens to be in residential care does not reduce the expenditure of the carer, the wife who is left. Most women who have contacted the Alzheimer's Disease Society or Members of this House complain about the effects of the occupational pensions rule. They point out that they are worse off than if they were widows or had divorced their husbands. They would have been better in either of those two categories than they are at the moment.
Although there will undoubtedly be amendments on those issues, I should have thought that the Government might well take the chance between now and the Committee stage to put down a government amendment, among all those drafting amendments, to take care of the outstanding anomaly so that at least they would be seen to be, in some ways, non-controversial.
The other point which exercises my mind goes back about a quarter of a century. It must be nearly 25 years since I first raised the matter in another place on many occasions, as well as in this House. The point was mentioned this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It is the matter of expatriates, pensioners living abroad. Many of them live in Commonwealth countries like Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia. Currently, there are some 400,000 UK state pensioners worldwide whose pensions are frozen at the rate current when they left this country. The great majority—340,000—live in the Commonwealth countries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. There are many cases of pensioners who have qualified in exactly the same way as we did, by contributions and paying national insurance, and who have retired. However, they receive a pension of less than £10 per week. In one case, somebody wrote to me saying that he had retired in 1968 and he receives £4.50 per week, the pension has never been updated.
However, there are approximately 280,000 British pensioners in 32 other countries, including all those within the European economic area and 15 other

997
countries, including the United States, whose pensions are index-linked. The reason is that the United Kingdom has reciprocal social security agreements with those 32 countries and the pensioners receive the full pension which is now £57 per week. That is totally unjust. No argument ever existed to justify our not accepting the offer from the Canadians, in particular, to come to a reciprocal agreement with this country. At certain stages, they even offered to help towards the initial payment for the introduction of such a scheme. For those pensioners, it is long overdue. The only reason for it is based on their domicile and that is ruled out by the fact that 32 other countries have overcome the problem.
The main argument put by the Government on every occasion when I have raised the problem has been the cost. Of course the cost has increased every time the pension has been raised. At the moment the Government are discussing how much they will save by the introduction of the Bill with all its proposals. It would be of great advantage if some of the savings—perhaps half—from the equalisation of the pension age could be used. It would be more than enough to index-link the outstanding pensions in the Commonwealth countries. The Government ought to be thinking in those constructive terms rather than constantly harping on the fact that they do not wish to pay the pensioners, using the excuse that it is too costly. The suggestion becomes more costly every time they mention it.
The Government have put forward a number of excuses. I shall not go into them at this stage but shall return to the point in more detail at the Committee stage. This is an issue about which everyone feels bad because it is unjust and immoral. We all have consciences and we know that it is wrong that those people suffer as they do. I know of a case of two pensioners who left this country at the same time. One went to Canada, one to America, and according to the letter they live about 15 minutes apart. I have never been to the place but it is somewhere near Niagara Falls. I am told that there is a bridge which one can walk across from Canada to the States in 15 or 20 minutes. The pensioners meet regularly in a local hostelry. One is on a pension of £7.50 a week because that was his pension when he left and it has never been uprated. The other one's pension is £57 a week because he lives 20 minutes away in the United States. Our consciences should not allow us to permit that to continue; it is unjust and immoral. We are talking about Commonwealth nations, the nations which supported this country through thick and thin in every war and every troublesome period that we have had. Many thousands of the pensioners are ex-servicemen who were well decorated. They deserve far better treatment. I shall return to the point on an amendment which I intend to put down for the Committee stage.
For the time being I shall leave the matter there. But I hope to be involved in many more discussions on that and other issues when we come to Committee.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, in what I would describe, if he does not mind my saying so, as a remarkable and in some ways quietly devastating speech, said that we might find it strange
998
that someone in his twenties or thirties should take an interest in a debate on pensions. I can assure him that if those of us in the industry thought that there was any possibility of getting large numbers of people in their twenties and thirties to take an interest in pensions, life would be joyful beyond belief. The noble Lord does not perhaps realise what that would mean. It would mean happy, laughing actuaries. I can assure him that we on the Cross Benches listened to his speech with great pride. We hope that he will make many more speeches of that kind and continue to maintain the level of good judgment that caused him to choose these Benches despite blandishments to go elsewhere to inferior places.
First, let me declare an interest. I have been employed in the life insurance industry in the United Kingdom and North America for some years past. I am still so employed. Secondly, although I have not yet retired I am also the very happy recipient of six different pensions: private, occupational and state. I shall talk on the virtues of putting them together. I can assure the House that it does make people feel a lot happier and more comfortable if they have them.
Inevitably, the large and sinister shadow of Bob Maxwell hovers over the debate. That is inevitable: the tragedies which flowed from his looting of employees' pension funds were so many, so heartbreaking in their results and so widely reported. But Maxwell's obsessive criminality, certainly in its scale, was a one off. It was a terrible problem, but there is not a major problem on that scale within the pensions industry or business. In fact, it is probable that more pension funds get themselves into trouble through incompetence than through criminality.
Nevertheless, the Maxwell affair raises many issues. Some of them are more concerned with corporate governance than with pension legislation. Indeed, in the Bill reference is made to the need for good provision for whistle blowing. Matters connected with Maxwell are likely to come before the courts in the not too distant future. I believe that there are elements where the whistles were not blown when fully covered by existing legislation governing companies and financial transactions. No doubt that will come out in the course of the trials.
The Bill makes an important contribution to what I personally believe and hope will be the first stage of a fundamental review of the funding of retirement pensions. It is not a matter of patching up. The system is not working to anybody's advantage; it cannot work to anybody's advantage. It does not provide adequate pensions for the poorest section of the community. It does not provide a clear situation for people. It costs a great deal of money and most of it, in terms of universal state pensions, is wasted. Private pension provision is needed simply because of the changes that are taking place demographically. It is becoming increasingly clear that we face a major change. There are problems stemming from the fact that fewer and fewer people will be contributing to pensions and more and more people will be drawing pensions. If we have problems now we are bound to have bigger ones later.

999
In 1951, 28 per cent. of the population was over 50 years of age; today, the figure is 33 per cent. The numbers will continue to rise, certainly for the next 30 years. The fact is that universal state pensions are an increasingly expensive nonsense which cannot begin to meet the real and growing problem. It is not just a British problem. Most advanced countries face very similar problems. Many of them are moving in the same direction, away from universal provision by the state and strongly towards the encouragement of personal savings by way of occupational or private pension schemes; and ideally a mixture of both. I say "a mixture of both" because, for a start, 50 per cent. of the population are not covered by occupational schemes. Secondly, as has been said, most people change jobs half a dozen times or so in the course of employment and almost inevitably therefore lose out on their final provision.
Moreover, it is a fact of modern life that many people will be unemployed for a period of time. Quite a few others will be forced to take early retirement. Occupational pension schemes are a crucial part of the pension package but they cannot stand alone and they cannot be depended upon. Let me say, having declared my interest, that with private insurance provision the problem is to get people in their twenties or thirties to consider their likely needs in 30 years' time.
Many people who take out private pension schemes do so far too late in life to cover themselves. Financial advisers have a standing joke about the chap aged 58 who tells them that he has no need for any sort of cover because he has £30,000 saved up. That does not last very long. The major problem lies in educating people about the need to take out provision for themselves—not as a benefit for the economy. It is far better that pensions should be funded to the maximum degree (for those who can afford to do it) by the people who will subsequently draw those pensions. They can plan for themselves and can afford them earlier but it requires the assistance of the Government, in many ways as introduced in the Bill.
I referred to the problem of education in this area. British people are very strange in that they do not like talking about money. Many other nations do not mind at all. I can meet some happy Cantonese chap who shakes me by the hand and says, "How nice to see you, Lord Marsh. How much do you earn?" That seems to me a perfectly reasonable question. One does not always tell him the truth but it is a fair question. In this country people are very touchy about talking of money. They do not like it; they are not interested. We can all think of friends or neighbours who have had affectionate and loving relationships only for the widow to be left in an appalling situation with no provision—a large mortgage and no ability to provide for it. The husband was loving. But not only did he not provide for his widow; she never thought to ask him, and he never thought to tell her. It is amazing that that should happen to people who, frequently, are well educated.
Like many companies in the marketing field we regularly commission polls on various aspects of life. About 18 months ago, a reputable national polling
1000
organisation asked interviewees what they thought would be the proportion of their income upon which they would retire. The answers were very interesting. People were given a number of figures to choose from; some 48 per cent. were quite specific and said two thirds. We all know where that two thirds comes from; it comes from the Revenue rules. So 48 per cent. of the people polled believed at that time that they would suffer a reduction in their income but that it would still be two thirds of what they previously received. Two-thirds pension is taken up in this country by only 1 per cent. of pensioners. The people polled were that far out.
Much has been said about the controversy of pension transfers out of various state industries into the private sector. I shall not go into it at this stage; it is not even a question for the Committee stage, but at some point we will discuss it. Criticisms can be made of both sides. But I find it extraordinary that any adult with a reasonable education, working for a nationalised industry—for example in a hospital—and on a pension scheme common to everybody else standing around, in the course of one day, walking as such people do each day within 10 yards of the pay office or the finance office of the hospital, the electricity institution or whatever, did not think, "I will ask what my pension scheme is like". Yet that, together with a number of other matters, was a major factor in some of the wrong transfers.
People do not understand; it has not been brought home to them, and knocking the life insurance industry has a degree of justification. It certainly provides a full-time occupation for some journalists. It is good sport. But the government of the day will find themselves in serious difficulties if private sector provision dries up and if, in some years time, one finds that the number of people who might otherwise have been taking out provision for themselves have not done so, and have only one other place to go; that is, to the British taxpayer and government agencies.
Therefore there is a need to take a look at a situation which accepts that there are two main reliable providers of pensions for people in this country. One is the private sector and the other is occupational pension schemes. The sensible person will be informed about his interests in both and make whatever amalgamation of the two he can for his specific benefit. With regard to the state system, it is inadequate for those it wishes to help and pointless for those who do not need it. It is a drain on the Exchequer and the money would be better spent on other areas, not least on some of the people at the very bottom of the heap.
That is not popular. There is a romance about the state pension as apparently there is a romance about poverty—it can be heard being expounded in great detail in Hampstead, Islington and other areas of experience. But there is no romance in it; it is deeply miserable. We have no justification whatever, with scarce resources, to apply those resources in areas where they are not necessary and deny them to areas where provision is inadequate. In my view there is a clear relationship between high levels of personal savings and good levels of industrial investment in industry. A classic example

1001
of that is Japan, where people have high levels of personal savings. That would be of assistance rather than just putting responsibility on the state.
This is a large and important piece of legislation. It touches delicately on wider and more controversial issues. However, its primary concern is the need to deal with failures in the existing system. That being so, I find one omission quite extraordinary. I refer to the custody of assets. The Maxwell funds were, on the whole, not out of line with the requirements of the Bill. It was a perfectly reasonable company pension scheme. But a major element in that disaster, as I understand it, was Maxwell's ability to obtain direct access to the assets and to documents relating to them. I hope that the Minister will at least give an indication of the nature of the Government's objection to independent custodianship of the assets of pension funds. There will be ample opportunity to debate this and other issues in Committee.
Another major issue arises; that is, the extent to which complex and serious issues are being left to regulation and secondary legislation. That cannot be justified. This is neither a parliamentary nor a constitutional issue:, it is simply not fair, on matters as important as this, to deny these areas a proper airing in the Chambers of both Houses for expressions of view. I am strongly in favour—again I declare a sort of counter-interest in that I take a minority view of my colleagues—of statutory regulation as opposed to voluntary regulation. I will do whatever I can for the PIA, but at the end of the day, with statutory regulation, whether or not one likes it, one knows what it is and can come to terms with it. When one is dealing with regulations and all sorts of bodies representing all sorts of interests, frankly, one does not have a clue what they are going to do. Frequently they will be guided more by emotional prejudice than by a deep study of the subject. The more matters are in legislation where we can argue about them, the better.
That is particularly true in the question of solvency. Leaving aside the general issue of solvency, where a scheme fails to meet the solvency criteria (it may not be for any wicked reason but simply because of the markets, bad investment and so forth) and demands to get the fund up to the level of solvency required—in principle I would not object to that at all—a company may suddenly be forced to find many millions of pounds to cover the liability. It must do it, but it is not reasonable to say that the time allowed is something that will be dealt with at a subsequent date. The time allowed is a crucial issue which employers and industry will want to know.
Not only are we going to see proportionately more pensioners who live longer, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, they will retire earlier. It is now commonplace for people to retire well before the age of 65. It can mean more time for hobbies and holidays, and be a happy period of life. For others it may be the beginning of 20 years or more of increasing poverty. Some people never have enough money to provide for retirement and the state should provide for them on a more generous basis than at present. Most people could, by personal savings, provide—if they were encouraged
1002
to do so—a much better retirement for themselves than the state can or will, regardless of the political party in power. It is a problem that exists in most advanced countries. A great deal of the research points in the same direction: universal state pensions waste money and fail to protect the poorer sections of society. People must learn to protect themselves and be helped to do so by the state.
I wish the Bill well. It is a significant step in the right direction. But there are still some big issues to be faced and I look forward to that much wider debate.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, this is an extremely important Bill. It affects almost everybody in the country in one way or another and certainly, with the possible exception of the Finance Bill, it is the most important Bill that Parliament will see this Session.
The only problem in debating the Bill on Second Reading is that there are so many issues of such great importance that if one is to keep one's speech within a tolerable length, then one will have to pick and choose a few issues without for one moment suggesting that the issues one does not pick out are unimportant. Therefore, I shall seek to make two or three quick references to matters of great importance upon which one could probably have made a whole speech, and then come on to the question of the equalisation of the pension age and perhaps deal with that a little more fully.
First, perhaps I may say how much I agreed with what, in his most admirable maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said about provision for war widows. Where a woman has lost her husband fighting in the defence of our country my view is that there should be generosity on a scale that other benefits need not necessarily attain. It is such a sacrifice—and it is so much a sacrifice aimed at preserving this country—that I should like to see a very considerable improvement in provision for war widows.
I believe that one is now supposed to be inhibited, if one does not immediately follow a maiden speaker, in congratulating him on it. I am going to risk the disapproval of our procedure pundits by saying how much I admired the noble Lord's speech, both for the way it was delivered and particularly for the choice of subject. I hope indeed that my noble friends on the Front Bench will pay attention to it. I think they will find throughout the country as a whole and in this House as a whole that there is a very strong feeling in favour of substantial provision for war widows—more substantial provision, I say bluntly, than as regards most other benefits.
I agree to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on the treatment of the holders of British pensions who go overseas, at any rate to the Commonwealth. When British pensioners emigrate to Canada, Australia or New Zealand it is difficult to justify that they should not receive the increases in pension which are being made at home in respect of that very pension which they are receiving. It puts this country in rather a bad light with some of our Commonwealth friends and it certainly involves

1003
unnecessary hardship for people who, ex hypothesi, are to some extent at least dependent on pensions. I would not go so far as to suggest that this should apply wherever they go. But where they go to Commonwealth countries, and where there is the possibility of a reciprocal agreement with the Commonwealth country, the matter should be seriously considered. The cost, given the very limited number of these people, would not be great.
The Bill also seeks to deal with what one could call Maxwell-type frauds on pension schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, expressed some doubt as to whether it will be effective. It is a highly technical question. I am sure the House will favour tightening up protection for pension schemes and for the pensioners who hope to benefit from them. What the late Robert Maxwell did was one of the most deplorable actions that one has seen in recent years. Robbing the till of pension schemes, on which, in the future, very large numbers of people would need to subsist, was a terrible thing to do. I hope that the Government and their draftsmen have been capable of ensuring that that does not happen again. I should welcome some reassurance from my noble friend the Minister on that point.
The main matter to which I wish to refer is the equalisation of pension ages, which is effected by Clause 114 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Bill. Schedule 4 sets out in elaborate detail how this will work. I was fascinated to see those provisions in the Bill for the very personal reason that I have been concerned with this subject for a great number of years. As some of your Lordships may know, I was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, as the Minister for social security was then called, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. At that time we were very concerned indeed about the inequality of retirement ages for pensioners. It seemed to us then, as it seems to me now, that it was unfair to men that women should receive their pension five years earlier despite the fact that in general they had a life expectancy of four or five years longer. I have heard the contrary argument, which is that as women have to give up earning, often for considerable periods, and have the care of their family and children, there is a case for a disparity in pension age. But I do not think it is justified, seeing that women receive their pension five years earlier and then subsist for four years longer on it. I am glad that the Government are facing up to the problem.
We considered the matter in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in the late 1950s. I came to the conclusion that we should not act on the matter—it was just as great a problem then as it is now—because I was convinced that the change would have to be effected over a number of years and that to be sure it was so effected one would have to have inter-party agreement. Even the most optimistic Conservative Minister in the 1950s would not really expect to continue in office for the following 25 or so years. It was quite clear at that time that there could be no inter-party agreement. I felt that if I produced and succeeded in carrying legislation which would raise the age, it would be revoked or be generally messed up when, as would happen sooner or later, there was a change of government. Therefore,
1004
rather reluctantly, because the merits of the matter were overwhelming, I decided not to do anything at the time. But the issue has been with me for a considerable number of years and I am delighted that the Government have decided to go ahead with this change.
I should be interested to know from my noble friend the Minister whether there is any understanding between the parties as to, in the event of a change of government, the programme of a move to equalisation being continued, and continued, broadly at any rate, on these lines. It would certainly cast a rather dark shadow over the proposals if it were thought that if there were a Labour Government in the next 25 or so years the whole scheme would be altered. That would be extremely confusing and worrying to the people concerned.
There is also the question of whether this is the right solution. When we looked at the problem years ago there were three possible choices. The first choice, which the Government have made, was to take women's retirement age to 65. There was the possibility of reducing men's retirement age to 60. There was an intermediate choice of moving both ages of retirement to 63. The idea of lowering the age of retirement for men to 60 had to be dismissed out of hand because it would have been immensely costly. The argument for the retirement age for both and men and women being 63 was a plausible one. But it is still accepted that women should become entitled to a retirement pension at an age where it was arguable, as it is arguable, that it was too soon and that, on the contrary, they should wait until they attain the same age as men. I am very glad that the Government have accepted this solution. If one looks at the fourth schedule to the Bill one sees the very elaborate mechanism for the changeover with precise dates at which the lady concerned reaches pensionable age and at which the various changes will be made in the rate of her pension.
It is all a number of years ahead and will not affect anybody for a considerable number of years. But if your Lordships and another place enact the Bill in its present form it will come into effect and bring both sexes to the same age of 65 as being the pensionable age. I believe that that is right. We shall have to spend a little time looking at the cases of those who find that their retirement age has risen too much. It may well be that some adjustment of the system will be required.
But I believe that this is the right and a splendid step to take. I recognise the courage which the Government have shown over this matter. I also recognise that it is not uncontroversial. Indeed, I have received quite a lot of material through the post which has been highly critical of the Bill. I am fully willing to support the Bill. I am delighted to know that my noble friend and his colleagues have had the courage and determination to do that which I myself failed to attempt a number of years ago.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in his introduction the Minister referred to four principles underlying the Bill. In her speech my noble friend Lady Hollis referred to three distinctive elements. Both speakers included in their analysis of the Bill the principle of equalisation of

1005
the pension age and the equality provisions of the Bill. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I concentrate on these aspects.
My interest in the subject does not go quite so far back as that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but it does go back to my period as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission where from the very outset in 1975, equality between the sexes in pension provision became a major issue. In that sense I warmly welcome the equality principle in the Bill although I shall be critical of a number of the provisions in the course of my remarks.
During my chairmanship of the Equal Opportunities Commission from 1975 to 1983, there were five studies and publications by the commission; subsequently, there have been another six publications on the subject which indicate the attention which the commission has given to the matter. In addition there have been a number of in-depth research projects on the implications of equalisation. That includes a publication only last week entitled Equalisation of State Pension Ages: the Gender Impact.
Initially, the commission suggested an equal age of 63 on the basis that that would he more or less cost neutral. Subsequently, further research has indicated that to equalise at any age above 60 could exacerbate problems for women in their retirement years. Therefore, we need to look beyond what I believe is a universally accepted principle of equalisation to assess how these problems can be alleviated.
Basically, despite changes in legislation, our social security system is still founded on the principle of woman's financial dependency on their husbands. Even now about 1.1 million women in work are paying the married woman's national insurance contribution which was stopped for new entrants way back in 1977. There are also many—I suspect the majority of women—drawing benefit resting entirely on their husband's contribution.
Moreover, women's work patterns are still vastly different from men's and that seriously affects their pension provision. The differences arise from women's child bearing function and from their larger caring role. Despite the Equal Pay Act, women's pay is still not equal to men's pay. All of this means that women are less well catered for in retirement.
For example—and I give figures provided by the Equal Opportunities Commission relating to 1991—in that year, of men retiring aged 65, 79.77 per cent. received state pension; 67.4 per cent. of women retiring received state pension, but only 15.04 per cent. received a full basic pension on their own contributions. Further, 71.4 per cent. of men received SERPS and 28.04 per cent. of women; 73.6 per cent. of men were in an occupational pension scheme and 57.1 per cent. of women. Even last year approximately 2.25 million women earned too little to pay national insurance contributions.
These statistics demonstrate how unequal the position is and how unequal it is likely to remain well into the 21st century. So in the light of that we have to ask how far the Bill before us will help in coping with these facts, bearing in mind that the Government have chosen the age of 65 as the equal pension age.
1006
The EOC research has produced some interesting conclusions which I suggest the Government must answer. Those women who continue to retire at the age of 60 will of course be much worse off under the Government's proposed changes than those who retire at 60 now. It is not unnatural to assume that a considerable number of women will still want to retire at 60 bearing in mind that about 46 per cent. of men who are expected not to retire until 65, either retire or are unemployed and effectively retired between the ages of 60 and 65.
Women who continue to work until 65—assuming that they are continuing to pay their contributions—will earn a basic pension 72 per cent. less than it would be if they retired at 65 under the present scheme. The reason is that under the present system, by deferring her pension to 65, a woman would receive increments for those five years amounting to something like an increase of 37 per cent. on her entitlement. Under the proposed new scheme, she would not receive that enhancement.
For women either leaving work at 60 or switching to low-paid, part-time work between the ages of 60 and 65—that is, to work with pay that is below the lower earnings limit—the effect of the Bill would be to lower their SERPS pension because it would be based on an average of 44 years, not the present 39 years or, as was introduced originally, the best 20 years in a woman's working life.
The EOC report contains a number of case illustrations of that unfavourable impact on women. Therefore, I have to ask the Government whether that was anticipated when they decided on the age of 65. The Minister might respond by saying that there are other changes in the Bill to counterbalance that, but the EOC research suggests that that is likely to have little practical effect on women's pension entitlement. Therefore, we might ask whether it is wise or even necessary to raise the pension age to 65 for both sexes instead of equalising it at 60.
The Government's case rests on demographic factors, on costs and on the need to be competitive. But again the EOC research suggests a number of flaws in that reasoning. I shall summarise them briefly. First, demographic projections are not particularly reliable for costing purposes. Even the Government actuaries are suggesting that there could be a margin of error of 10 per cent. either way. Secondly, the prediction is that by 2040, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said, the United Kingdom will have the second highest support ratio—that is, workers to pensioners—within the OECD. Thirdly, the United Kingdom has one of the cheapest pension systems in the OECD. Fourthly, the maximum increase in national insurance contributions is likely to be only 1.4 per cent. more than at present, but by 2050 it should fall to 2 per cent. below the present rate. Fifthly, factors other than the increasing number of retired people need to be taken into account in assessing our ability to support pensioners. Such factors include the increase in the labour force participation rate which is due to still more women entering employment, the level of earnings, the growth in earnings and the cost of unemployment. All of those suggest that the Government's case for 65 is by no means watertight.

1007
The Government's previous change in pensions provision (when they changed the earnings-related indexation to inflation indexation) was not particularly helpful to women. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. It seems that women gain their best pension protection through the basic state provision yet that state provision today is worth only 15 per cent. of average earnings and by 2030 it will be worth only 7 per cent. of average earnings. That will not be sufficient for anyone to retire on in comfort. Again, that—together with the proposed equalisation at 65—is detrimental to women. We shall certainly have to return to a discussion of that issue in Committee.
We shall also need to return to a number of other issues, some of which have already been raised. Although time does not permit me to develop them, they include possible delay of the introduction of the provisions at 65—that is, if the Government are adamant about 65—at least until SERPS has matured so that all women who will be affected will have had an opportunity to earn a full additional pension. Secondly, we should examine the possibility of reverting to the "best 20 years" for calculating SERPS. That would certainly help women. Thirdly, we should consider changing the "complete tax year principle" for calculating home responsibility protection. A number of women come in and out of such protection provisions and do not always qualify for a full year's entitlement. Fourthly—this has already been mentioned and there is clearly widespread support for it—we should consider giving a statutory pension entitlement to divorced spouses. Fifthly, we should examine the different actuarial calculations for men and women for occupational pensions. Sixthly, we should examine the proposed retrospective rights to occupational pension schemes for part-time workers. The Government are suggesting a two-year period. Is that enough? Seventhly, we should re-examine the lower earnings limit to see whether there is any way of bringing all women workers into pension entitlement. Finally, we should press that the annual savings, which are estimated to amount to some £5 billion for the Treasury, should be used to assist women to earn a reasonable pension in the future.
It has been accepted over the past 20 years that equalising the pension age for men and women would have implications in many directions. Recent court cases on the subject have added to that belief. And now this Bill has confirmed beyond question that some very difficult problems need to be solved. Nevertheless, the principle is right and it is accepted by noble Lords on all sides of the House. Therefore, our discussions in the coming stages of the Bill must confirm that principle, while at the same time examining carefully the additional or alternative measures that are required to meet those implications and to assist women to achieve a more secure retirement.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I should like first to join those of your Lordships who have spoken in general support of Part I; namely, the proposed measures to put right the failures that were exemplified
1008
by the Maxwell affair. As a trustee on two company pensions committees, I have no doubt that any measures that will give occupational pensioners some assurance that those failures can be avoided in future are to be welcomed. I should add that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that no legislation can give a total assurance.
I should also like to endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the problems faced by divorced spouses of members of the public service and the Armed Services and to deplore the failure of this Bill in its present form to address those problems.
I hope that the House will understand if my brief remarks concentrate on the problems of Diplomatic Service spouses, speaking both as a former head of that service and as the husband of a former president of the British Diplomatic Spouses' Association. In concentrating on the Diplomatic Service, I hope that your Lordships will not think that I have neglected or underestimated the extent to which these problems also affect spouses of those who serve abroad in the public service, whether as members of the Home Civil Service or the Armed Services, on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke so persuasively.
The problems are particularly acute in the case of the Diplomatic Service, where spouses tend to be more dependent than most on the income or pension of their husband or wife, as the case may be. In a service where many can expect to serve, as my wife and I did, over half their career abroad, where opportunities for a spouse to earn a living, or to pursue an alternative career and thereby earn a pension, whether state or private, are blighted by frequent moves and interruptions, where such opportunities as exist are often lowly paid and unpensionable, and where research shows that only 39 per cent. of spouses are able to find any kind of paid employment overseas, compared with the 70 per cent. of married women in this country in full or part-time employment, the effect on the income of diplomatic spouses is considerable.
Even compared with their colleagues in the Home Civil Service, where similar interruptions may occur, though less frequently, the average earning capacity of those diplomatic spouses who are able to have separate employment is considerably less.
The problem—I echo the description of it as an injustice given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—that I wish to address today, and which I would urge the Government to correct, is the very real hardship faced by widows and divorced spouses of Diplomatic Service officers: first, for widows who have lost their pension on remarriage and have no entitlement to their second partner's pension in the event that he predeceases her; and, secondly, for the divorced widow who sees the second wife of the former husband receiving all the benefits of his pension on his death, even though the latter had shared only a minimal part of his life in the Diplomatic Service.
I understand that the question whether a wife should be entitled to a share of her husband's pension in a divorce settlement has been under consideration by the Law Commission for many years, and, indeed, that there is a case under appeal to your Lordships' House at

1009
present. I shall not therefore pursue the general point much further beyond saying that the present position bears particularly hard on divorced spouses in the Diplomatic Service, especially as even those spouses who are working as members of the locally employed staff in our diplomatic missions abroad are not, under present rules, able to make voluntary national insurance Class 3 contributions.
I repeat my hope that the Minister will be able to give the House some reassurance that the Government will aim to correct those anomalies which have existed for too long and which in my view amount to a grave and outdated injustice towards those who have married and served loyally with partners who have dedicated their working lives to serving the nation overseas.
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I wish to register my interest, although not a pecuniary one, in the Bill. I am deputy chairman of Nuffield Hospitals and chairman of the trustees of the Nuffield Pension Scheme.
There are many facets to the Bill, with a great amount of technical detail, but today I want to speak on general principles and the changes to occupational pensions. I welcome the Bill and am delighted that the Government have made time for this important and necessary major legislation. The predicted increase in elderly people, particularly those over 85, is significant. Alarm bells must have been ringing for those who are involved in preparing for the care of the elderly after the early years of the next century.
In 1991, the ratio of people of working age to those of pension age was 3.3:1. By 2030 that figure will be 2.2:1. It is clear, therefore, that other than state provision must be made to ensure that pensioners will enjoy an acceptable standard of living without placing an intolerable burden on taxpayers.
As has been mentioned by other noble Lords, we in the UK have taken steps to alleviate the problem through the promotion of private pensions. Already about 20 million people are investing into pension funds for their retirement. I understand that only the Netherlands has developed similar policies, and more money has been invested in pension schemes in this country than the rest of the European Union put together.
Most of the money invested in pension schemes is contributed by full-time workers, but many part-time workers—that means women particularly—will still need support from the state. I hope that a way will be found to enable part-timers to participate without there being too onerous a burden on employers. At this stage I should like to pay tribute to those who have devised a scheme for their employees, especially the smaller firms where the cost is considerable.
I have always been concerned that so often women, because of the pattern of their working lives, do not start to make provision until it is almost too late to create a meaningful pension. So I was greatly interested to hear that, under new regulations for home responsibility protection, women who have time off paid work to bring up their children or
care for a sick relative will be able to have those years credited to them; in other words, as
1010
I understand it, someone acting as a carer for three years would have to work for 36 years and not 39 years. Similarly, a mother bringing up her children for 10 years would have those years credited and would have to work 29 years and not 39 years. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would tell me whether I am right in my understanding. If so, it is one of the most exciting and imaginative initiatives for a long time, and good news for women.
As I said earlier, it would be even better if there was a way to extend some help to part-timers who often combine the role of mother or carer while supporting themselves financially. It would be a real incentive to those people to try to work for a realistic pension in those later years rather than take the attitude, "It's too late now".
Most elderly pensioners are women—many on benefit—and it would be a real advance if a framework could be devised so that their latter years could be spent independently with a higher quality of life and less drain on central funds.
I welcome the proposals for the regulation of occupational pensions. Following the debacle of the Maxwell scandal and the resulting Goode Report, the legislation will set a strict code of conduct, and put in place most of the report's recommendations, plus others resulting from wide consultation. It is vital that members of schemes who invest for their retirement have complete confidence in the security of their funds.
From my experience as chairman of trustees, I appreciate the importance of the involvement of members in the organisation of the scheme. I am, among our trustees, the only non-beneficiary of the scheme. I remember only too well getting to grips with the pension scheme and being most grateful for the training I received. All trustees must be given detailed tuition if they are to assume the heavy responsibilities involved in the scheme's administration.
Our funds are small to medium-sized as schemes go, but even so the amount of money involved is considerable and usually very different from anything for which one has been responsible previously. Professional advisers are most important to the trustees, and the obligation for the provision of an annual solvency certificate will not just be of great assistance and comfort to the trustees but, more importantly, a great reassurance to the members.
There are 150,000 schemes in existence, the vast majority of which are well run, providing adequate security for their members. However, the legislation provides for the regulator to respond quickly and effectively when trustees or their advisers fear problems.
I do not wish to comment on the equalisation of state pension ages. However, I believe that all occupational schemes should equalise both age and benefits. The Nuffield scheme, where retirement is at 65 for both men and women, provides exactly the same treatment of benefits for the widows and widowers of members. I have seen how much that has been appreciated, in particular by the male beneficiaries who have lost their spouses

1011
I conclude with a matter which, sadly, is not dealt with in the Bill. It is the problem of pensions and divorce. I appreciate that it is a complex matter but, with the increase in divorce, the great injustice and treatment of such pensions is real and growing. Decisions should be made quickly and with a degree of urgency.
I welcome the Bill and I support it. No doubt there will be fierce debate as it progresses. I believe that when the legislation is on the statute book many people will be able to look to a more secure future.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, when as general secretary of SOGAT, the printing and paper trade union, I was discussing the anxieties of some of our member trustees about the Maxwell pension funds, little did I appreciate that we would be speaking of it 10 years later on the Second Reading of the Pensions Bill. The Minister is right in asserting that the Maxwell scandal is one of the main reasons why we are here today discussing pensions. It makes me wonder whether, if Mr. Maxwell had not fallen off his boat into the sea, this Bill would have been before us.
The reality is that in many cases the structure of the Maxwell pension funds appeared on paper to be working all right. Our trustees came to the union with genuine anxieties and questions to which they could not obtain answers and they asked the union to pick them up. We could not obtain answers either. We could not take industrial action because the legislation relating to trade unions had been changed and it would have been illegal.
We retained professional advisers. We went to the Occupational Pensions Board; we wrote to Mr. Maxwell's professional advisers; and we took the matter up with the chairman of the Maxwell pension funds. Of course, he was anxious about his job; he could have been dismissed had he seriously challenged Mr. Maxwell. Eventually, on the steps of the court, Mr. Maxwell agreed to disclose the information we were seeking. As with many other matters, he did not keep his undertaking. I received a letter from him only one week before his death stating that he wanted to be open and to discuss with us the issues and our anxieties. Along the way we had seen him remove some of our member trustees from office and make many other punitive moves.
Today we are discussing the Bill logically and sensibly, as we should, from our individual positions. However, that is not how many people affected by the Maxwell scandal feel. It destroyed so many lives. Although I do not wish to give anecdotal evidence I wish to cite one case because listening to a direct experience is better than reading a great deal of information.
Two of our women members were employed in a company in Oxfordshire. They were twin sisters and both spinsters. Their father had died and they were the breadwinners in a small flat looking after their mother. They had worked in the company for more than 30 years and had wonderful work records. Every day they went home for lunch. One day when they went back to work the managing director sent for them and had to ask their
1012
names. He was new to the job and did not know them. He told them that they were being made redundant. Things moved very fast. Not only were they redundant; there was no money to meet the redundancy pay, although we had an industrial agreement. They then lost their pensions. The lives of those two women were destroyed, and one can replicate that experience.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that although on paper the Maxwell schemes appeared to be all right the assets were not. He used the assets like pieces on a chess board; he used them to raise money in a criminal way. It is essential that the Bill is amended to deal with that and to require the independent lodging of the assets of funds.
The Goode Report did not cover personal pensions. That is regrettable because approximately 24 per cent. of employed people are covered by personal pension schemes. I do not mean to indicate that I have any preference for personal or occupational pension schemes. In the world in which people live and work today, whatever is suitable for them in choice should be applied.
Today, 11 million people are covered by occupational pension schemes. Personal schemes are better for some people because of their changing work patterns. There is casual and part-time work. It is no longer a job for life with one employer.
The information one finds when researching for a debate in your Lordships' House is amazing. I understand that the first occupational pension was founded 250 years ago. The Minister may be interested to know that it was for Scottish ministers. No, not Ministers of the Crown but ministers of the Church. Being canny Scots, I doubt that they would have had problems with solvency, contribution levels and so forth.
It took a long time for the rest of the world to catch up. In 1953, approximately 28 per cent. of the working population was covered by occupational pension schemes, with just under one million pensions in payment. By 1983, that had increased to 52 per cent., with five million pensions in payment. I regret that the figure has now dropped to 48 per cent. of employees in occupational pension schemes but the number in payment has risen to 7 million.
I visited many companies covered by occupational pension schemes but I was never asked questions about those schemes. The workers, who were predominantly male, genuinely believed that their schemes were well run and administered with integrity. They did not have too much to worry about and they had a retirement to look forward to that would give them an income. In the majority of cases, they were right to feel as they did.
I suggest that today the majority of occupational pension schemes are administered to a high standard and with integrity. They will have no problem complying with the changes proposed in the Bill. However, the late 1970s and the 1980s were different. Surpluses were creamed off by some companies. Some companies—I suggest that Mr. Maxwell's was one—took over others so that they could get their hands on the surplus in the pension fund. In some companies, perhaps after two or three years, the employer made no contribution to the

1013
occupational pension scheme but the employees carried on paying. Although there was no provision for a statutory trustee, the employers had the right of veto when a scheme provided for member trustees. The lack of confidence that many people have in occupational pension schemes and the experience of what happened last year in respect of personal pension schemes must be addressed by the Bill. The trade union movement recognised that some time ago. It provides training courses for trustees and, as part of a negotiating agenda, pension schemes.
All too often we fall into the trap of believing that Maxwell was the one. It may have been the watershed but there have been other cases of significant abuse of occupational pension schemes by unscrupulous employers. I suggest that there has been a robbing of employers' contributions.
Goode said in his report—he was so right—that for many people their pension rights are the most valuable investment they will ever make. In many cases it is the most important investment an individual makes during his working life. It is not surprising that there should be considerable interest in the subject after the scandals that have been revealed. It is not surprising that there is keen interest among individuals, their representative organisations, the TUC and, indeed, many companies wishing to see pensions legislation strengthened considerably.
We should be in no doubt that in many thousands of cases what emerges from the Bill at the end of the day will determine whether people live their retirement in poverty or whether they can look forward to being financially independent. There will also be implications for the taxpayer. On those grounds and many more, most of us here today have been lobbied by interested groups, and rightly so. Many anxieties have been expressed by noble Lords; I agree with most of them. We can each point to areas of particular concern. I shall list some areas, in addition to that of the independent lodging of assets, where I should like to see the Bill amended.
The Bill does not provide a fair balance and a real and flexible choice for individuals between occupational and personal pensions. As a whole, the Bill generally favours personal in preference to occupational pension schemes. I wish that balance to be redressed to provide a real choice for individuals. I should like the Bill to provide for a trade union representative on the new regulatory body, just as there is on the Occupational Pensions Board.
One third of trustees on boards is insufficient. I ask the Minister to change that to 50 per cent. Employees have invested the money they have earned. This is not a matter which is being paid for wholly by the employer. Indeed, I suggest that it will be a greater proportion of an individual's income than it is of a company's assets. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask for 50 per cent. membership.
The Bill provides that if there are no member trustees on a board at present that may remain so provided there has been what is called in the Bill a "statutory consultation procedure". Those procedures will be
1014
encompassed by regulation. I hope that the Minister is in a position to say what it is intended the regulations should include.
The Bill provides that trustees can be fined £5,000 for malpractice or for failing to carry out their responsibilities. On indictment that can increase to a prison sentence of up to two years and an unlimited fine. Will anyone volunteer to be a member trustee on a pension board without proper training? Those are extremely serious responsibilities. For example, one would not put an accountant in charge of a company unless he was qualified and had received training. As a minimum requirement, we should seek compulsory training to a certain standard for trustees.
We must make sure that member trustees are not looking over their shoulders and are not anxious about the safety of their jobs if they wish to raise difficult matters. We need to amend the Bill to cover that. The Mirror scheme and the Scottish Daily Record scheme provided for member-elected trustees. We elected one in Scotland but Mr. Maxwell did not want him so he would not send for him to attend meetings. One of the trustees, Harry Templeton, started to cause problems. He asked some very difficult questions. Mr. Maxwell sacked him. I cancelled my Easter holidays to try to negotiate his reinstatement. Mr. Maxwell refused to do that but said that he would receive very generous redundancy pay. The man lost his job and was out of work for a long time. More importantly, the problems which Harry Templeton highlighted never surfaced at the trustees' meetings because he had been removed. Therefore, it is essential to amend the Bill to provide protection of employment for an individual member trustee so that he is not dismissed if he starts to be difficult with regard to pension schemes. That provision is made in the health and safety Act and applies also where there is a trade union representative. I see no reason why the Bill cannot be amended also to make such provision.
I shall not deal too deeply with the issue of the retirement age for women. I do not argue against equalisation and the whole package of equality. However, I believe that the Government are saying to women that they must retire at the age of 65 while the Government save £5 billion by taking them off benefit. On present trends, by 2023 two out of every three retired women will be living on the poverty margin. That is wrong. I hope that I am wrong in my reading of the Bill but as a result of a European Court of Justice decision, I believe that limits will be imposed on the awards which women who work part time will be able to receive.
The position of women carers who lose their occupational pensions if their husbands go into long term care is another problem we must address.
I conclude by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on his very interesting and compassionate address. More importantly, I suggest that he was right. Later this year we shall be holding VE Day celebrations. A German widow standing next to a British widow may ask, "What do you receive from your government?" One will reply that she receives one third while the other receives 60 per cent. I do not know how your Lordships

1015
feel about that. I suggest that that was not what was intended, nor is it a reflection of a civilised society. I hope that the Government will change that.
In general terms, the Bill is to be welcomed but it needs amending to make sure that the Maxwell scandal does not happen again. We must make sure that people see that the money which they invest is being taken care of properly and that they have a say in how schemes are managed.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for a very clear explanation of what is a complicated and technical Bill. Perhaps the single most important point in the Bill is the equalisation of pension ages. The Government are absolutely right to equalise upward rather than downwards. We must be very careful about the cost burdens that we are placing on future generations.
Having said that, I echo very much the pleas which were made by my noble friends Lady Young and Lady Seccombe with regard to the special position of women within employment. Even today they tend to earn less than men and they are almost certain to have greater gaps of time out of employment while they are bringing up children or caring for elderly relatives. That should be recognised more clearly in the national insurance scheme than it is at present.
It has been suggested by the Fawcett Society, and others, that there should be a carers' credit to keep women in the contribution system during caring periods on the same basis as those registered unemployed or sick. The concept of credits is well established in the national insurance scheme; indeed, it has been there for a good many years. I can see that there could be a difficulty of definition. But I hope that my noble friend will at least be able to say that he will give careful consideration to the possibility.
I was also glad to hear what my noble friend said about the easier arrangements that will apply for women as regards equal treatment in occupational pension schemes. It seems to me that the new minimum solvency requirement will be simpler to administer and that it will enable occupational schemes to introduce equal treatment for women more readily and more quickly than can be done under the present arrangements. That will be a distinct advantage for women.
I should like to say a word about personal pensions, a subject just mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. Personal pensions have been a great success. I congratulate the Government on that success. Indeed, over 7.5 million people are already covered by them. They provide a wider choice for those who cannot join occupational pension schemes or for whom an occupational pension scheme is unsuitable and to those who want a flexible alternative to the state earnings related pension scheme. I believe that the criticism has been directed at the wrong target. The scheme is not at fault; the fault lies with over-zealous selling and, in some cases, with misleading information. I very much hope—as, indeed, I am sure the whole House does—that people who have lost out in that way will receive
1016
speedy redress either by reinstatement in their previous occupational pension scheme or by appropriate compensation. However, I realise that it is a matter for the regulating authorities more than for the Government.
I turn now to Part I of the Bill and the new regulatory framework. I have a nostalgic regret for the passing of the Occupational Pensions Board as I happened to be in it at its birth. I am sure that all noble Lords would wish to pay tribute to successive chairmen, members and staff of that board. They carried out valuable pioneering work and that work will endure even though the board itself will cease to exist. In the new circumstances, I believe that it is right to have the new regulatory authority proposed in the Bill as well as the compensation board.
I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, expressed the view that the board should be paid for by the taxpayer. I understand those arguments, but I hope that my noble friend will resist them. Members of occupational pension schemes are in a privileged position in relation to other taxpayers in the country who are not able to join such schemes. Scheme members have a strong vested interest in the success of the regulator. He is, so to speak, their policeman of last resort. It seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable that they, rather than the taxpayer, should pay for his services.
In any system of regulation of occupational pension schemes there is inevitably a dilemma in deciding the form and extent that regulation should take. The cost of schemes and the security for scheme members have to be balanced. I noticed that the Association of Consulting Actuaries has recently stated:
"We believe that the delicate balance between security and cost that has been struck is just about right—but only just".
That is praise indeed from such a staid body.
In striking the balance, we have to remember that occupational pension schemes are voluntary and that, if the regulations are too onerous, there is a risk of deterring employers from setting up new schemes or improving existing ones. On the other side of the equation, members are entitled to expect efficient administration, wise investment, effective supervision and protection against dishonesty and fraud as well as compensation where fraud is proved.
Therefore I ask: is the balance in the Bill about right, as suggested by the Association of Consulting Actuaries? I have already mentioned that, in my view, the new minimum solvency requirements are simpler and should encourage the development of occupational pension schemes. Then there is whistle blowing. I remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, did not think that that would be effective. I respectfully take a rather different view; indeed, I rather like the idea. I believe that the notion of the regulator crawling over every occupational pension scheme would really be much too burdensome. It would be much more effective for the regulator to concentrate on those schemes where there is a suspicion that something has gone wrong or is likely to do so fairly soon.
However, having said that, I am surprised that Clause 41 of the Bill only mentions auditors or actuaries as being entitled to blow the whistle. I hope that that does not exclude other people who are directly involved in

1017
pension schemes. It seems to me that trustees, professional advisers and members of schemes should be entitled to blow the whistle if they feel that something is likely to go wrong.
I turn now to another aspect of the matter which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I refer to the custody of assets. It seems to me that the National Association of Pension Funds makes a good point in saying that control in the area is not adequate. The association suggests that assets should be held by a custodian who is independent of the employer and that the custodian should be regulated. It is really a parallel with what exists in insured schemes at present. I hope that my noble friend will give serious consideration to what could turn out to be a rather serious gap in the control mechanism.
In conclusion, I believe that this is a good and much needed Bill. It will provide a more robust framework of regulation. However, I believe equally that it can be made better. I feel sure that my noble friend will listen sympathetically to any amendments that are tabled at later stages in the proceedings.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, pensions are a long-term business. I fear that the Bill will not set the scene for even the next 20 years, far less for longer as it should do. It was interesting to listen to the Minister's opening remarks. He said that the pensions provided for under the Bill would affect every man and woman in the country, but he left out children. I believe that that is quite significant because, as I said, pensions are a long-term business.
I believe that we should consider the background to the Bill during this Second Reading. I should like to say a few words about the latter and then touch on three aspects; namely, security, the state pension provision and what I describe as level playing fields. Finally, I should like to conclude my remarks by concentrating on the effects of meeting the needs of the nation.
Perhaps I may begin with the background. If we return to the end of the war, it will be seen that for 30 years from the mid-1940s we had a period of virtually full employment where labour was in demand and where companies had to provide good employment conditions and good pay in order to recruit and retain labour. One of the key aspects in terms of retaining labour was to have a good occupational pension scheme. Effectively, it locked the workers into the company as they could see the long-term benefit involved.
If we look back at what has happened over the past 20 or 25 years, we can see that, instead of those pension schemes being seen to be there as a means of recruiting and retaining workers—and, therefore, something with which the workers were involved and about which they were concerned—we have moved to a situation where companies have thought of pension schemes not as a mechanism for providing for their workers' retirement and for retaining workers but rather almost to be used as their own personal piggy banks to be raided, as and when the pension scheme surpluses allow it, and to be used not to benefit the workers in the company but, quite often, to be disbursed to shareholders. Effectively
1018
they were often taking money out of pension schemes and sticking it into shareholders' pockets. Even Maxwell did not do that. He raided the pension scheme but he used it to try to prop up the company, not to stick money into either his own or other shareholders' pockets, which a large number of employers did with pension schemes during the 1980s.
That is one of the aspects that we need to recognise. The other is the scandal that has emerged over the past year as regards personal pensions. The Government have promoted the concept of personal pensions as a means of achieving flexibility for workers but that has led to enormous numbers of people being deprived of their involvement in good pension schemes and to their buying expensive personal pension schemes that will not provide for them so effectively. The net result of both those occurrences that we have seen over the past 10 or 15 years within the pensions industry will effectively be poverty in old age. That is something that we all need to address.
If we think in terms of security of pension schemes, in order, first, to prevent them from being raided by employers and, secondly, to ensure that the assets in schemes are capable of providing adequate pensions in the future, we must recognise that the only way to ensure that those pension schemes are not seen by employers as personal piggy banks—if I may call them that—is to ensure that a majority of the trustees are there representing the members of the pension scheme. That is the only way that we can do this if we retain the archaic view that the way to deal with financial assets is through trustees. I could extend my remarks extensively on the misguided notion that the 19th century concept of trustees is valid in the latter part of the 20th century, but I shall not digress into that.
The other requirement we need is high minimum solvency requirements. That may be seen to be a burden on pension schemes contributors, both the employers and the employees, in building up to those minimum solvency requirements. But one of the things we must recognise is that well-funded pension schemes not only provide for the retirement pensions for people in the future but they are also a valuable asset in terms of an investment facility for this nation as it stands at the moment. One of the problems that we have seen emerge over the past few years is of a nation that has consumed more as a proportion of its national wealth than it should have done. Unfortunately we have not invested enough in our society in all sorts of ways. Having a high minimum solvency requirement will be beneficial on two fronts: first, for the nation now and, secondly, in terms of higher pension provision in the future.
I now wish to turn to the state pension provision and the equalisation of the pension provision for men and women. One of the aspects that has concerned me about the whole debate on the equalisation of men and women's pensions is that there has not been a recognition by society at large—unfortunately this view is shared by many women too—that the role women play as carers, either of young children or of elderly relatives, is immensely important and valuable to our society. Other speakers have suggested that the time spent away from the job market, if I may describe it like

1019
that, in caring for young children and elderly relatives should be counted in terms of a national insurance credit for years worked. I think we need to take it a little further. I would suggest that that time spent in a caring role should be credited for national insurance contributions at average earnings. I am sure that that would make a significant contribution to the pension entitlement of women. I would hope that that would receive support in this House.
I now wish to talk about level playing fields. This matter has been referred to by a number of speakers. This Bill appears to give preference or an unfair advantage to personal pension schemes as opposed to occupational pension schemes. I think it is a dangerous concept that a particular form of pension provision should be given a preferential advantage. I believe that that will do us no good at all. We only need to look at how the personal pensions market has developed over the past few years, how the products were mis-sold and how—dare I say it?—people on relatively low incomes were seriously disadvantaged as a result. There may be a case for personal pensions being a good vehicle for high earning individuals who move from job to job or who are self-employed, but for the vast majority of people that will not be the case. It would be totally unfair if those high earning individuals were to be given a preferential advantage over the rest of society. It would only compound the various disadvantages that this Government have caused in our society and the shift in income and wealth from the poor to the rich.
I touched earlier on the importance of pensions in meeting national need. It is something on which I should like to finish. Something we must be mindful of in our deliberations on this Bill as it goes through this House is the importance to our whole nation—not just in the future in terms of pension provision for people as they retire, but also as regards the improvement in living standard for the benefit of the nation as a whole now—of ensuring that we have a high provision of pension, whether it be through the state, whether it be through occupational pension schemes or whether it be through personal pensions. We must hope to see a high provision into pension savings as only one mechanism of taking money away from consumption and putting it into investment. For now and for the foreseeable future that will be crucially important for this nation.
6.19 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, in rising to welcome this Bill I wish first of all to declare an interest. I am a director of the Wyatt Company, which is forming an alliance with R. Watson & Sons. I think that as a matter of good practice your Lordships should be aware of my position. The comments that I make this afternoon are my own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Watson Wyatt.
Like many other speakers, I welcome and support the Government's expressed desire to protect the interests of members of occupational pension schemes. As we have heard, the Bill follows on from the report of the Goode Committee published in the autumn of 1993. While I believe that the Government have tried to deal
1020
with the complex issues raised by the Maxwell scandal and other matters in a pragmatic and sensible way, I have some anxieties about the Bill. In drawing out those concerns I shall deal with four areas on which I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to comment either later this evening or at another time. Those points are minimum solvency, the trusteeship and custodial arrangements, the level playing field between personal pensions and contracted out defined benefit plans, and the compensation scheme.
As regards minimum solvency, I am pleased that the Government have paid some attention to the comments made by those who sponsor occupational pension schemes. In the White Paper the Government had proposed that pension funds which fell below a minimum solvency standard would have three years to restore full funding, and funds which fell below 90 per cent. of the solvency requirement would have three months—a very short period—to top up that funding level to 90 per cent. I understand that the Government now propose that those restrictions will be eased and the relevant periods extended to five years and one year respectively. Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I am surprised that that is not included in the Bill but is to be covered in regulations.
Schemes will now be allowed to smooth asset values over a period of months. That will help to remove the variability in the value of assets and in assessing the minimum requirement. In addition, large schemes—probably those of more than £100 million—will be allowed to value pensioner liabilities making some allowance for equity investments. That will be less onerous.
On the question of equity investments, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, funds winding up now and in the recent past have had immense difficulties in coping with solvency issues. We would like the equity markets to be higher, and we would also like interest rates to be slightly higher in certain instances. However, we do not have that juxtaposition at present. There is also the problem that insurance companies cannot make reasonable assumptions as to investment income.
Therefore, the whole issue of solvency, which has been attracting the attention of the professionals, is an extremely difficult one. It highlights the difficulty of guaranteeing high solvency levels. If one tries to guarantee high solvency levels one will immediately incur high additional costs. In a balance of costs scheme in which the employer picks up those deficiencies that will have a major impact on the profit and loss account of that company. I believe that if we move towards stronger solvency levels—although I understand why that has been proposed—we shall see final salary schemes being attacked and perhaps revised. It is well known that very few final salary schemes have been set up in the recent past. The schemes have mainly been defined contribution plans.
I should like to return to one technical issue concerning minimum solvency requirements. I do not believe that we are talking about a minimum solvency requirement but that we are really talking about minimum funding requirements. Indeed, it never has

1021
been a minimum solvency requirement. While I said that I welcome the changes made by the Government, I believe that the requirement to certify a contributions schedule as sufficient to secure solvency over a prescribed period will be totally unworkable. I also believe that it will be misunderstood by the members of pension schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made some jokes about actuaries. In fact, we have been asking the actuary who has to certify the certificate to act as an astrologer rather than an actuary. Most noble Lords may have thought that actuaries were astrologers! (That is a cheap joke at the expense of my colleagues.)
I believe that actuaries should only be required to certify a funding level as at a point in time. Otherwise, the purpose of relaxing some of the solvency requirements in this Bill will be negated, because if the actuary cannot use those assumptions then one will have to change one's investment policy. If one changes one's investment policy from equities to gilts the cost of final salary schemes will move upwards.
I turn now to the question of trusteeship. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others, that they would like to move towards a situation where 50 per cent. or more of the trustee body is elected directly from the membership. I shall not say that I believe that that is a red herring, but the important point is that trustees have a primary duty to represent the interests of all the beneficiaries. That is an overriding duty. It matters not whether they are appointed by the employer or are elected from the membership: they have an overriding duty towards the membership. Whether they have carried out that duty in the past is obviously open to some doubt, as we have heard. However, the Bill contains some nasty surprises for trustees who do not carry out their responsibilities properly.
It is not perhaps realised that there is an enormous shift in powers from the employer to the trustees in the Bill. It is much greater than most of us, and certainly I, had expected. In particular, investment consultation is only on a statement of the principles for investment. There is no requirement to take account of the interests of the employer.
I turn now to the solvency certificate or the schedule of contributions payment. If agreement cannot be reached with the employer on the schedule the trustees must determine one. That is a huge transfer of power. I say that because it is not clear to me from the Bill whether that schedule of contributions relates solely to a schedule to meet the funding or solvency requirements or whether it should be used to determine the total pace of funding of that particular pension plan. If it is the latter, then in a balance of cost scheme, which includes most defined benefit plans in the UK, it is a serious dilution of the employer's ability to control the costs of the pension plan. Once again, it will add another disincentive to run final salary schemes, which I do not believe is the intention of the Government.
Clause 51 as presently drafted opens up areas of conflict between the trustees and the employer. That was a theme which ran through the Goode Report. It is one area to which attention needs to be paid. If I am incorrect in my analysis I am sure that my noble friend
1022
the Minister will put me right. However, it seems to me that in a balance of cost scheme, in which the employer is picking up the deficiency and the ongoing costs of the scheme, the employer should have some rights in the matter. After all, it is said that if one puts two actuaries in a room together they will never agree with one another. It is important that employers have some recourse to discussion of the assumptions made in the contributions schedule.
I do not wish to belabour the point, but I believe that what is at issue in the debate on trusteeship is not the balance of power within the trusteeship body but the balance of power that exists between the trustee body and the employing company. I believe that it is an area in which there could be significant conflicts in the future.
Turning to custodial issues, I agree with comments made, among others, by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I am surprised that custodial issues have been left out of the Bill. I know that such provision is not a panacea. It would not have solved the specific situation relating to Maxwell, but he would have had one further hurdle to overcome if he had been unable simply to go to the safe, lift out the share certificate and wander around the corner to hand over the shares. External custodial arrangements, which are in place in most schemes in this country, should apply to all. Before the banks come after me I should add that I exempt banks, for whom that issue is part of their normal business. I believe that comments have already been made on the regulatory issues.
I do not wish to dwell on personal pensions. I agree with noble Lords, some from other Benches, that the Bill favours personal pensions. I believe that some of the test for personal pensions should be made tougher. Perhaps I should say "enforced" but that is a dreadful word to use in your Lordship's House: we do not believe in such things. However, there should be enforcement to ensure that contributions are in excess of the rebate required. If we do not, as those individuals come to retirement they will require income support. Why require income support on retirement for a saving made today? I put forward that small thought for my noble friend.
My last point relates to the compensation scheme. I wish to raise a slightly technical issue. The compensation scheme makes good 90 per cent. of any loss due to fraud, theft or misappropriation of assets where the employer is insolvent. For a final salary scheme, compensation is limited to the amount necessary to restore that 90 per cent. solvency. There is no comparable limitation for defined contribution schemes. Either compensation should be limited to bringing the assets up to 90 per cent. of the liabilities, or defined contribution schemes should pay much larger levies. I do not believe that that will be popular with some of my clients.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, is not in his place. After three-and-a-half hours of debate that is understandable; even he may be excused for a short while. However, I congratulate him on his cogent, focused and timely maiden speech. I am sure that we can all take a few lessons on how to present an argument

1023
determinedly with cogency and in a pleasant manner. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in wishing him well in our House.
This is a complex Bill. In some instances I have been slightly critical of the issues. Nonetheless, I support the Government in their endeavour to bring the standing of occupational schemes up to the highest possible level. I am sure that we shall have some interesting debates in Committee, and that the Bill will be thoroughly debated as it moves through your Lordships' House. I welcome it and look forward to hearing a response to some of the issues that I have raised.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, I welcome much in the Bill. However, I rise to express my dismay that this long, detailed and important Bill fails in at least one respect to rectify a serious and growing injustice. I express my surprise that a Conservative and caring Government have laid a measure before Parliament which in this one matter is neither fair nor just.
I understand that there are some 400,000 British pensioners overseas whose pensions are frozen. Most of them live in the Commonwealth countries—Australia canada, New zealand and South Africa. That is hardly surprising since many of us have relatives in those countries, and there is no problem of language and culture. Let us take one example. If a pensioner chose to retire to one of those areas in 1964, he would receive a pension of only £4.50 a week, despite a lifetime of work and service in this country. I contrast that figure with the fact that 280,000 British pensioners living overseas in 30 other countries, including all those within the European Economic Area, and 15 others including the United States, have their pensions linked so that they receive the full current UK state pension of £57 per week.
How can those contrasting arrangements be justified? How can we pay pensions over 10 times greater to those who chose to retire to certain foreign countries than to those who have chosen to retire, for example, to one of the old dominions where they may already have relatives, perhaps grandchildren? How can that position be justified? I refer to countries which stood firmly with us in two terrible world wars. How can one discriminate in that way against fellow Britons who served often with great distinction in those wars and who in their later years, often for family reasons, chose to make their homes in Commonwealth countries? How can one explain that to our friends and allies overseas?
I cannot therefore support the Bill in its present form, excellent though many of its provisions are. I may be wrong; I am ready to listen to what is said in reply. We know the reason given for that palpable injustice. The Government claim that it would be too costly to index all expatriate pensions. I understand that the cost of righting the matter might amount to £230 million, but that amounts to about one third of 1 per cent. of the total social security budget. The situation is also palpably unfair that some 280,000 British pensioners living abroad have their pensions index linked but the remainder do not. For example, why should a British
1024
pensioner be index linked if he lives in Detroit, in the United States, while another British pensioner—he may be related—living to the north over the Canadian border in Ontario has his pension frozen? Where is the logic and justice in that?
Why should someone who has retired to Barbados have an index-linked pension while someone who retired to Jamaica for family reason has his pension frozen? What is the reason? What is the explanation? I do not know the answers. I eagerly await some enlightenment on the subject. When such questions are raised, we are surely entitled to ask for an explanation.
Someone should remind the Treasury that most British pensioners who retire abroad go to Commonwealth countries because that is where their children or grandchildren are. That is where they wish to pass their remaining years. In all charity and common sense, there should be no discrimination against our elderly citizens who have gone, or who wish to go, to a Commonwealth country to spend the remainder of their days. Someone should remind Treasury Ministers that, where index linking is denied because otherwise 17.5 per cent. of revenue from indirect taxation would be lost, the plain fact is that the choice made by pensioners to live abroad results in substantial savings. Indeed, I am advised that about half an individual's health costs—and I hope that this does not apply to me, I am now 80—tend to occur in the last three years of his or her life. If the matter is to be costed, let it be costed accurately.
I might understand the Government's position better if all British pensioners who choose to spend their retirement abroad because of family ties and the attractions of a warmer climate—and that is not unfair or unreasonable—were treated alike. But, alas, that is not so. All British pensioners have contributed to their pensions during their working lives in this country. There can really be no defence for a system which provides for index-linked pensions in some 30 countries, but does not include Commonwealth countries where many of our pensioners wish to go for family reasons or for language or cultural reasons.
It may be right and sensible to provide for index-linked pensions in some 30 countries overseas, but it is certainly not right and sensible to fail to make such provision for Commonwealth countries—our blood brothers and staunch allies in two world wars, in which so many of our pensioners served and which they were fortunate to survive. This is a moral issue, if ever there was one. In my view, it touches upon our national honour. I support the Government in all other matters, but I expect them to think again on it and to act accordingly.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as number 17 on a list of 22 speakers, I rise late in the afternoon and I am conscious that many of the points I wished to make have been made. Others are so technical that I had better stay quiet about them. However, a few points need to be made and I hope I can make them quickly

1025
The Bill, which is long and technical, is more backward-looking than forward-looking. It is designed to cure scandals which have already happened. We are bolting the door when the horse fled long ago and trying to solve a crisis which has happened and not one which may yet arise. Although many noble Lords referred to the Maxwell scandal, less emphasis and attention has been given to the scandal of personal pensions which still surrounds us. I do not see much in the Bill to tell me that it will avoid the kind of things which happened when the Government went out of their way to offer concessions.
In his memoirs the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said that the concessions which were offered to people to switch to personal pensions were embarrassingly generous. Those concessions and overselling led to many problems which are still with us. In this morning's newspapers we read that the independent financial advisers are reluctant, unwilling or worried about how they will pay for the people who lost out on personal pensions.
I may be missing the point here, but while there is much in the Bill about occupational pension schemes, trustees' duties and so on, where are the safeguards to prevent a repetition of the personal pensions scandal? I do not see them. Indeed, the encouragement I am given in the latter part of the Bill by way of rebates very much recalls what we had before. That is a worrisome aspect of the Bill.
I wish to say a few words about the broader economic perspective which relates to a more forward-looking analysis of the pension problem. Many noble Lords have mentioned the demographics and the major problem of how society will pay the pensions of a larger proportion of a longer living population, given that there will be a larger dependency ratio and a proportionately smaller working population. We hope that the working population or some of it will be very productive, but it is a matter of extracting from the working population what it will give to feed the people who are retired. Much care can be taken by way of prudent savings, but eventually it is a matter of sharing the day's output between the workers and the pensioners. That problem will reach us in the first two decades of, or later in, the 21st century but I am not sure that the necessary thinking has been done about it.
The Bill relates to quite important administrative and technical aspects but I saw an echo of the problem in the excellent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, which I must read with care tomorrow. He was saying that the kind of returns that pension schemes want and that a buoyant equity market, looking for nice large interest rates, wants, may not come about. That suggests that we must be careful about the long-term growth perspective of the country in order to know that those things can be afforded.
As my noble friend Lord Monkswell emphasised, another problem will be that we shall not all be in employment all the time. There will need to be a "feminisation" of work; men will have episodic employment, as women have. They will be in and out of jobs. Therefore, what they earn over their life cycle will not be enough to pay for their pension, even if they
1026
are prudent. So we shall have to enforce much higher savings rates than we have been used to. Lastly, as many people predict and as we may witness, in the next 10 or 15 years there is likely to be world-wide excess demand for capital and a shortage of savings.
I am not sure that the Bill has an answer to all the problems which will pose a challenge to us. If the Bill envisages a world more or less as it has been for the past 30 years, how can we prevent a couple of huge scandals like those which happened a few years ago and pretend that we can carry on ever afterwards? While there are many interesting technical points to make about the Bill I am worried that the future pension problem of the country is not being addressed in a serious way.
On solvency, many speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, and the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, have mentioned the briefing document which the Association of Consulting Actuaries produced for Members of Parliament. It suggests that a minimum solvency standard conveys an impression of being an absolute guarantee when it is not. This is a technical matter. I confess that I do not quite understand it. I should like someone to tell me what would happen if some pension schemes go bust after all the solvency requirements. Who will pick up the pieces? It is important to know. How will people be looked after if, despite all the guarantees, something goes wrong?
My noble friend Lady Dean mentioned the matter of employee nominees. I agree with her that one-third is too little. If decisions are made by a majority of trustees, one could easily find employees in a minority and their interests not necessarily being protected. My noble friend's suggestion that the proportion should be a half is an excellent one. It is a minimum provision, but we must think about such a provision. That being the case, I am sure that there will be time in Committee to look carefully at the Bill and scrutinise it.
I am worried that by and large the Bill is backward looking. I am not at all sure that it has foreseen the problems which are yet to come and done anything about them.
6.50 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Perhaps I may immediately take up his point about the mis-selling of personal pensions. There is no doubt that there was gross mis-selling, which was the fault of intermediaries, pension companies and a whole range of people. On the other hand, the fact that pensions were mis-sold does not mean that the personal pension plan itself is wrong. I am convinced that the personal pension plan is the right answer for the country, for various reasons. I thought that I should make that point clear to the noble Lord who declaimed against personal pension plans because they had been badly sold. They were not necessarily bad plans in themselves.
I welcome the Bill, which is extremely complicated and very large. I should like to make six main points, which are partly the result of a flood of briefing material received from many quarters: the National Association

1027
of Pension Funds, which looks after final salary occupational schemes; COPAS, which looks after pensioners; the TUC; and the CBI. All those bodies have commented. I think none of them can be said to be too angry about the Bill. They all rather welcomed the Bill. I believe that the principle of the Bill is absolutely right, although there may be certain faults in it. I feel that one of the best items in it concerns the new responsibilities—the creation of a new body of trustees with defined responsibilities and penalties and with representation from employers; but not, so far, from pensioners, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. Where there is a pension plan with more pensioners in it than there are employees, there should certainly be pensioner representation on that board.
Trustees will need to have a very thorough and proper professional training. Given that proper professional training, they will understand the overriding duty of care which is the responsibility of a trustee. Once they understand that, the balance between employers and employees may not matter too much.
Additionally, trustees are being given powers of investment. That is an onerous charge upon people who may not be well trained in that field. It is another reason, as was said by many of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Dean, and the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, as well as some other noble friends, why there should be an independent custodian of assets. That is a very important point. Indeed, it is an accepted practice with insured funds, which are the source of the dreaded personal pensions. Nearly all personal pensions are secured through custodian trustees.
Solvency rules have been introduced. The point here is that occupational schemes are largely funded by the employer. The employer probably pays at least two-thirds. If there is a solvency shortage, the employer picks up the tab, not the employee. To that extent, it is not fully understood that the employer has a very large, open-ended responsibility, which he is finding more and more difficult to fulfil. Therefore, if there is a surplus, the employer should have the right to return it to his funds, assuming that the Inland Revenue will accept the idea and that he is properly over-funded and has not received too much tax relief on the contributions. Also, he must be assured that the remaining assets are sufficient to provide for full future indexation.
Equalisation was discussed by many of your Lordships. It will certainly be a matter of debate at Committee stage. I shall leave the matter there for the moment.
The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority will be an important and expensive body. There is some complaint that the charge will be placed upon the pension funds. But, as was pointed out, the funds are extremely rich and very large, the largest in Europe, and probably they can just about bear it.
Your Lordships will perhaps understand that I am not absolutely certain that the final salary occupational scheme is the only answer to the pension problems of the 21st century. It is to the years 2010 to 2040 that we must now look. That is appropriate, as the occupational
1028
schemes have a 40-year timescale. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, more or less said, "Forty years, what a hope! Who has spent 40 years in one employment?" Certainly there must be very few people who have done so and, if they have, they will have no problem with their pension.
That brings me to the vexed question of pension transfers. Many people, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, will be moving about. The problem of transferring from an occupational pension scheme is quite difficult. The calculation of the accrued rights of the member is complicated and involves to some extent, if I may borrow from the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, the use of a crystal ball by the actuary. The problem, it is reported in some quarters, is that not all actuaries use the same crystal ball. That leads to certain problems of delay and obfuscation and offers another disadvantage in the movement of funds from one occupational pension scheme to another or to a personal plan.
By contrast, the employee who has a personal plan has an accumulated fund which is immediately recognisable and accessible. For that reason, I suggest that the way forward may be by way of a personal plan, probably allied to the remaining occupational pension scheme. As the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, said, there are not many new occupational pension schemes about. The reason is that they are too expensive for the employer. New legislation is making the indexed provision very expensive. As I said, the best new schemes are of the group personal pension variety, with a projected benefit. The most important word to understand there is "projected" because a personal plan has no defined benefit; it is only a projected and not a guaranteed benefit. At the end there is an accumulated fund which can be used for a variety of purposes. With the new Bill, the benefits can be extended over a period of 10 years: from age 65 to 75. To that extent, the personal plan again has an enormous advantage, as is being recognised by industry.
That provision is part of the Government's stated policy and is to be welcomed as it is promoted in the Bill. What is not clear is that, whereas in an occupational scheme the employer is bound to make a contribution, in a personal scheme the employer does not necessarily have to do so. Where personal schemes are prepared instead of occupational schemes, there should be an equal duty of provision by the employer.
There is already a model in the form of the provision for contracting out from the national insurance contributions. The point here is that a pension plan cannot work unless it has something like 40 years of contributions in it. If it has 40 years of contributions in it, then it may only be necessary to make an additional contribution of 10 per cent. of one's salary per annum. In fact, figures demonstrate that a reasonable accumulated fund can be achieved by that method. We already have 4.8 per cent. rebate from the national insurance contributions, so it only requires another 2.7 per cent. to be input by the employer, the Government, the employee or whoever, to make up the contribution to 10 per cent. It is extremely simple and therefore, if we can arrange for national insurance contributions to be deducted at a very early stage—from the word go—then it will be possible to make contributions at the last.

1029
Those funds would work on the basis that, because there was a statutory requirement to make the contribution, there would be no great selling problem. If there is no great selling problem, there is no great commission problem. If there is no great commission problem, then the performance of the fund can be extremely good. It is the initial charges in all funds which delay the increase in benefits. Given a 10 per cent. contribution, figures show that fund-based commission could be reduced, providing the investment manager has an incentive to achieve an increased commission as his fund improves in value. That would he a good Conservative way forward for pension planning which I recommend to your Lordships.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords on the cogent and attractive maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I look forward to hearing him many more times in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, says that the Bill does not address the pension problem of the 21st century. It would need to be a big Bill that claimed to solve the pension problem of the 21st century. However, it addresses the pension problem by creating a more secure framework for the development of private pension provision. After all, that is the Government's strategy and it is perfectly well known. In his 1993 Mais lecture, the Secretary of State for Social Security—Peter Lilley—said,
"Elderly people already account for almost half of all benefit spending. Most countries finance virtually all their pension provision by taxation. So in the next century the increasing elderly population in most developed countries will impose a crippling tax burden on the declining number at work. Britain is much better placed because we have encouraged people to invest in private pension schemes".
That is the Government's strategy and they opened up the debate. It would have been politically easy for them to postpone the crisis for the next generation. The Government rejected that course and deserve enormous credit for doing so.
The nub of the problem is that the state pension scheme is not a funded pension scheme. My noble friend Lord Braine of Wheatley asks why overseas pensioners, who have made contributions, as he put it, to their pension funds, should have their pensions frozen. The trouble is that they have not made contributions to their pension funds. The pension they receive is entirely at the discretion of the government of the day. Today's working-age taxpayers fund today's retirement pensions; they do not fund their own pensions. As the ratio of the working population to the retired population falls, it becomes ever harder to provide a decent level of state pension. That is the problem. Even maintaining existing real levels, which are admitted to be inadequate, will be virtually impossible in two or three decades and the link to prices rather than to earnings means that those who depend on state pensions will see their position relative to average earnings decline even further.
The fact is that we have been playing political roulette with pensions. The system depends on the willingness of future taxpayers to pay for other people's future
1030
pensions. We are writing post-dated cheques which we do not know whether we will be able to honour when they are presented. As I understand it, the Left's solution is to raise taxes to raise the value or extend the coverage of state pensions. I reject that. I believe that we should have lower, not higher taxes. But the financial implications are pretty horrendous. Just to maintain the present value of pensions relative to earnings would mean tax increases of 2 to 3 per cent. of gross domestic product by the year 2030. Restoring the relation of state pensions to earnings as it was in 1979 would cost 5 per cent. of GDP—roughly the amount we spend on the National Health Service today.
Because we believe in lower rather than higher taxes on this side of the House, we reject these suggestions. What can we do? First, we can do what has already been done in the Bill; that is, equalise the retirement ages for men and women at 65. That will save around £3 billion when it comes into effect. On the other hand, equalisation at 60 would cost an extra £3.5 billion and would make worse the imbalance between the working and the inactive parts of the population.
I welcome, as everyone does, the idea of a shorter working week as science and technology increase the power to produce. But that is quite different from artificially shortening people's working lives at a time when their capacity to go on working is steadily increasing. Proposals for dropping men's pensionable age from 65 to 60 reflect worries about where male jobs will come from far more than the feeling that we, as a society, are wealthy enough to afford a shorter working week. It is a counsel of despair; it is the idea of cutting down the supply of available labour because we shall not be able to find jobs, rather than increasing the total number of jobs. It is to that we must look for an increase in wealth; not the policy of cutting down.
However, I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he declares that a universal state pension is irrelevant. In fact, he almost said that it was a wicked thing to have; it should be scrapped; state pensions should only apply to the poorest part of the population and everyone else should go into private pension schemes. I do not believe that that is right. A much better way to think of the state pension is as a basic income; or, if you like, a basic income supplement to those above a certain age, and not as an alternative to paid work.
That leads naturally on to the second thing that we can do; that is, to encourage people to invest in private pension schemes. The first half of the Bill does that by increasing the security of occupational plans. I want to make only one comment on this aspect of the Bill. I want to endorse what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire about the danger of occupational plans investing too much in gilts and not enough in equities. It is an important point and I hope that the Government will take it on board. It is important because pension funds are now around 50 per cent. of equity markets and are therefore a vital source of investment to this country. Time will tell whether the Bill has struck the right balance between security and risk—security for those who save in order to obtain pensions and the risk which

1031
is inherent in the investment process. The savers in pension schemes are not only providing for their future old age but are also in a sense stake holders in the economy of the country. That is the balance that needs to be struck.
I want to go further in encouraging people to top up. We need to encourage people to consider their future retirement income from the moment they enter the labour market. Private insurance markets are already emerging to meet the costs of long-term care in retirement. That is a very interesting development. They are developing more flexible products to enable people to pay into a lifetime fund that can be drawn on to meet particular contingencies at different periods of life, including, but not confined to, old age. This is a field in which the private sector has a big opportunity to show off its paces. I am looking for exciting developments over the years.
The issue of pensions is one of the most important facing the country. It offers exciting and creative opportunities for the private sector. The Government are to be congratulated on tackling difficult issues ahead of time—a week is not always a long time in politics—and putting us even further ahead in pension reform than other countries facing the same problems.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, with this Pensions Bill we have before us a piece of legislation which seeks to regulate the operation of the nation's largest group of shareholders—pensioners. As shareholders, pensioners have two main interests: first, good management of the companies in which they invest, so that the money will be available for their pensions—the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has just reminded us of the risk—and, secondly, regulation, so that their investments are safe and secure from incompetence, negligence or criminality.
I should like to explore and make proposals regarding these two aspects of the Bill: better corporate governance and better regulation. First, on corporate governance, my proposal is very simple. It is that pension fund managers should have a duty to vote at company meetings. In theory everybody is in favour of this. The Cadbury Committee, reporting in 1992, strongly recommended that institutional investors exercise their voting rights. Industrialists, the parliamentary Select Committee, and indeed the Government's own White Paper, all emphasise the importance of shareholders voting at meetings in order to improve the competitiveness of British industry. The response, however, has been disappointing.
According to PROSHARE, it is rare for more than 15 per cent. of shares to be voted at company meetings. When there is trouble or publicity, this can increase to 20 or even 30 per cent., but that is most unusual. Bearing in mind that institutions own two-thirds of all the shares quoted on the London Stock Market, and, as other noble Lords mentioned, more than half of those are owned by pension funds, these votes can wield
1032
immense power to influence the standards of corporate governance. This Pensions Bill gives us an opportunity to convert these exhortations into a duty.
There is another reason why I think there should be a duty to vote included in this Bill, and that is because of the lessons learnt in the United States. Since 1988, pension funds in the private sector have had a duty to vote under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Since 1994, this duty has been extended to shares held outside the United States. The result of this became apparent three weeks ago with the removal of Maurice Saatchi, chairman of the advertising agency which he established. The fund managers in Chicago who threatened to vote him off the board were acting under this law. Similarly, American pension fund managers have been targeting British Gas over its employment record in Northern Ireland.
Activity by American pension fund managers in the UK is about to increase dramatically. Remember, there are a large number of leading UK companies which have more than 10 per cent. of American shareholders, and others such as Glaxo, Hanson and SmithKline have over 25 per cent. American shareholding. Does it not seem ironic that this kind of activity is left to American shareholders; and is it not sensible to bring British law into line with American law?
Not only does American law oblige pension fund managers to exercise their vote on issues which may affect the value of their shares, but also they are obliged to inform beneficiaries in advance of their voting intentions, and their voting record is open to later inspection by the beneficiaries. This is very much in keeping with the Cadbury proposals, and these obligations will be incorporated into an amendment which I propose to move at a later stage.
Until now I have heard only two arguments against this proposal. The first is that the City's reputation depends on its ability to trade shares easily and quickly, and pension fund managers are reluctant to make waves for fear of jeopardising this. My response is that nowadays few doubt that our economy will perform better with relationships of commitment rather than short-term relationships between companies and their shareholders. There is a growing trend in this direction urged on by Cadbury. There is also a growing trend in trust law that pension fund managers have a duty to manage their investments as well as merely hold them and not just to walk away from an investment which does not perform as expected. Would the Minister not agree that this duty to vote reflects the view of his friends in another place, the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade, during the recent arguments over directors' pay, and the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this earlier today? The second argument against an obligation to vote is the cost of the extra time and effort involved. This is like saying that we are against democracy because of the cost of elections. We have in this country a huge financial services sector, with organisations geared up to provide research and advice which is independent and cost effective.

1033
However, it is not intended that this duty to vote will apply to all companies. Obviously small shareholdings in small companies can be left to the discretion of pension fund managers. How do we enforce this duty to vote? The answer is simple. The record of voting could be a condition of approval by the Inland Revenue. In addition, one of the "other matters" in Clause 31, dealing with the duties of trustees, could be an obligation to report to the beneficiaries on the voting record of the managers.
The second area of the Bill which I wish to explore is regulation. The purpose of regulation is to ensure that the beneficiaries' investments are safe and secure from incompetence, negligence and criminality. Regulation will be in the hands of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. The Bill gives the regulator power to investigate complaints from trustees and professionals, but this sounds very much like the slamming of stable doors after the horses have bolted. My noble friend Lord Desai spoke about that. As at present drafted, the Bill leaves the duties of the regulator to be defined from time to time by orders in council. But I, like many other noble Lords, believe that the Bill should lay down the duties of the regulator much more precisely, especially in the areas of member trustees, minimum solvency requirements and custody of assets.
We have had the Maxwell experience. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, told us that it is unlikely to be repeated. But who can predict in what form the next mishap will occur and will the proposed regulatory structure ring warning bells early enough? To help ensure that they do, the regulator must lay down and enforce a code of practice. The regulator should be obliged to make compliance visits and to obtain annual returns and to require managers to provide other information, to enable the regulator to check that the code is being carried out. The regulator should update this code from time to time and have the power to give "urgent issues" guidance.
And here I wish to make a fundamental point about pensions and their regulation. In most markets, the best way of monitoring product quality and suitability is where the purchasers have sufficient information to choose the products rationally. Their purchasing of the products signals which ones are attractive and what qualities they demand.
Pensions are different. They are a product that people buy, but rarely understand. Few people understand the alternatives of contracted-in and contracted-out status and what they can expect to receive from the state additional earnings related pension if they choose to remain contracted-in. People may understand in general terms that their pension will be based on years of service and their final salary, but few people can project what their final salary will be, how the formula works and what happens if they leave or change their job before retirement age. It is because of this complexity that pension scheme members cannot "self-regulate" and therefore external regulation is essential.
But if scheme members understood a good deal more about how their scheme worked it would make regulation more effective and beneficiaries themselves could listen for warning bells. Therefore, I should like
1034
one of the duties of the regulator to be to draw up a code of practice to do more to assist members to understand how their scheme works, how their benefits accrue and how their scheme performs relative to other similar schemes. Most fundamentally, I would like to see each member receive an annual statement as to how his or her accrued pension has changed over time. That is quite straightforward in money purchase schemes; it is trickier to do in a traditional scheme, but it is feasible.
Therefore, equipped with a statement of their own "stake" in a pension scheme and with a greater understanding of what the scheme is doing, members are in a much stronger position to take an active interest in their scheme and thereby exercise more self-regulation rather than by relying solely on the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. In that way, not only shall we have regulatory structures designed to avoid a repetition of previous mistakes, but, hopefully, we shall have the best form of regulatory structure—regulation by the participants. At Committee stage we shall bring forward amendments which will deal with the duty to vote and the duties of the regulator.
There will not be another pensions Bill for many years and it is important that we use the opportunity of this one not only to put right what has gone wrong in the past, but also to anticipate a better informed and better educated generation. The amendments which we shall propose are designed to empower these people: empowering them as shareholders to open up the corporate governance of our nation's businesses, and empowering them to eliminate incompetence, negligence or criminality in the management of their own pension schemes. On these Benches we call that "social justice".
7.24 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I shall not detain noble Lords long, but I wish to join with others who have already spoken in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on his apt and lucid maiden speech. I strongly endorse his judgment that we are seriously at fault in our provision of both social security and occupational pensions for our war and service widows. It is clear to me, from my discussions with the Officers Pensions Society, that arrangements for British war and service widows are uniquely meagre when compared with those of the 14 nations' schemes which they have studied in detail. It is proper that there should be a tight pip on public expenditure but that grip must not be mindless or soulless. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, concluded that we are in these widows' debt; I agree. I want to see that debt paid before we expend a penny on commemorating victory. Will not such celebrations otherwise have a very hollow ring?
The problem is not so much money as a bureaucratic preoccupation with precedent. The incontrovertible evidence from the War Pensions Agency is that as things stand 99 out of 100 war widows decline to take the financial risk of remarrying. To grant them pensions for life regardless of remarriage would not only be widely acclaimed as an honourable and humane enhancement, it would be cost-neutral. As regards service widows, it bears repeating that those presently

1035
disadvantaged by comparison with younger British service widows and those of comparable allied pension schemes, are already over 75 years of age.
What is being proposed by the Officers Pensions Society and the War Widows Association of Great Britain, backed by the 132-strong Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, is that these widows, in the evening of their lives, should not be deprived of pensions paid to their younger colleagues simply because improvements introduced in the 1970s were not applied retrospectively. Bearing in mind their age, it could hardly be represented as an open-ended commitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has most eloquently urged us to recognise our debt to the past. My upbringing and training as a former naval person stresses that to settle debts immediately was a matter of honour. It disturbs me profoundly that this debt has lain unpaid for so long. I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to look again at the glaring anomalies that affect the pensions of our service and war widows and to take appropriate and vigorous action.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, your Lordships will be relieved to know that, coming at the end of a very long debate on an important Bill in which everything has already been said, I shall be even briefer than usual. I have been struggling for some time to read this Bill and was not surprised when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Lilley, said that this is a very complicated Bill and difficult to understand. My noble friend the Minister has also tried to explain it to us, and although both he and his team of civil servants swung a strong beam of light on it, with their lucid explanations, it was rather like a sun's ray traversing the murky depths at the bottom of the sea.
As far as I could ascertain from my late night sessions of reading, the Bill is mainly to set in motion the establishment of private occupational pensions with their concomitant funds, which are to be regulated by trustees in such a way that the Maxwell scandal of disbursed pension funds shall never occur again.
Even so, I could still have resisted the temptation to speak —never in my case a very strong one—if the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, had not made such an excellent, well researched and moving maiden speech on the subject of war widows. I am aware that it is not up to speakers other than the one immediately following to congratulate maiden speakers, even if one has known them all their life, so I shall reserve my heartfelt congratulations for a written note.
As your Lordships will be well aware, I have an interest to declare, being president of the War Widows Association of Great Britain. Although not a pecuniary interest, I have to admit that my connection with all these brave and lovely ladies is one I much treasure in my heart. My noble friend the Minister—who is not in his place but will no doubt read my speech in Hansard—has been kind enough to receive some of us in his office. He has also broken bread with these ladies
1036
in my house, so he is not only aware, as I am, of their quality and courage, but he also shares with me their friendship.
We contend that the war widows' pension, either paid by the Department of Social Security or by the Ministry of Defence or both, should be regarded as compensation for a life given in the service of this country and therefore inviolate. It should not be considered as maintenance and removed on remarriage. We are campaigning, with the help of 132 members of the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, and in particular of the Officers Pensions Society, for this principle to be accepted: that the war widows' pension should be seen as compensation to the widow for the life lost in the service of our country, and not as maintenance, and should therefore remain with her for life, whether she remarries or not.
In this year of tribute and promise, 50 years after the end of a terrible war, when all the jubilations and fireworks have died down and become a rosy memory, let us contribute a more lasting expression of our thanksgiving. None of these steadfast ladies can ever forget their husbands, whom they loved and lost in the service of their country. Let us not forget them.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven if I intervene very briefly before we come to the closing speeches from the Front Benches. I regret that I have not been here for the whole debate because I felt I should attend an important meeting of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, which started at 4.15 p.m. and lasted for some two hours. I particularly regret that my absence prevented me from hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who I believe may have advanced a view which I wish to support. It is a view which was first put forward this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I regret to see that she is not in her place and I hope that it will not come as too much of a shock to her when she reads my words in Hansard to learn that I strongly support that part of her speech.
Other noble Lords may have made the point in question when I was out of the Chamber, but it was certainly made forcefully and with great eloquence by my noble friend Lord Braine of Wheatley. Indeed, I have nothing really to add to what he said.
I refer, of course, to the manifest unfairness which is suffered by some 400,000 of our pensioners who have gone to live overseas, especially in South Africa and former Commonwealth countries, often after gallant service to this country. The fact that their pensions are not index-linked is morally indefensible and must no longer be tolerated. I trust that my noble friend will be able to assure us that the comparatively small sum of perhaps £250 million a year will in future be found to correct such an obvious injustice.
I trust that my noble friend will also be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on the points that he made about war widows' pensions—another obvious injustice which the noble Lord expressed in a truly remarkable maiden speech. Perhaps I may be allowed to join other noble Lords in congratulating the

1037
noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on his first contribution in your Lordships' House. It was exceptionally well delivered, absolutely honest and, I trust, absolutely irresistible.
Apart from that, I wish my noble friend well with his Bill. I will do what I can to support him in the eventual Divisions, provided that he can help me and other noble Lords with the points that I have made.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in coming to the end of this long but productive debate, it is worth reminding ourselves that, although this Bill is called the Pensions Bill, in fact it is limited to two aspects of that problem, both of which can be said to be reactive: reaction to the Maxwell affair—the bulk of the Bill is concerned with increased security for occupational pension funds—and reaction to the ruling of the European Court of Justice on the equal treatment of men and women in pension schemes. That is what the Bill is about. In a way, it is a pity that the Bill is not wider ranging, but we must recognise that that is what we have been presented with.
During the debate three additional specific issues have been raised about which many of your Lordships feel strongly. I am certain that suitable amendments will be presented in Committee and subsequently on issues which are not directly relevant to the two main aspects of the Bill. I refer to the treatment of women on divorce, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, so clearly exposed; the question of the war and service widows, with which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, dealt so effectively in his excellent maiden speech; and the question of the expatriate pensioners in Commonwealth countries. I think that we all hope that when the Bill finally emerges from your Lordships' House it will contain additional provisions on those three issues.
What the Bill does not tackle are some of the wider issues such as the demographic developments, the way in which people are likely to live and work in the future, and the long-term viability of pension arrangements. The Bill is not concerned with that, but a number of your Lordships touched on those issues, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Skidelsky, and my noble friend Lady Seear. I hope that we shall be able to return to those matters so that this Bill can be encompassed within a wider debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned the problem of personal pensions. They have recently been in the news because of the over-selling or mis-selling of those schemes. As I understand it, that issue is the subject of an inquiry by the Securities and Investments Board. I have no doubt that when its report emerges we shall have an opportunity to debate it. Indeed, there might even be legislation on the subject. Therefore, we should await the publication of that report and not bring that issue into this debate.
I should like to concentrate particularly on the question of security and to refer to some of the important points that have been made in our debate. Starting with the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, I am on the side of those who have expressed the view that it should be stronger and more proactive. My noble friend Lady Seear mentioned that, as did the
1038
noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and many others. It is an issue that we must grasp firmly. It does not seem sensible for the future to have what appears to be a fairly reactive body. While we are at it, we might as well have a really strong regulatory authority.
I fully support the fact that the authority will be a statutory body, not a self-regulatory body. However, because of that, I support the view of those who feel that it should be paid for out of public funds. We must make it absolutely clear beyond any doubt at all that it is a statutory body, financed publicly. It seems perfectly logical that that should be done in view of the fact that the Occupational Pensions Board, which is now to be wound up and replaced by the new body, was paid for in that way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out. I find it regrettable that there is no statement of the functions of that body. I should have thought that that was of great importance and that it should not be left to regulations.
Furthermore, I agree entirely with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that the regulatory body should issue a code of practice. It is wrong that a code of practice should somehow be allowed simply to emerge over the years as the authority intervenes to deal with particular issues. This is such an important area and we already know so much about it that the first task that I should like to see given to the new authority is the preparation of a code of practice.
I turn from the regulatory authority to the minimum solvency requirement, about which there has been much debate and concern. I was struck by the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, who pointed out that we would do better to rename it a "minimum funding requirement" because that is what it is. The trouble about using a term such as "solvency", particularly for those who are not skilled in this, which would be the majority of the population, is that it gives the impression that all eventualities would be covered. When one talks about an enterprise being solvent, that is what one means. So if we apply the term "solvency" to a pension fund, that is the impression that it will create. But that is not what it does or is intended to do. It is intended to create a minimum amount of solvency. I believe that minimum funding would be better. We would all understand what that meant.
As the noble Earl said, it is a matter of debate as to how large proportionately that funding should be. We must be wary of the fact that, if it is made too onerous on employers, that could limit the scope of the funds. That must be looked at carefully but, above all, we must make it clear to everyone what we mean by the term.
I turn next to the subject of the trustees, because that is obviously one of the most important aspects of the Bill. I believe that we would all agree that it is absolutely right that trustees' functions and responsibilities should be defined clearly. I share the view of my noble friend Lady Seear, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and others, that the number of employee trustees should be increased beyond that stated in the Bill. I agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, that all trustees are equal when it comes to it, because they all have an obligation to run the fund properly. That is true:

1039
nevertheless, in these matters the perception is important. It would be perceived to be a more satisfactory arrangement were there at least 50 per cent. of employee trustees.
I am chairman of a company which has a pension fund of about £25 million. In the light of the Maxwell affair, we, like many others, started to look again at our arrangements. We reconstituted our trustee committee. We have now two representatives of the employers, two of the employees, who are selected by the employees, one pensioner and one expert whom we brought in from outside. We thought that a good mix: we have an external view of the thing; we have a pensioner, two employees and two representatives of the employers. We have now had the arrangement in operation for about a year, and experience has shown us that it works perfectly well. Such a mix is highly desirable.
I agree strongly with those who have expressed a view in favour of the external custody of assets. That is an important issue. Of course there are many funds which are managed externally anyway, so the assets will be held outside. But, in those cases where there is internal management of funds, the issue of the custody of assets is of great importance.
Compensation is the last aspect with which I should like to deal. The way it is worded in the Bill is too limited. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, under the proposed arrangements, nothing could have been done to compensate the Daily Mirror pensioners because the enterprise did not go into liquidation. However, there was of course misuse of funds. So I believe that we should broaden the terms somewhat. No doubt there will be amendments to that effect.
I should like to end on the wider issue which a number of Lords mentioned. It is true that we now live in an age when most people will go through many forms of employment. I happen to have been one of those who, as will be exceptional in the future, spent 35 years in a single employment. That could not conceivably happen again in my industry, because it no longer exists. It was the nationalised coal industry. That sort of period of tenure in a business is most unlikely to recur. Most people will have many forms of employment. They may unfortunately have periods of unemployment; they may have periods of employment abroad; they may have periods of self employment; and they may have periods during which they have a multiplicity of employments. So flexibility of employment has to be met by flexibility of pension arrangements.
Of course that might lead to the view that pensions should become increasingly private pensions, because that type of flexibility already exists. I do not agree with that. I believe that people should be able to choose. Occupational pensions have an attraction. After all, if properly administered, as we hope they all will be after this, they hold out a greater degree of security because the pension is related to final salary, whereas in a private scheme one does not know what one might end up with. It depends upon the state of investment of the fund during the period.
1040
There should be a degree of flexibility and choice as between flexible occupational schemes, which can be more easily moved around, and flexible private schemes. I hope that on some future occasion we may be able to return to the issue. In the meantime, if the Bill is strengthened in the ways that have been suggested during the debate, and if those additional specific issues are incorporated, the Bill will turn out to be a good one in dealing with the problems that it addresses.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this has been a long and interesting debate. Perhaps I too may start by expressing my appreciation of the maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on the important issue of service pensions for widows. I am sure that we shall be returning to that issue in Committee.
As has already been said, the Bill was intended originally to provide greater security for pension scheme members in the wake of the Maxwell scandal. That scandal, which had a traumatic effect upon the whole pensions world, led to the committee established under the chairmanship of Professor Goode and to the set of recommendations contained in his report. Much of the Bill is based upon the recommendations of that report. We on our side of the House support the Goode report, but we have some misgivings about the Bill as a whole.
First, I shall say a word or two about what I believe to be the main thrust of government policy. I am still a believer in the legislation which emerged from the 1970s consensus—the legislation which established two-tier pension provision, the first tier being provided by the basic state pension, and the second tier by SERPS or by an occupational scheme good enough to match up to SERPS, and to provide pensions at least at the level of the guaranteed minimum pension. Most of them of course provided, and still do provide, a great deal more than that.
SERPS represented the first real attempt to ensure that the poorly paid—workers with a chequered work pattern, many of them women—had the chance of getting an earnings-related pension, something which those in better paid jobs had long regarded as part of their salary package. As we know, the Government's obsession with personal pensions led to a fragmentation of that structure, with many people opting out, not just of SERPS but of good occupational schemes, into personal pensions. It is now generally acknowledged that for many people those were disastrously wrong decisions and the regulatory mechanisms in the industry, led by SIB, are now having to deal with that.
I have a certain personal interest as chair of the PIA Ombudsman Council. I can tell the House that we are expecting a large number of complaints which will have to be dealt with some time later this year.
At present we have no real idea how much work there will be, but we know that there will be a great deal. Perhaps I shall be told that it is not relevant to the Bill before the House. Nevertheless, it is an important part of the background. The Maxwell scandal had the effect of causing some employees to question their

1041
occupational schemes. Some of those doubts led them inadvisedly to take out personal pensions when they would have been better off remaining with their occupational schemes.
It is important that faith in occupational provision is restored. I hope that the Bill will go some way towards doing that. We on this side of the House are well aware that it is a question of achieving the right balance. There must be sufficient by way of safeguards for members but, since the provision of occupational schemes is voluntary, we should not have so many regulations and restrictions that employers either do not provide schemes, or discontinue them, or change from final salary schemes, which despite problems are probably the best way of providing for staff, to money-purchase, which has less certainty with regard to the final outcome. We should look carefully at the regulatory mechanisms provided in the Bill.
Part I provides an occupational pensions regulatory authority. I welcome that development. For many years I was a member of the Occupational Pensions Board. While the board did a great deal of useful work, in particular in the reports that it prepared, it had a strictly limited function. People thought that it had a great deal more power and authority than it had. It had no overall monitoring role with regard to pensions as a whole. It had no whistle-blowing role. Strictly speaking, its main role was as a guardian of the guaranteed minimum pension. I am therefore glad that we are to have a regulatory authority in place of the OPB. However, I hope that the expertise that has been developed by OPB staff will not be lost. That expertise will be most useful to the new regulatory body.
I note, however, that the new body will not have an overall monitoring role. There should be an inspectorate capable of making spot checks and identifying any problems in advance. Malpractice could remain undiscovered for a long time and by the time the whistle is blown much damage may have been done. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in wishing to see a pro-active regulatory body.
Presumably, the composition of the board is a matter entirely for the Secretary of State. However, I hope that there will be employee-union representation as there was on the OPB. Of course, there should be people who are pensions professionals, but the interests of the consumers, who in this case are employees, should be properly represented.
The same considerations apply with regard to the compensation board. I welcome the development, but I too have some anxieties about the provisions of Clause 74. It seems that compensation entitlement will arise only in the event of the insolvency of the employer. As has already been said, if such conditions had existed at the time of the Maxwell scandal the pension scheme members could not have claimed compensation because the Mirror Group was not insolvent. I am sure that few of those who believe that the Bill is providing security against a similar scandal understand that that is the situation if the Bill leaves the House unamended.
I am sure that it will not surprise the House to know that both unions and employers, represented by the CBI, agree on one point: they believe that the cost of the
1042
regulatory and compensation schemes should be borne by public funds. They believe so because they consider that properly managed pension provision is in the public sinterest—as it clearly is. Of course, one of the ways of increasing a feeling of confidence and security in pension schemes is by ensuring that they are clearly administered in favour of employees. The unions will say that pensions are deferred pay, and that view is held by many employees. They believe pension funds to be their money held in trust for them. Therefore, the appointment of trustees is important and was dealt with by Goode. His report recommended that one-third of the trustees in final salary schemes should come from the employees. The unions believe, and I agree, that a majority of the trustees should come from the workforce and should include pensioner trustees.
However, they are only too well aware that a Maxwell-type employer would be capable of intimidating employee trustees, in particular when employment has generally become less secure. Unions believe, and I agree, that trustees elected by the workforce must have some protection against victimisation. They point to the type of protection now available to health and safety representatives as a model of what should be done here.
There is also a general agreement that trustees must be suitably trained. I support that view most strongly. Suitable facilities and time off with pay should be provided. I am in favour of making training arrangements compulsory. Incidentally, I am a little concerned about the responsibilities placed on trustees and the fines and penalties envisaged. People may be put off from acting as trustees because of what they perceive to be the risks involved. I hope that we shall look in a little more detail at those provisions in Committee.
I wish to turn to minimum solvency standards and the GMP. I have grave doubts about what is proposed. The guaranteed minimum pension is an individual guarantee to the individual employee. Moreover, it is fully index-linked. The minimum solvency standard, about which questions have already been raised, is intended as a guarantee to a scheme as a whole and not to individual members of that scheme. Moreover, the MSR test is not really a solvency test. Anxieties have been voiced by the actuarial profession and were voiced again tonight by the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire. He feared that members will be asked to sign certificates ostensibly guaranteeing solvency, whereas they will be doing nothing of the kind. Members of schemes will thus believe that there is a guarantee of complete solvency, whereas that may not be the case. It has been proposed—and was proposed again today—that "minimum funding requirement" would be better terminology.
We regret that the Government appear to have watered down the recommendations of the Goode Committee in this respect, producing provisions which could perhaps be worse than nothing. The GMP would have been lost to individuals and the MSR would give a false sense of security. That is an issue to which we must return in Committee.
I wish to spend a little time on Clause 66 because it has been brought to my attention that it could entail a worsening of existing conditions. Clause 66 of the Bill

1043
could worsen the position of many existing pensioners if their occupational pension scheme winds up. The reason is that their future pension increases, which usually rank near the top of the priority queue would, under the clause, have to rank at the bottom, together with increases for active and deferred members. I understand that hundreds of pension schemes are wound up and a number are not fully solvent. Therefore, many thousands of people will receive significantly lower benefits. Perhaps that is another issue that we can explore further in Committee.
In view of developments during the past year or so, another aspect that surprises me is the fact that the Government still appear to be giving extra encouragement to personal pensions. There seems general agreement that people in good occupational pension schemes are not best served by opting for a private personal pension. The whole issue is giving the self-regulatory mechanisms in the financial services industry a great deal of trouble. Yet of course it was the Government's fault; they encouraged people to leave occupational schemes and to take up personal pensions. I well remember the advertising campaigns at the time when people were being encouraged to liberate themselves from occupational schemes. It is therefore surprising that the Government are utilising this Bill to give further encouragement to personal pensions. Many people, in particular those approaching retirement, would be better off remaining in SERPS. Yet here we have age-related rebates specifically designed to get more people into the personal pensions market.
We then come to the aspects of the Bill which are of particular concern to women. They have been covered extensively in the debate and I shall not go over the whole issue again. My noble friend Lady Lockwood, in particular, paid a great deal of attention to the excellent research documents produced by the Equal Opportunities Commission. But the EOC has made the point that for many women extending the period which they must work from 60 to 65 before qualifying for a state pension will mean an absolute loss of pension benefits. After the age of 60, few women are able to acquire or maintain well-paid employment. If they do not, they positively lose. That is particularly true of women who have been acting as carers for disabled members of their family. I should have preferred a decade of choice from 60 to 70 when individuals would be able either to opt to continue to work or to retire, depending on a number of personal factors.
In relation to divorce, it is true that Goode did not make any specific recommendations but one in three marriages now ends in divorce and it is clearly a major problem. Increasingly, large numbers of women are finding themselves in late middle age with no prospects other than continuous reliance on state benefits.
As long ago as 1976 the Occupational Pensions Board recommended that courts be given the right to make decisions about the division of assets represented by a pension scheme. But the Government are apparently maintaining that more research is needed. But it has all been done over and over again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, indicated in her speech. The Pensions
1044
Management Institute is the latest organisation to undertake research on the issue. It has made a series of recommendations. I have received a number of letters from women who feel that they have been very badly done by as a result of divorce and clearly there is a case for remedying an injustice. Again, that is something to which we shall surely return in Committee.
Finally, there is another group of disadvantaged people on whose behalf I have received letters. I am referring to spouses of individuals taken into residential care. I understand—and several noble Lords have already mentioned this—that if a husband is taken into care, the whole of his occupational pension is taken and set against the cost of providing that care. That leaves his wife with nothing. One woman who wrote to me in that situation says that she would have been better off had she been widowed since, under her husband's occupational pension scheme, she would have been entitled to a widow's pension. That surely cannot be right and we shall seek to return to that in Committee.
However, there is much in the Bill with which we are in agreement. As it makes its way through this House, I hope that we shall be able to persuade your Lordships and perhaps even the Government that further improvements are necessary and fully justified.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have certainly had an interesting debate this afternoon. We have had a bit of a preliminary canter around the field and I am sure that we have some very interesting days ahead in Committee, on Report and perhaps even at Third Reading. I am sure that your Lordships will understand that unless all noble Lords wish to stay here until midnight—and I am sure that that is not the intention of the new regime which is supposed to look at the hours that we sit and such matters—I shall not be able to cover all points that have been raised in the course of the debate. However, I suspect that we shall return in Committee to many of the points raised and we shall then be able to deal with them in detail.
That does not prevent me from mentioning the quite splendid maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I congratulate him greatly. I have not been in your Lordships' House that long that I cannot remember making my maiden speech from the Back-Benches on this side of the House. Although I had had some experience of the other place, when I made my maiden speech here I was quite glad that I had a Bench in front of me so that noble Lords could not see that there was a certain degree of shaking at my knees.
The noble Lord took as his subject how we treat war widows. He covered both the MoD occupational pension schemes and the widows pensions dealt with under the War Pensions Organisation, for which I am directly responsible. Therefore, I can see that at some stage in the future the noble Lord and I will rejoin the debate on that issue. Having listened to him, I shall certainly make sure that I am well briefed for that encounter.
I believe that it is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The noble Lord should certainly be flattered because a number of your Lordships imitated

1045
the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and raised the question of widows pensions. My noble friend Lady Strange raised that matter and I see that she is wearing the insignia of her office as president of the War Widows Association.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made a very valid point when he said that war widows' pensions and similar pensions should be more substantial than the generality of benefits. Indeed, that is what the scheme provides. A war widow's pension stands at £140 per week, which is more than double the rate for national insurance widows' pensions, and in addition it is tax free.
My noble friend Lord Ashbourne mentioned a problem about which I know because the war widows themselves have talked to me about it; namely, the situation where a war widow marries and the pension ceases. That position is not unique to this scheme. In fact, it encompasses all schemes in the public sector and, indeed, some occupational schemes because the intention of those schemes is to look after widows while they are widows. But I am sure that we shall return to that issue when noble Lords use their ingenuity and table amendments in that regard.
The other issue which is not in the Bill, but which was well trailed, was the subject of overseas frozen pensions. I have no doubt that we shall return to that also in some detail. However, as is so often the case, my noble friend Lord Skidelsky was absolutely right to point out that the state retirement pension scheme is a pay-as-you-go scheme. It is not in any way like occupational schemes where people pay in and they therefore have rights afterwards which follow them wherever they are in the world. United Kingdom pensions have been payable anywhere in the world since 1955 at the normal rate of payment when the person leaves the United Kingdom to retire to live abroad. Uprated pensions are paid only in those countries with which we have a reciprocal social security agreement providing for that annual pension increase and in those countries of the European Economic Area. As I say, we shall return to that matter. I see that my noble friend Lord Braine of Wheatley has lost none of his ability, which I well remember from the other place, to beat Ministers over the head with the issues about which he feels strongly. However, I must tell my noble friend, and other noble Lords, that the cost would be £230 million. That is a quarter of a billion pounds. The demands on taxpayers' money are many and varied. There are many good causes, some of which have been rehearsed this afternoon. I have yet to be convinced that it would be a priority to spend a quarter of a billion pounds helping those people who had decided to retire abroad, knowing exactly what the rules were, over and above some of the other demands for increased government expenditure which come before your Lordships' House.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. In considering the other burdens on the British Exchequer, would my noble friend put the
1046
recent contribution to the European Community in the same sort of category as these eminently deserving war widows? Where would he stand on that comparison?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that only the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, had an original mind on those matters but it seems to have been left, for the moment, in the capable hands of my noble friend. Governments have to look at all their obligations. As a member of the European Union we have an obligation to make payments. I am sure that my noble friend knows that those payments are considerably lower than those that we should have had to make were it not for the endeavours of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, and also those of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at the Edinburgh summit.
I return to some of the subjects raised in the debate. The question of pensions on divorce is an extremely difficult issue. In England and Wales, the courts are to have regard to the value to each of the parties of any benefit, which includes pension benefit, which the parties to the divorce will lose the opportunity to acquire. In Scotland, pension rights are specifically provided for as part of matrimonial property to be divided between the parties to the divorce. But it is still not possible actually to divide the pension rights as such. I believe that that is probably what many noble Lords were asking me to do.
The Pension Law Review Committee looked at the issue and underlined the fact that it was difficult. I know that some noble Lords will say that it is always the refuge of a Minister who is not very keen to do something to say that it is very difficult. However, it is very difficult. We have set up a project conducted by the Social and Community Research Planning Organisation, an independent research institute. It will interview a sample of 2,750 women with a booster sample of 500 recent divorcees. It will interview the husbands of married women in a sample of 400 and about 900 solicitors to obtain information on a representative sample of recent divorce cases.
From that research, we shall be able to draw conclusions about the size of the problem and, indeed, how it is resolved at present. There are ways of resolving it; for example, by moving capital about in lieu of the pension loss to the wife, and it is usually the wife. I can assure noble Lords—I shall, perhaps, go into the matter in more detail in Committee—that we take the issue very seriously. Indeed, I do not have to be persuaded as I know someone who is caught in one of the various scenarios painted by noble Lords.
I turn now to that portion of the Bill which equalises the state pension retirement age to 65 for men and women in the year 2020 and which starts in the year 2010. There was some discussion—indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, started it—as to why we needed to do so. I must point out to the noble Baroness that most countries are facing a reduction in what is called the "support ratio" (the ratio of the number of people retired to the number of people in the workforce) because people are living longer and also because birth rates are falling.

1047
We already have a higher proportion of elderly people than most other countries. Currently, we have the second worst support ratio in the European Union. There are differences in the size and the timing of the increases and the proportion of elderly people in different countries. Before the noble Baroness rushes to find the piece of paper on which she based her observation, as she pointed out by the middle of the next century the UK will be relatively better placed. However, it seems fairly certain that, by then, all the OECD countries will be in a similar position and will all be making changes. Certainly, Japan, Germany and the United States have already taken action to raise their state pension ages. All those countries are wealthier in GDP per-head terms than the United Kingdom. At the risk of boring your Lordships, I must say that I believe that the figures involved are the key to the whole issue because they underpin the Government's argument.
The number of people over state pension age in 1991 totalled 10.4 million. In the year 2010 the figure will be 11.7 million; in 2020, 13.5 million; in 2030, 15.8 million; in 2040, 16.3 million; and in 2050, 15.8 million—a steady increase in the number of retired people. The population of working age does the reverse and declines. The figure in 1991 was 34.4 million. In 2010 it will be 36.2 million. After that the decline sets in. By the year 2030 we have a figure of 33.7 million and by 2050 we are down to 32 million. As a result, the important support ratio, which was 3.3 million in 1991, reduces to 3.1 million in the year 2010, to 2.7 million in 2020, to 2.1 million in 2030 and to 2 million in 2050. The steps that we are taking will mean that, instead of being 2.7 million in 2020, the last figure will be 3.2 million, and instead of being 2.1 million in 2030 the figure will be 2.6 million. Finally, instead of being 2 million in 2050 the figure will be 2.4 million.
We believe that it is very sensible to look ahead, albeit a long way ahead. I suspect that one of the few noble Lords who will be around to see if we are right will be the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. By my calculations I do not think that that will be possible for most of us. However, we have a responsibility to people in the next century to ensure that we do not pretend that we can run a pay-as-you-go system which is affordable. I mentioned other countries and we are moving in that direction. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am much obliged. The Minister challenged the figures, which I happen to have with me. Does the Minister agree with the following figures for the numbers of pensioners aged over 65 per 100 workers—that, effectively, is the support ratio: 15 to 64—for the years 2025 to 2030? For example, France has a ratio of 36, Germany has a ratio of 43, Italy and Belgium have a ratio of over 35, Denmark has a ratio of 37, and the UK has a ratio of 31. In other words, we will have, as at 2025 to 2030, one
1048
of the best support ratios in Europe and in the OECD. I would be happy to give your Lordships the benefit of the full range of figures if they have the patience for them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe I said before the noble Baroness interrupted me that I freely admitted that the UK would be relatively better placed by the middle of the next century. That is the point and it presumes that there will be no movement in those other countries. In any case, while I accept that looking at other countries is important—and, indeed, I am about to do so—one also has to look at the support ratios inside one's own country because it is to one's own future taxpayers that the pensioners of those decades will have to look for their pension.
The argument has led Australia, for example, to raise the retirement age for women to 65 and it has done so much sooner than the UK. The same position applies to Austria. The retirement age in Canada is already set at 65. Denmark has a retirement age of 67, whereas Finland is at 65, and France has a retirement age of 60 and does not seem to have any intention of moving. Germany has a retirement age of 65 as, indeed, has Greece. Iceland has a retirement age of 67, with Ireland having a retirement age of 65 and Italy with retirement ages of 61 and 56 and intending to move to 65 and 60—that is, if a government ever lasts long enough to bring it about.
Luxembourg has a retirement age of 65, New Zealand has a retirement age of 62 going to 65. In Portugal, the female retirement age is 62½ and will be increased to 65, while Spain and Sweden have retirement ages of 65 with Switzerland having retirement ages of 65 and 62. Finally, Turkey has retirement ages of 60 and 55, but I am not sure whether we want our pension provision to be compared to that of Turkey. We are moving to 65. Therefore, I do not believe that we are in very bad company in doing so.
The noble Baroness also argued that perhaps we should allow for GDP growth and that we do not actually have to do this. However, all the calculations suggest that to go to the age of 60 would be expensive. I am very uncertain as to whether or not that is Labour Party policy. I listened very carefully to what their Commission on Social Justice said:
"We do not think it is a priority for present or future public expenditure to reduce the age at which men can claim the basic pension".
That tends to suggest, although it is perhaps somewhat convoluted, that they do not propose to go to the age of 60. However, if we go to 60, it will cost the taxpayer £7 billion. But I freely admit that if we go to 65 it will not cost the Treasury anything because the Treasury only exists as a collecting agency. It will actually save taxpayers £5 billion. Therefore, there are some considerable savings to be gained by moving to the age of 65.
I should like to go into further detail on the matter, but I cannot do so because I want to turn to other parts of the Bill. I should like to address the very good points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, about the position of women. I would not argue at all with the statistical picture that the noble Baroness painted.

1049
However, for a number of reasons—for example, because the reduced rate option phases out, because SERPS matures, because of the effect of home responsibility protection on women's situations, and because an increasing proportion of women will be able to take up and develop occupational pension schemes, when we come all that way forward the position will be considerably better for women than it is today. I am sure that everyone is absolutely in favour of that prospect.
Some of my noble friends asked about the home responsibility payment. Perhaps I may underline the fact that it is already available to protect the basic retirement pensions of people who have caring responsibilities. Most commonly, it is the wife who stays at home to look after the children or the woman who stays at home to look after an elderly relative. That entitles them to a pension.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves the equalisation of pension ages, will he consider answering the question that I put to him during my speech? Given that the whole operation takes 25 years, I asked if there was any understanding with the Opposition that, if they came into power, they would let it continue in that way.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot honestly say to my noble friend that there is an understanding, but, as I mentioned, I referred to the Commission for Social Justice. It will be interesting to find out in Committee where the Opposition stand.
I turn to the first part of the Bill, which concerns personal pensions and occupational pensions and, if you like, deals with the post-Maxwell situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, perhaps more than anyone else, covered the traumatic events that had occurred to many people as a result of the activities of the late Robert Maxwell. I never met him, though I was given one opportunity by his sycophants to meet the great man. That was the sole opportunity I had to receive the greatest flash of wisdom I had ever received in my life! However, I decided it would stand me in far better stead if I declined the invitation to press the flesh, keeping one hand firmly over my money, I suspect. I have two friends whose views of Mr. Maxwell resulted in their receiving writs for some half a million pounds to try to stop them disclosing those views. What they said could not even have been described as disclosing 1 per cent. of what they could have said in truth.
However, we cannot of course consider one part of this Bill and say, "That would have helped in the Maxwell situation". One must look at the whole Bill and at all the various steps in the Bill: the trustees, the role of the actuaries and the auditors, OPRA, the compensation fund and the minimum solvency requirement. We must consider all those matters together. But, undoubtedly, if the employer is solvent he will be required to keep the scheme fully funded. My understanding is that that is what is happening in the MGN scheme, which is being refinanced by the employer. Where a scheme winds up in deficit, the debt is still on the employer, but only if he is insolvent does
1050
the need for compensation arise. However, that compensation must be based on fraud, theft or misappropriation only. I shall leave it at that.
A number of speakers referred to the figure of one-third of trustees on the board and suggested that they might prefer a figure of 50 per cent. I think we have the right balance but clearly we shall have to have a debate on that. One of my noble friends behind me underlined my next point. I too wish to emphasise it. There is a duty on all the trustees to look after the funds. They are not just there to look after their own interests, so to speak, or the interests of the group from whom they are drawn. They are there to look after all the funds.
My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire made a number of interesting points. We shall look forward to hearing his comments in Committee. He referred to trustees. He was concerned that they should not have unfettered power to set a schedule of contributions in default of agreement. I must tell my noble friend that that is not the intention. We do not wish to put employers in a position where they can be forced to fund their schemes above the statutory minimum solvency level, although of course we hope and believe that many sponsoring employers will wish to do that. There was concern about the "whistle blowing", if I may use that expression as a form of shorthand. My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree and others asked whether it was only the actuaries and auditors who could blow the whistle. The answer to that is "no"; anyone involved in a pension fund can blow the whistle. The difference is that actuaries and auditors have a duty imposed on them to blow the whistle. That, of course, is an important duty placed on those people who I imagine are closest to the scene of the action in most pension funds.
As regards minimum solvency requirement, I have no doubt that we will have an interesting debate on that. I noted without surprise that there was some suggestion that we might not have the name quite right. However, our concern has been to devise a consistent basis for valuing scheme liabilities as a measure of the adequacy of pension funds to meet their liabilities, and as a basis for assessing matters such as minimum contributions. In considering what should be the appropriate valuation basis, we have borne in mind the need to define an appropriate level of security for members' pensions, and for an entitlement, without actually imposing unnecessarily high costs on employers, which might have led to a significant reduction in the level of occupational pension provision. We must always remember that, if we want to encourage occupational pensions and to encourage employers to have them, we must not make the rules governing them so difficult that employers are frightened to become involved in them.
Following the detailed analysis we made of that subject, and the consultations which we had, my right honourable friend Peter Lilley announced details of our conclusions on 8th December. I am pleased to say that they have not been criticised by the pensions board of the Institute of Actuaries or indeed by the Faculty of Actuaries. Some noble Lords asked me about the valuation method for the minimum solvency. I accept that the method of valuing liabilities and assets is of central importance. However, given that this is a new

1051
area of statutory involvement, it is important that we have flexibility to respond rapidly to any practical difficulties or changing economic circumstances. We therefore propose that details of the actuarial valuation methods should be set out in a mixture of secondary legislation and professional guidance. We shall of course consult on how that should be brought about.
I was asked questions about the powers and duties of OPRA. Some noble Lords felt that they were not defined in the Bill. I must say that they are there. Each obligation placed on a scheme carries a power for OPRA to enforce it and the Bill sets out in full OPRA's structures, powers and the sanctions available to it. Allied to that, there were concerns that OPRA would not be independent or effective. I must tell the House that OPRA will be a statutory regulator appointed by the Secretary of State and accountable to Parliament. That is not self-regulation. The levy will be set by the Secretary of State and not by the schemes or the employers. We are committed to ensuring that OPRA is properly resourced in order to be fully effective, to be able to recruit staff directly and to be able to respond to the demands placed upon it.
I would say to those noble Lords who raised the following matter that most of the functions of the Occupational Pension Board will transfer to the Department of Social Security and not to OPRA. Therefore it is not logical to say that because the Government fund the OPB they should continue to fund OPRA. It seems to me that there are many taxpayers who are not members of occupational schemes. To ask them, through their taxes, to pay for OPRA, is not right. I think it is right that the pensions system itself ought to pay for OPRA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in her closing remarks asked me whether there would be representatives of employers and employees on the board. The Bill requires two of the members to be appointed after consultation with employer and employee associations. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked me about custodians. We accepted the PLRC recommendation that it would not be appropriate to require pension schemes to use independent custodians. The use of an independent custodian is no guarantee against wrong-doing. There is a danger that a statutory obligation to place assets with them may give the semblance of protection without the reality. I understand that Mr. Maxwell's assets were with a custodian but he was still able to get at them. I believe that to be the case. For many schemes, especially the smaller ones, that might be inappropriate, but of course we shall have a discussion about that. Your Lordships will be happy to hear that I certainly do not have a totally closed mind on that matter and I will listen to the arguments that are put forward. However,
1052
for the moment we think that it is an unnecessary restriction for us to impose on all schemes, although many of them follow that procedure.
My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire asked me about the level of compensation for money purchase schemes. He suggested it was more generous than for salary related schemes and he asked why we tilt the playing field. We have reconsidered the level of compensation payable to money purchase schemes in the light of comments we have received since the White Paper was issued. So as to bring them more into line with salary related schemes, money purchase schemes will receive the lower of 90 per cent. of the loss or the amount required to restore a scheme's assets to 90 per cent. of cash equivalents. Our intention is to make provision for this in regulations. For salary related schemes, the level of compensation paid will be the lower of 90 per cent. of the missing assets or the amount required to restore a scheme to a funding level of 90 per cent. based on the minimum solvency requirement. If 90 per cent. of the loss were to be met in all cases this would result in well-funded schemes potentially being restored to a position of surplus through less well-funded schemes paying the levy.
I have taken up enough time, and we shall return to most of the issues. I shall conclude by moving on from the last point that I made. A number of noble Lords opposite seem to feel that the Government favour one form of pension provision over another. That is not the case. We are firmly in favour of funded pension provision. We have no intention of encouraging one form of scheme over another. We recognise that different schemes suit different people and the different circumstances in which people spend their working lives. Employers have to be free to decide what form of scheme to set up while employees must be free to decide whether or not to join that scheme. For all those people who do not have an opportunity to join an occupational pension scheme it would not be right to take away their right to have appropriate personal pension schemes. We believe that those provide a valuable option for many people. There is no intention of tilting the field.
What is required—as everybody said, it is a complicated issue—is that people take the matter seriously and take advice. Due to my involvement in the Bill, at Christmas time I summoned my three children separately before me and asked them whether they had made pension arrangements for themselves and their spouses. They were more interested in whether I had made pension arrangements for myself.
This is an important issue. I believe that what we propose in the Bill will improve the position on occupational pensions and will make sure that our state pension is affordable into the next century. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before nine o'clock.

  ELECTRIC VEHICLES: POLICY
  Lord Dormer
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What steps they plan to take to encourage the development of electrically-propelled vehicles, especially for shorter journeys; and what contribution they consider such vehicles could make to the control of pollution.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)
  The Government are considering what role electric vehicles and other possible alternatives might play in minimising transport emissions. As part of this effort, the Department of Transport is leading a collaborative trial of alternative fuels involving, among others, electric vans and buses. This will help quantify the environmental benefits and the viability of their use.

  If viable electric vehicles were available and used in sufficient numbers, particularly for short journeys, such vehicles would make a significant contribution to the control of urban transport emissions at the expense of increased emissions from electricity generation. Using statistics compiled by the London Area Transport Survey in 1991, the department estimates that, if electric cars were used for all journeys less than 10km (6 miles), urban car emissions could fall by around 20 per cent. To put this in context, progressive tightening of emission limits for new vehicles is expected to reduce urban transport emissions by around 65 per cent., using much more cost effective technology. The Government believe that this approach, which allows manufacturers to decide on how best to meet tighter limits, will continue to be the primary means of bringing new technology to the market and further reducing transport pollution.

  BUYING AGENCY: 1995 TARGETS
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What performance targets they have set the Buying Agency for 1995.

  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)
  To support the objectives set out in the agency's Corporate Plan 1995–1997 and Business Plan 1995 we have set financial, productivity, customer satisfaction, environmental, and internal quality targets.

  The financial targets are:

  — to increase sales by 10 per cent. or to £157 million, whichever is the higher,

  — to achieve an overall surplus after interest of 1.5 per cent. on total sales.
  WA 74
  The productivity targets are:

  — to increase sales/staff ratio from £1.27 million per employee projected for 1994 to £1.42 million in 1995,

  — to reduce the cost per £ of sales from 2.9p projected in 1994 to 2.6p in 1995.

  The customer satisfaction targets are:

  — to ensure that 90 per cent. of direct orders are delivered by the due date,

  — to resolve 90 per cent. of complaints within one month, the balance within three months.

  The environmental target is:

  — to ensure that all new or revised catalogue entries contain information relating to the environmental impact of the product and, where appropriate, its production and disposal.

  These targets require the agency to build on improvements in sales, efficiency and customer service made in 1994.

  In addition, the Agency is proposing new pay and grading arrangements and management delayering, and other measures in line with the White Paper on the Civil Service—Continuity and Change.

  GREEN BELT POLICY
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they will publish revised planning policy guidance on green belts in England.

  Viscount Ullswater
  We have today published a revision of Planning Policy Guidance note 2 (PPG2) on Green Belts. This reaffirms our commitment to green belt policy, and makes limited changes to strengthen it to meet the challenges of the next century.

  Following research which we published in 1993, we issued a draft revision of PPG2 for public consultation last year. We are grateful to the almost 700 organisations and individuals who responded. We have carefully considered their views in finalising the document, and made adjustments to take account of views expressed. The thrust of the revised PPG2 is similar to the consultation draft, which was broadly welcomed.

  Compared with the present published PPG2, the revision incorporates six main amendments, within a framework of continuity.

  (1) It reaffirms the Government's commitment to green belt policy, stresses the fundamental aim of preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and points out that green belts can assist in moving towards more sustainable patterns of urban development.

  (2) It sets out positive objectives for the use of land in green belts, so as to secure greater benefits for the environment without compromising the overall restrictive approach.

  WA 75

  (3) It further encourages proper consideration of the long-term direction of development, through the development plan system, to ensure long-term protection of green belts.

  (4) It removes the former concession for new building in the green belt by institutions, so that they are subject to the same controls as other developers.

  (5) It enables local planning authorities to make realistic provision in their development plans for the future of existing major developed sites in the green belt, such as pre-war factories and power stations, in such a way as to secure environmental benefits.

  (6) It introduces a new policy on the re-use of buildings, which includes specific safeguards for the green belt.

  These modifications will reinforce the position of green belts as a cornerstone of the town and country planning system in England as we enter the twenty-first century.

  A summary of responses to the consultation exercise has been deposited in the Libraries of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Department of the Environment. Copies of all the responses have been placed in the DoE Library.

  SUPERVISION REGISTERS
  Lord Thurlow
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the guidance HSG(94)5 on supervision registers is fully implemented in all health authorities.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)
  The latest reports indicate that supervision registers are in place in the vast majority of health districts. The National Health Service Executive is taking action to ensure that the guidance on supervision registers is fully implemented in all health districts as soon as possible.

  RAF REGIMENT
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have any plans to reduce the size of the Royal Air Force Regiment.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)
  There are five RAF Regiment field squadrons (including the Queen's Colour Squadron), five RAF Regiment Rapier-equipped squadrons and five Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment squadrons providing ground and air defence of RAF stations. Current plans retain all of these squadrons.

  Following US decisions on USAF restructuring, they no longer require the RAF Regiment to man three squadrons of US Rapier units in the UK. These squadrons are consequently disbanding by the end of March. The decision has no effect on UK defence requirements.

  SEVERE DISABILITY PREMIUM: AMENDMENT TO REGULATIONS
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why they considered the Income-Related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 6) Regulations (SI 1994, No. 3061), tabled on 1 December, to be so urgent that it was inexpedient to refer them to the Social Security Advisory Committee.

  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)
  A Court of Appeal judgment delivered on 30 November 1994 reversed a long-standing policy intention on entitlement to the severe disability premium in income support. The judgment entailed a benefit cost estimated at £90 million a year, and resulted in anomalous entitlement conditions. It was therefore deemed necessary to restore the original policy intention immediately by laying the amendment regulations before Parliament on 1 December 1994.

  The Social Security Advisory Committee, under Section 173 (1)(b) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, has now decided that it does not wish to have the regulations referred to it.

  HUMAN RIGHTS: FOURTH PERIODIC REPORT
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to their Answer of 9 January 1995, (HL Deb., col. WA 14), how many copies of their Fourth Periodic Report to the Human Rights Committee they have distributed to non-governmental organisations, newspaper editors, legal deposit libraries, and the public at large.

  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)
  By 23 January, 23 copies of the report had been distributed to non-governmental organisations, three to newspaper editors, six to the legal deposit libraries and 19 to the public at large.

  LIFE PRISONERS: TARIFF DISCLOSURE
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they expect to complete the present process of notification to prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment of the actual minimum period they may expect to spend in custody.

  Baroness Blatch
  The exercise to disclose tariff information to some 2,300 mandatory life sentence prisoners in the prison system will be completed within the next few weeks.

  A separate exercise to give disclosure to the some 120 mandatory life sentence prisoners who have been transferred to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 will begin in February.

  LIFE PRISONERS: WHOLE LIFE TARIFF
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment have been notified that they may expect to remain in custody for "whole life".

  Baroness Blatch
  To date, 15 mandatory life sentence prisoners have been informed, in accordance with the judgement in the case of Doody et al, that previous Ministers set a whole life tariff in their case. These prisoners now have the right to make representations in the light of the disclosure given them. If they do so, their case will be considered afresh. No
  WA 78
  decision has been made in any of these cases, nor has a whole life tariff been set in any other case.

  POLICE AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP: CONSULTATIONS
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Pursuant to the Written Answer of Baroness Blatch on 16th December (col. WA 150), whether the Home Office Whip was consulted before the Home Secretary made his nominations for independent members of the new police authorities.

  Baroness Blatch
  Yes.