Sitting of 4 July 1995

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

    Naval Refits
    Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider allowing all shipyards to compete for naval refits by ensuring that whole classes of vessels are not put within predetermined refit programmes. [30555]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): All shipyards are able to compete for a wide range of naval refits within the unallocated programme. An increasing volume of work will be put to competition as the number of refits in the allocated programme reduces. Eventually, the whole of the surface ship refitting programme will be available for competition.
    Mr. Chidgey: The Minister has already informed the House that he is considering deferring the ending of nuclear work at Rosyth. Is he therefore also considering reviewing the allocation, and the consequences of his action on the allocation, of refit work for surface ships? If he is considering that review, will he give the House an undertaking that he will also consider the allocation of refit work for mine warfare ships—a particular concern to Vosper Thornycroft in my constituency?
    Mr. Freeman: We are discussing with both the managements at Rosyth and Devonport any amendments that need to be made to the allocation of work. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the allocation to Rosyth assumed the end of refitting to strategic nuclear submarines in about two to three year's time. We need to run on strategic nuclear submarine refits at Rosyth and therefore we will reconsider the allocation programme, but I hold out no immediate hope to the hon. Gentleman that we shall reconsider assigning whole classes of ships to Devonport.
    Mr. Colvin: Without inviting tenders from others, how certain can my right hon. Friend be that the price that he receives for the refit work at Rosyth, which I acknowledge will have allocated work, is competitive? Is it not unfair that Vosper Thornycroft, which built most of the smaller warships that are being allocated to Rosyth, is not being allowed to bid for the tender for their refits? None the
    126
    less, will he also take this opportunity just to tell us what the Government's position is with regard to the bids for the new type 23 frigates?
    Mr. Freeman: I confirm to my hon. Friend that we expect Vosper to bid. My understanding is that it has bid for the type 23 frigates. I have a high regard for the company. I have confirmed that the yard is capable of a new build of a modern warship. On refitting, my hon. Friend is right, but to ensure that the price is competitive, we use estimates of what we believe the work of comparable ship refitting has been in the United Kingdom. We have refined our techniques for ensuring that the taxpayer gets value for money, but I look forward to the day when all ship refitting is available for competition—that should be from about 2005, and Vosper will be able to bid for all classes of refitting then.
    Mr. Denham: How can Vosper Thornycroft be excluded, as the Government are currently planning, from bidding for Hunt and Sandown minehunter work until 2005? Is the Minister not aware that a shipyard such as Vosper is constantly improving its productivity and lowering its cost structures? How can his Department really know what a competitive price for that work would be unless Vosper is able to bid for at least part of the work load that has been allocated elsewhere?
    Mr. Freeman: I understand the strength of that argument, but I should set against that the fact that we wish the Rosyth shipyard, in due course, to concentrate only on surface ship refitting. It is important that Rosyth should be viable. It is important that it should make a full transition from nuclear work to surface ship work. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence has an obligation to Rosyth as well as an obligation to ensure that there is as much competition as possible. I remind the House that we welcome competition for the unallocated programme of refitting work, especially for frigate work and that, by 2005, all new build yards and refitting yards will be able to compete for the work.
    Mr. Gallie: I commend my right hon. Friend for sticking to the commitments that he gave to Rosyth about two years ago—commitments that were sought from both sides of the House. Is it not disgraceful that Opposition Members seem now to be trying to persuade my right hon. Friend to turn against those commitments, which he gave so readily only a year or two ago?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that support. I can confirm our clear determination to ensure that there is a proper allocation of balanced work, not only for Rosyth but for Devonport. We shall not revisit our decision to allocate Trident submarine refitting work to Plymouth, Devonport, but we intend to ensure that Rosyth has enough viable work to ensure continued employment well into the next century.

    Bosnia (Arms Embargo)
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on international security of the lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia. [30556]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We believe that that could lead to a serious escalation in fighting in Bosnia, which would jeopardise

    127
    the humanitarian effort and the international peace process, and would lead to the withdrawal of UNPROFOR.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Has the Secretary of State yet managed to convey to the United States Congress that lifting the arms embargo at this stage would certainly lead to pre-emptive strikes by those who have heavy weapons—not only the Bosnian Serbs, but the Croatian forces? As we are in a position now where the Bosnian Serb army has been blocking and attacking humanitarian aid convoys in Sarajevo and other enclaves for several months, how soon will it be before the new United Nations rapid reaction force is in a position to intervene to protect those convoys?
    Mr. Rifkind: There has been some progress in convoys getting through to Sarajevo and Gorazde, but I agree that the position remains serious. A significant part of the new rapid deployment force is already in Bosnia and is available to the theatre commander. We would expect further reinforcement of that force to be able to be sent out in the near future.
    Mr. Key: Has my right hon. and learned Friend discussed the effects of lifting the embargo with our French allies? Without divulging any details, can he assure the House that he has discussed, and is familiar with, the French rules of engagement and that they are the same as ours?
    Mr. Rifkind: I met my colleague the new French Minister of Defence last week, and I can assure my hon. Friend that both France and the United Kingdom believe that it is necessary to have robust rules of engagement to ensure the full protection of our forces in Bosnia, who will have the full freedom to use the force that they believe is necessary to defend their lives and to perform the duties that they are entrusted to carry out.
    Dr. David Clark: If the arms embargo were to be lifted, as the Secretary of State implies, we would have to evacuate the UNPROFOR forces. That would mean that 24 airmobile brigade would have to go in. Has the Secretary of State heard from the Bosnian and the Croatian Governments at this stage as to whether they are prepared to allow 24 airmobile to go in?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are at the moment discussing with the Croatian Government the use of the port of Ploce as an initial base for 24 airmobile brigade. I hope that that matter will be resolved in the very near future. Of course a substantial part of the British reinforcements is already in Bosnia—almost 1,000 extra men—and we would expect the advance party of about 400 of 24 airmobile to set out for Bosnia as soon as we can reach agreement with the Croatian Government on the lines that I set out a few moments ago.

    RAF Personnel (Overseas Peployment)
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel are at present deployed overseas. [30557]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): In addition to over 9,000 personnel on permanent overseas deployments, over 1,300 Royal
    128
    Air Force personnel are deployed on out-of-area operational tasks in the former Yugoslavia, the middle east and elsewhere.
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend would no doubt agree that RAF personnel provide a first-class service in whichever arena they serve. Will he in particular praise the Jaguar wing from RAF Coltishall, which has been on almost permanent deployment for the past five years, first in the Gulf war, then in Turkey protecting the Kurds and latterly, since July 1993, providing close air support for UNPROFOR over Bosnia from Gioia del Colle? It is soon to be replaced by Harrier GR7s from RAF Laarbruch in Germany. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to acknowledge the special role that the Jag wing has played and to wish the GR7 team well?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Before I address her question, I congratulate her on being the only Member of Parliament on the armed forces parliamentary scheme to have flown in the Tornado, the Jaguar and the Harrier. I understand that she acquitted herself on all three missions with great distinction and without being in any way untidy.
    I wholly endorse my hon. Friend's words about the Jaguar wing, which has achieved an exceptionally high strike rate over the past few years. It has done a very distinguished job in its recent deployment and will continue to do so until its end. I have no doubt that the Harriers will also acquit themselves well. I am also grateful for my hon. Friend's excellent support of the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Martlew: That is all very well but, since 1990, there have been cuts in RAF personnel of 13,000. During that time, the RAF has become involved in defence projects in Iraq and Bosnia. In this year's defence estimates, it is stated that the RAF is going to lose another 11,000 jobs. There is severe overstretch in the RAF. When are the Government going to decide either to cut their defence commitments or to stop sacking RAF personnel?
    Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friends and I understand that it is the Labour party that wants to cut the Royal Air Force, not our party. I know that it will come as a terrible shock to the hon. Gentleman, but the Royal Air Force relishes the opportunity of flying operations and achieving exactly the exceptional results that it does. It is working hard. It is very busy. That is what it is there for, and it does it very well.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not the case that most of the Royal Air Force's overseas operations in recent years have been outside the NATO area—Turkey, Iraq and now Bosnia? What is the sense of stationing so many Royal Air Force personnel in Germany, to the benefit of the local German economy? Should they not be brought back to this country to benefit our economy when so many proud bases, such as Scampton and Finningley, have closed?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, as a former Royal Air Force officer, is extremely knowledgeable in these matters. He knows well that our commitment to air defence in Germany at Laarbruch and Bruggen is extremely important. It is an essential part of our commitment to the defence of western Europe. That is why we are there and that is why we will stay there.

    Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held recently with his French and American counterparts regarding the nuclear test ban treaty. [30558]
    Mr. Rifkind: That is one of the wide range of defence matters which I discussed with and Dr. Perry in the past month.
    Mr. Gerrard: Has the Minister made clear to the French the outrage felt by many people in this country at the resumption of nuclear weapons tests? Will he impress upon France, the US and other nuclear weapons states the need for a comprehensive test ban treaty, as was agreed at the non-proliferation treaty conference, with no loopholes to allow any continuation of underground tests? Will he give a commitment that this country will in no circumstances resume nuclear weapons testing?
    Mr. Rifkind: The French Government have made it clear that their objective is to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty. What they do at this moment is a matter for the French Government. I believe that they will work together with the United Kingdom and other countries towards such a test ban treaty. If the proper safeguards can be achieved, I look forward to the successful completion of the current negotiations.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is not the real trouble in the House with regard to nuclear test bans that the official Opposition are stuffed full of one-sided disarmers who want to throw away our nuclear deterrent and who have taken the lead from the Leader of the Opposition who was a supporter of one-sided disarmament in the 1980s?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have to say that the Opposition's policy is bizarre, to say the least. They were against Britain's possession of the nuclear deterrent at the height of the cold war and, once the cold war was over, they would have the British people believe that they have suddenly been converted to it. It is an incredible policy, to say the least.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State recall that, as recently as 16 May, the Foreign Secretary told the House that there was no longer any need for the Government to undertake nuclear tests? Is that still the Government's view? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not follow the French example and resume nuclear testing?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have said that we have no intention of carrying out any further nuclear tests and, of course, the United States, which provides the testing ground, has a similar policy. The policy of the two Governments remains the same with regard to this matter.

    Partnership for Peace
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to visit NATO headquarters to discuss the development of partnership for peace. [30559]
    Mr. Rifkind: I expect that partnership for peace will be discussed when I visit NATO headquarters in November for the next meeting of the Defence Planning Committee.
    Mr. Thompson: My constituents who work at RAF Coltishall will certainly appreciate the tribute paid to their
    130
    work this afternoon. Bearing in mind the fact that NATO has ensured peace and stability in Europe since the second world war, is not partnership for peace the most effective route towards enlargement of NATO by the eastern European countries? Will my right hon. and learned Friend report on the progress that has been made with the documents setting out the criteria for joining NATO in the future?
    Mr. Rifkind: Partnership for peace provides not only the best basis for progress for those countries interested in joining but a framework for bilateral co-operation for countries such as Russia, Ukraine and others which are unlikely to be candidates for membership of the alliance. It enables us to develop security relationships with all those countries and that, I believe, is in the interests of our own national defence.
    Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State may know that we have long held the view that partnership for peace is one of the essential elements of the new European defence structures, along with an enlargement of NATO and with NATO-Russian bilateral arrangements. Will he therefore join us in welcoming the more co-operative approach that Russia has adopted towards partnership for peace and particularly its intention, as we understand it, to join in the joint co-ordination cells?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, we welcome the decision of the Russian Government to sign the two framework documents relating to their co-operation with NATO. I believe that it is crucial that, as the process of European security is taken forward, we develop a strategic relationship with Russia, because its co-operation would be a vital asset in ensuring peace throughout Europe, for the well-being of this country and western Europe as a whole.

    Defence Equipment Exports
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to assist the overseas promotion of sales by United Kingdom defence equipment industries. [30561]
    Mr. Freeman: The Defence Export Services Organisation helped British industry in 1994 to achieve orders worth £5.4 billion.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should be proud of their commitment to promoting British defence exports which, from the figures that I have, could be worth as much as £7 billion annually, providing and guaranteeing some 500,000 jobs? Does he also agree that the longer and larger production runs are beneficial in saving money? In connection with the order that the Ministry of Defence is about to place for the attack helicopter, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the Tiger, Tigrat, Euro-tiger team with which British Aerospace is involved, and which could add to the great assets that I have outlined?
    Mr. Freeman: I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. Conservative Members are all proud of Britain's defence export record, which is second to none in Europe. I agree with what he said about the value of defence exports to domestic procurement prices. Because of the volume of defence exports, we can reduce the cost of domestic procurement by about £300 million a year.

    131
    As for the attack helicopter, I know that my hon. Friend has a constituency interest. We hope to announce a decision as soon as possible. I must say that we have been very thorough in our analysis and we shall be purchasing an attack helicopter in the best interests of the British Army, based on cost and operational effectiveness.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is the right hon. Gentleman not scoring something of an own goal for the Government when he draws attention to the Government's record on defence exports? Is not the real issue the Government's covert and illegal support of arms sales to Iran and Iraq? Given the scandal that surrounds the Government's breach of their own regulations on Iran and Iraq, and the controversy surrounding BMARC and the role of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is it not true that, whatever happens in the vote on the leader of the Conservative party in Committee Room 12 today, the Government will always be remembered for sleaze, corruption and deceit of the House of Commons when it comes to exports to Iran and Iraq?
    Mr. Freeman: I think that we would all agree that that was utter claptrap, and I choose my words carefully. The policy of the United Kingdom Government in the 1980s was not to supply any lethal equipment to Iran or Iraq. The record of China, Russia and other major European countries is such that our modest contribution of non-lethal equipment to those two countries pales into insignificance.

    Front-line Infantry
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the United Kingdom's front-line infantry strength; and what it was in 1990. [30562]
    Mr. Soames: On 1 April 1995, the total trained strength of the infantry was about 27,000; on 1 April 1990 it was about 35,900. These figures exclude 2,000 Gurkhas, 2,000 Royal Marines and 1,250 soldiers from all other arms deployed in the infantry role.
    Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend has a distinguished service record in a distinguished regiment, and is therefore knowledgeable in these matters. Does he really believe that the infantry strength announced to the House today is enough to ensure the security of the United Kingdom and to enable us, at the same time, to discharge our international obligations?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. Over the past two years, he has rightly taken a close interest in these matters. We believe that the Army is large enough to meet its commitments. The numerical strength of the Army should not be regarded as the primary measure of front-line strength. Its operational capability is of prime importance. It has never been better equipped, motivated or trained. I am wholly confident that it can undertake all the tasks to which it is assigned. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.
    Mr. Simpson: Does the Minister agree that it is in our national interests to equip our infantry with our own equipment? Is he aware that the royal ordnance factory in Nottingham is now the only small arms manufacturer and developer in the UK, increasingly dependent on how the Government decide to allocate their procurement policies? Does he accept that it is in our national interest to ensure
    132
    that our infantry is equipped on a strategic basis rather than by the equivalent of a pick 'n' mix counter at Woolworth's?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman grossly over-exaggerates to make a point. I pay tribute to the Royal Ordnance company, a subsidiary of British Aerospace, which does a remarkable job in providing excellent equipment for our forces. I reiterate that our forces have never been better equipped. I am quite satisfied that they have everything that they need. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend will ensure that, whatever they can buy plainly from British suppliers which is cost-competitive and exactly meets their needs, will be bought.
    Sir Michael Neubert: What effect does my hon. Friend think it would have on the strength of our front-line infantry if, as reported, homosexuals were to be admitted to Her Majesty's armed forces? Is there any truth in the front-page story in yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has raised that matter. I believe that the effect on our armed forces would be extremely serious. I want to take this opportunity to say that the reports in yesterday's press that Ministers had decided to review the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces were wholly inaccurate. There has been no such decision.

    China (Arms Embargo)
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of infringements in the arms embargo imposed on China; and if he will make a statement. [30563]
    Mr. Rifkind: I have not received any report confirming an infringement of the European Union arms embargo imposed on China.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank the Minister for that answer and I am reassured by what he said. China has a continuing record of human rights violations. The markets within China are opening up and it is now selling arms around the world. Will the Minister and the Foreign Secretary use their offices to ensure that other countries considering arms sales to China, such as Israel and Russia, are aware of the arms embargo?
    Mr. Rifkind: China gets about 90 per cent. of its arms supplies from Russia, so it is clear that it is Russian Government policy that will determine whether China obtains access to the sort of equipment covered by the embargo.

    French Armed Forces (Co-operation)
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further co-operation or integration with the French armed forces is planned. [30564]
    Mr. Soames: The United Kingdom enjoys close bilateral defence relations with France and we are always willing to investigate potential areas for further co-operation.
    Mr. MacShane: I welcome that statement and hope that that military co-operation will be extended to political

    133
    and economic co-operation. Will the Minister say something about Britain's attitude to the gross provocation by France of resuming nuclear tests in the Pacific? Will he send a message of solidarity to the peoples and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand? Does he agree that, for the time being, we should be boycotting Renault and Peugeot cars? If, as Labour Members hope, the Prime Minister is soon confirmed in his post, we will toast that victory in Australian, not French champagne.
    Mr. Soames: That would be going a bit too far. The hon. Gentleman tempts us down a very unwise path. Indeed, I am surprised that he has asked such a question because he is a scholar and an aficionado of all things French. He knows that the decision on testing is a matter for the French. For us, the principal objective is an early conclusion to the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the French commitment to that has been reaffirmed. As for sending a message of solidarity to the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is the French who should do that.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's support for the activities of the Western European Union and also the funding for its parliamentary assembly?
    Mr. Soames: I am happy to endorse the work of the WEU. As my hon. Friend knows from his distinguished work with that body—I had the honour to serve under him for a time—the WEU continues to be developed as the European pillar of NATO and a defence arm of the European Union in a way that is complementary to the alliance. It is important that we do not forget that the bedrock of the defence of Europe is NATO. That remains our first and prime charge.

    Faslane
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he now forecasts an overspend on the budget for the construction of the facilities at Faslane; and if he will make a statement. [30565]
    Mr. Freeman: The Trident works programme is expected to exceed the 1984 baseline estimate of £1.1 billion at current prices by some £800 million. The Trident programme overall is expected to cost £11.7 billion, representing a saving of £3.7 billion over the original estimate.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is not a 72 per cent. overspend an absolute disgrace? Will the Minister confirm that there have been examples of some of the construction on some of the projects involved at Faslane starting before the design work had been completed? Will he confirm that £360 million has been paid to more than 1,000 consultants who variously have been employed on the project? Will he further confirm that 50 per cent. of that £800 million overspend has been siphoned off from budgets for other projects?
    Will the Minister assure the House that, after the Public Accounts Committee has properly investigated the overspend, any senior officials and Ministers responsible for that strategic gross failure will be asked to reconsider their positions?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is not right about the consequences for the defence budget because the
    134
    Trident programme overall has come in substantially under budget. Some £3.7 billion was not required for the completion of submarines, missile systems and the works programmes, so there has been no adverse effect on the rest of the defence programme. I seek to make no apologies for the significant overrun, and I am pleased that the Trident programme was completed within 10 years. When the Public Accounts Committee has reported, we will consider its recommendations seriously and we will respond properly.
    Sir Michael Shersby: What were the principal reasons for the cost overrun on the Trident project? To what extent was the overrun caused by the earthquake in Scotland, which resulted in the need to redesign certain facilities at Faslane?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will understand two of the principal reasons. The first is that the organisation of the contract resulted in PSA being in the lead for the construction of the Trident works programme, which was not completed either on budget or as expeditiously as we would have liked. We have learnt from that. Secondly, the nuclear standards that had to be met for the completion of the shiplift and the weapons facility at Coulport and other buildings were very onerous, and they changed during the 10 years of planning and construction. I undertake that when we have read the Public Accounts Committee report we will seek to give as much information that is not already contained in the report as possible.
    Dr. Godman: Is the budget overspend provoking management at Coulport and Faslane into introducing tough employment practices and procedures? A number of young men who are completing their apprenticeships are being told that they will be dismissed from employment when their apprenticeships are completed. Why at the very least cannot they be given short-term contracts of employment as journeymen?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not believe that current employment levels have anything to do with the Trident works overrun. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I agree that the number of apprentices trained by the Army, Navy and Air Force makes a valuable contribution to society. I shall look into the point and write to him.

    Bett Report
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received following the publication of the Bett report; and if he will make a statement. [30566]
    Mr. Soames: We have received a number of comments and questions from interested parties both inside and outside the armed forces. As we have said previously, we shall be giving the most careful and detailed consideration to all the report's recommendations before reaching any decisions.
    Mr. Brandreth: In the light of the report and the consideration that my hon. Friend said the Government will give, will he consider putting a halt to the development of Kentigern house in Glasgow as simply an Army pay and personnel centre, and consider the

    135
    establishment of a tri-service pay and personnel centre—possibly in a great historic city such as Chester, which has a proud services tradition?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—as his constituents will be—for his vigorous lobbying on behalf of his constituents, but the establishment of the APPC in Glasgow will proceed as planned. Any decision to set up a defence agency, as presaged in the Bett report, would not in any way be adversely affected by the decision to go ahead. It is not inconsistent with that decision, and we must proceed if the Army's requirements are to be met on time.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What representations has the Minister received about the privileged position enjoyed by the officers of our armed forces and their families—as distinct from the ordinary soldiers and service men and women—who enjoy the enormous benefit of having their children's boarding school fees paid to an extent in excess of £100 million a year? Is that not unfair to our other service men and women? Would it not be better for that money to be channelled into our state education system and to ensure that state schools in garrison towns had the benefit of that resource?
    Mr. Soames: No.

    Nuclear Weapons Testing
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for developing procedures as alternatives to nuclear weapons testing; and if he will make a statement. [30567]
    Mr. Freeman: In the absence of underground nuclear weapon testing, we intend to develop further a range of experimental techniques and facilities for the stewardship of our nuclear weapon stockpile, including above-ground, non-nuclear experiments, lasers and computer simulation.
    Mr. Luff: Following that welcome confirmation that the Government do not intend to return to nuclear testing, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless assure me that it is our absolute priority to maintain the effectiveness of the Trident nuclear defence? Does he understand that this is a matter on which Conservatives are entirely united, in contrast to the Labour party, whose members have always accorded a shamefully low priority to the protection of this country?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and can assure him that the safety of our nuclear weapons will be paramount in our programme. He is right: not only did 58 Labour Members sign the early-day motion to scrap Trident, but in May 1986 the shadow defence spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), and the leader of the Labour party were both members of parliamentary CND and both put their name to a statement supporting the removal of all nuclear weapons from British territory. That is the policy of the shadow defence spokesman.
    Mr. Dalyell: From previous answers this afternoon, is the House to take it that the Government approve of French nuclear testing?
    Mr. Freeman: The Government have not expressed an opinion; it is a matter for the French. My right hon. and learned Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am
    136
    answering the question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence indicated our support, the United States' support and the French Government's support for full implementation of the comprehensive test ban treaty at the end of 1996.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart concerning the deployment of additional troops to Bosnia. [30568]
    Mr. Rifkind: I met the French Defence Minister in London on 27 June. We discussed a wide range of issues, including the deployment of additional troops to Bosnia.
    Mr. Jones: Has the Minister had an opportunity to read today's The Times, in which a United Nations spokesman was quoted as describing UNPROFOR troops in Sarajevo as "sitting ducks"? Does he agree that if our troops, French troops and other United Nations troops are not to remain another winter in Bosnia as sitting ducks, the rapid reaction forces must arrange for their withdrawal this summer?
    Mr. Rifkind: No, I do not agree. For the time being, United Nations forces are carrying out a valuable role. That has been widely recognised and we hope that they will be able to continue to do so.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in addition to the participation of French troops in Bosnia, we have 20 to 30 other training or co-operative missions with the French at present? Am I not right in thinking that that was the prime reason for the Prime Minister supporting the defence plank of the Maastricht treaty last year?
    Mr. Rifkind: There is good intergovernmental co-operation with France, as with the Netherlands and a number of other countries. We believe that it is in the interests of our defence capability to carry out joint exercises and to develop joint capabilities with a number of close allies.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ban the export of self-destruct anti-personnel land mines. [30569]
    Mr. Freeman: No. It would not be right to ban completely the export of a weapon which we may in future need to import for our own armed forces.
    Mr. Milburn: With more than 100 million mines already scattered across the world's battlefields, indiscriminately threatening not just soldiers but innocent civilians, has not the time come to call for a total ban on all types of land mines? Will not the Minister go one stage further by agreeing to press for a total ban, internationally, on all exports of land mines at the forthcoming UN inhumane weapons conference in September?
    Mr. Freeman: The sentiments of the whole House are probably with the hon. Gentlemen. However, the plain

    137
    fact is that a complete ban on the production, stockpiling and use of anti-personnel land mines would be ineffective. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Robathan: I am not used to such a cheer when I rise to my feet, but I am grateful for it.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however appalling the consequences of anti-personnel mines may be for civilians, they are a viable weapon of war that we must keep in our armoury? Is it not unfortunate that the Labour party always uses the issue as a stick to beat the Government when we have an excellent record in the export of anti-personnel mines?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is obviously correct. If we procure additional anti-personnel land mines, our policy will be to ensure that they are safe, tested and reliable, which will be a complement to the British armed forces.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30585]
    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.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the decision of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen to strike? Does he agree that that decision will bring misery and frustration to millions of passengers? Is he, like me, astonished that the general secretary of ASLEF has not offered one word of apology to the travelling public?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised at that and I regret it. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall have a little order from the Front Benches below the Gangway—on both sides. There will be one exchange at a time.
    The Prime Minister: I totally condemn the decision to seek a strike, which is likely to cause chaos and confusion for hundreds of thousands of passengers. I do not believe that there is any justification whatsoever for the strike. I condemn it and I very much hope that the leader of the Labour party will condemn it as well and make it clear that he. like me, will put the interests of passengers before militancy.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister share the anger and disgust of South West Water consumers—[Interruption.]Tory Members may find the subject boring, but while they continue to tear themselves apart we shall speak up for the people of this country on the issues that concern them. What is more, it is not 329 Conservative Members of Parliament who should decide the Prime Minister and Government of this country; it is the British people at the ballot box.
    138
    Does the Prime Minister share consumers' disgust that the managing director has received a 45 per cent. pay increase while water bills have risen by 70 per cent. since privatisation? Is it not high time that the regulator was given the power to curb such abuse?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my view has been that many customers of water companies will be concerned about the reported pay increases of directors, and I share their concern. I think that, like me, many people would have no objection to pay rises that are linked to company performance, but if they cannot be linked to company performance I think that they will rightly be condemned by many people up and down the country. I propose to watch the pay increases carefully, and when we have received the Greenbury report on executive pay and remuneration we will be able to decide whether any action is necessary.
    Mr. Blair: Instead of watching it, why does the Prime Minister not act to put a stop to the abuses now?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows, for I have told him before—he is clearly a slow learner on this point—that we will wait and see what the committee examining the matter reports. When we have the facts in front of us, we will be in a position to take a decision: I prefer facts before decisions.
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30586]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the House last night to extend the assisted places scheme for another year? What does he make of a party that voted yet again to deny the opportunities created by that scheme to hundreds and thousands of children throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: I am unsurprised at the way in which the Labour party casts its votes. Labour Members may talk about opportunity but, time after time, they vote against extending opportunity, such as the assisted places scheme. I am in favour of that scheme because I want people to enjoy opportunities that earlier generations did not have. We act on issues—the Labour party talks about them but does nothing.
    Mr. Stevenson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30587]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does the Prime Minister agree that today 329 Tory Members of Parliament will probably be taking the most important political decision of their lives and that it will affect every man, woman and child in the country? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the sense of outrage felt throughout the length and breadth of the land that such a decision will be taken anonymously and in complete secrecy?
    The Prime Minister: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman—echoing the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) a few moments ago—that I recall Labour calling for a general election in 1985 and losing one in 1987. I recall Labour asking for a

    139
    general election in 1990, and it lost in 1992. Labour may call for a general election in 1995 but it will lose it in 1997.
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30588]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the City of Chester—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We need order in the House.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my percipient constituents welcome low inflation and sustained growth, relish rising inward investment and falling unemployment and require a Government who represent Britain's interests at the heart of Europe—rejoicing in the literal decimation of new proposals from Brussels in the past five years? What does my right hon. Friend reckon has brought us in the direction of those happy phenomena?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome the advantages that have been brought to the people of Chester by this Government. I acknowledge that they will want to see such advantages in future, and I look forward to ensuring that they do.
    Ms Jowell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30589]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Jowell: Will the Prime Minister apologise to the thousands of blood donors whose gift of blood was wasted last week, and to the patients whose operations were cancelled because the Government's agent, the National Blood Authority, bought cheaper blood bags? Is not that another example of what the people of this country have come to expect from the Government, who know the price of everything but the value of nothing?
    The Prime Minister: One of the values of this Government's health reforms is that well over 1 million extra patients are being treated every year. One of the other values of this Government is capital expenditure worth more than £1 million every single week since 1979. One of the other advantages of this Government is more and better treatment in every aspect of the health service. One of the other values is the greatest improvement in primary health care since the health service was established in 1948. It is about time that the hon. Lady took her head out of the sand and saw what is really happening to improve the health service.
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30590]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in negotiating our Maastricht opt-outs he proved that he is closer to the feelings of his people than any other leader in Europe? Is not the true test of leadership in Europe to
    140
    trust the people to think and act for themselves? Is that not how he led us to victory in 1992 and how he will lead us to victory again at the next election?
    The Prime Minister: I did then as I do now, and as I will do in the future, and that is to take the decisions that I believe are in our country's national interest and defend those decisions both abroad and here at home. It was for that reason that I set out and obtained the opt-outs. It was for that reason that I retained them. I believe that that is the right way for us to proceed.
    Dr. Hendron: The Prime Minister is probably aware that once again my constituency of Belfast, West was in flames yesterday evening. I am sure that he is aware that Mrs. Briege Gadd, the head of the life sentence review board, has resigned. In that regard, and in regard especially to the release of Lee Clegg yesterday, does the Prime Minister accept that the Northern Ireland Office has sacrificed the stability of the peace process for short-term political gains? Furthermore—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Member must be heard.
    Dr. Hendron: Furthermore, my constituents justifiably believe that there is one law for soldiers and another law for Irish prisoners.
    The Prime Minister: I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who has played a significant part in stilling the difficulties of Northern Ireland over recent years, that I believe that he is wrong to make that judgment. I hope that he will reflect again on what he said. The decision to release Private Clegg was a judicial matter, which was decided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on its merits—that is both the decision itself and the timing. The decision was made by my right hon. and learned Friend and subsequently I was informed of it. It was a judicial matter and it must remain a judicial matter.
    As for the difficulties faced by the hon. Gentleman's constituents yesterday, I think that he will know, as I know, and as the RUC is equally clear, that there was a high degree of orchestration in yesterday's violent events in Northern Ireland. Prominent members of Sinn Fein were present at a number of those events. They are far from the only violent demonstrations organised by Sinn Fein in recent months. I think that everyone in Northern Ireland is aware of that fact.
    If I may say one other thing about Private Clegg in the light of what has been said, I say to the House and the country as a whole that it is patently absurd to equate Private Clegg's case with deliberate acts of murder by paramilitaries—[Interruption.] The Lord Chief Justice, at Private Clegg's appeal, stressed that when he, Private Clegg, commenced the patrol
    "he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone."
    One other further point may be of some comfort to many people in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I apologise for the length of my answer, but I think that this is a matter of importance for the peace of the streets in Northern Ireland. Of other cases recently considered by the life sentence review body alongside that of Private Clegg, five other prisoners were recommended for release on life licence. Four of those involved terrorist offences and they concerned both loyalists and republicans. All

    141
    those cases, including Private Clegg's, were reviewed on their merits. Private Clegg's case was only one of a number that were considered.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the healthy scepticism that exists, especially on the Government Benches, about a single European currency. He is also aware that many of us would like to see a referendum on the matter, if it is appropriate, in future. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that to say no, never now to a single European currency would weaken Britain's negotiating position with our EU partners for very many years to come?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I had observed over the past couple of years that there is the occasional case of scepticism about European policy—that has been evident. But I believe, as my hon. Friend said, that in the event that a British Cabinet decided to enter the single currency, it would be wise at that stage to consider whether or not to have a referendum. But to determine that matter at this stage would be premature.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30591]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: When the Prime Minister was previously elected, he set as one of his objectives the creation of a nation at ease with itself. If he is re-elected this afternoon, in a society and a country where the gap between the rich and the poor has become wider, not narrower, how will he show some commitment to that cause, so that under his premiership Britain is a country of social justice and greater equality, rather than one of greater social injustice and inequality?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the premise upon which the hon. Gentleman frames his question. The greatest destroyer of ease of mind in Britain is inflation. Inflation is now at a lower level and under more secure lock and key than at any time for the past quarter of a century. That is not just a matter of concern to people with savings; it is a matter of concern, above all, to the people about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned—the people who, at the end of the week, wonder whether they can pay their bills and are grateful that the prices have not gone up. To protect them, we must keep inflation down. I have, I am proud of that and I intend to keep it down.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On a number of occasions in recent months you have expressed your view on the failure of hon. Members to advise other colleagues of visits to their constituencies. I have to report that, on Sunday 2 July, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) visited High Wycombe. I learned about the visit a few days before it took place, but the hon. Gentleman did not seek to advise me.
That gross breach of parliamentary convention and courtesy by the hon. Member for Hillhead was compounded by the fact that he sought to address members of the Pakistan and Kashmiri community in High Wycombe on the subject of Kashmir, playing on their understandable concern about the desire for self-determination of the people of Kashmir—a subject on which I have collaborated and worked with them for the 17 years that I have been a Member of Parliament.
In his speech, which descended to the lowest level of political muck-raking, the hon. Member for Hillhead seemed to display total ignorance of the record of policies of the Labour party on Kashmir. I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The only matter that concerns me as a point of order is the fact that an hon. Member did not inform the hon. Gentleman that he was in his constituency. The House well knows my views on this matter. I have made them known many times. I have asked Members to comply, but as the hon. Gentleman and the House know, I have no authority to enforce these matters. It is simply a matter of courtesy that I would like to be observed.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I make it plain on behalf of myself and certain of my colleagues that we do not mind at all who comes to our constituencies? We do not require notice. I do not want anyone to write to me to tell me that they are coming to my constituency; any hon. Member of any political persuasion is welcome. We find it difficult to understand why Conservative Members are increasingly sensitive to the fact that people come to their constituencies, when it is a free country in free world, and they should simply grow up.
Mr. David Winnick rose—
Madam Speaker: I take it that it does not relate to the previous point of order.
Mr. Winnick indicated dissent.
Madam Speaker: No—in that case, I must hear it.
Mr. Winnick: As you know, Madam Speaker, the decision is being taken today as to who is to be the Prime Minister in this Parliament. My point of order is simply that, as the media will be notified immediately a decision
144
is reached, would it not be courteous for the House to be notified, too? Is it not another case where the media are notified, but we are not? We get our information from the press or television.
I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the Leader of the House should make arrangements now, so that, when the result of the ballot is known, whether or not there is to be a second ballot—and that is inconclusive today—the House should be notified officially. I hope that arrangements will be made accordingly.
Madam Speaker: That is a matter not for me but for the usual channels. The job of the Speaker is to see that our work and our Order Paper continue to be dealt with in the Chamber. The matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised is a matter for the usual channels, if they wish a statement to be made. I prefer to see that our business goes on. Hon. Members who wish to know the result need only take a few strides out of the Chamber and they will soon be told.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When I returned to the House across Westminster bridge this afternoon, I was disturbed to note that long telephoto lenses, presumably belonging to members of the paparazzi, have been installed and are trained on the whole of the Terrace, including your private section of the Terrace. Is it within your powers, or within those of the Officers of the House, to do as members of the Metropolitan police do when they protect access to the House on the public highway, and to take steps to prevent that unwarranted intrusion within the precincts of the House?
Madam Speaker: I cannot accept that it is an unwarranted intrusion if individuals, whether private persons or people from the press, wish to take photographs of the Terrace. There is nothing that we can do about it. I shall certainly not be doing anything of which I would be ashamed if photographs were taken of me. Now can we get on with our business?

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

INCOME-RELATED BENEFITS
That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 6) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3061) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.
Dr. John Marek rose—
Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order?
Dr. Marek: I wish to speak on the order of consideration motion for the Pensions Bill, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: We have not yet reached that stage.

Orders of the Day

  Pensions Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Pensions Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clause 22, new Clause 3, new Clause 23, new Clause 1, new Clause 2, new Clause 15, Amendments relating to Clause 164, Clause 7 and Clauses 16 to 21, new Clause 21, new Clauses 11 to 14, new Clause 7, new Clause 9, new Clause 10, new Clause 17, new Clause 19, new Clause 20, Amendments relating to Clauses 125 to 133 and Schedule 4, new Clause 6, new Clause 4, new Clause 5, new Clause 24, other new Clauses, other Amendments.—[Mr. Hague.]
  3.37 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I apologise for having stood up to speak too early, Madam Speaker, but it is always better to be early than to be late. Once one is too late, there is nothing that one can do about it.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to how curious the order of consideration is. Normally, as the House knows, Government new clauses come first, then Opposition new clauses and other new clauses. After that, we go through the amendments normally. However, this time, Madam Speaker, you will see that we are to start with Government new clause 22, then move to new clause 3, tabled by the Opposition, and then return to another Government new clause, new clause 23. Then we are to deal with new clause 1, another Opposition clause, and then new clauses 2 and 15, followed by amendments relating to clauses 164 and 7.
  We shall not come to new clauses tabled by hon. Members other than the occupants of the Government or the Opposition Front Bench until we reach new clause 21, Madam Speaker—the fifth debate, according to your selection. I find that curious, but there is a reason for it. The occupants of the Government and the Opposition Front Benches have got together to ensure that all the new clauses and amendments on war widows and their pensions, and on frozen pensioners, will not be considered until after 10 o'clock tonight.
  I could use various adjectives to describe that arrangement, and it does not help the House when Ministers and Opposition spokesmen get together in that way. Hundreds of hon. Members have signed early-day motions about frozen pensioners and war widows' pensions but now find that, because of collusion between the occupants of the two Front Benches, the amendments and new clauses dealing with them may not be reached until the early hours of the morning. [Interruption.]
  Will Ministers, instead of chatting across the Floor of the House to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, consider that matter? The House would appreciate that, because some of the early-day motions have been signed by 200 or 300 Members. Could not the debate on those subjects have been taken, if not in prime time, at least in time when hon. Members will be here? That is the least we could do for war widows and reserve pensioners.
  I do not suppose that what I have said will make the slightest difference between hon. Members on the two Front Benches, but I register my objection to the way in which we are proceeding with—and the ordering of—the Bill.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Surely hon. Members should be present when the business comes before the House. If the hon. Gentleman and the 200 or 300 Members thought the matter important enough to sign the early-day motion, they should be here tonight when the business is discussed.
  Question put and agreed to.

New clause 22

  HYBRID OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES
  `.—(1) In spite of anything in sections 9 and 12 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (requirements for certification and determination of basis on which scheme is contracted-out), the Secretary of State may by regulations provide, where the pensions provided by an occupational pension scheme include both—

  (a) such pensions that, if the scheme provided only those pensions, it would satisfy section 9(2) of that Act, and

  (b) such other pensions that, if the scheme provided only those other pensions, it would satisfy section 9(3) of that Act, for Part III of that Act to have effect as if the scheme were two separate schemes providing, respectively, the pensions referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)

  (2) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may, in connection with any provision made by virtue of subsection (1), make such modifications of the following Acts, and the instruments made or having effect as if made under them, as appear to the Secretary of State desirable: the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and Part I of this Ace'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 82 and 83.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: New clause 22 will allow occupational pension schemes to contract out on the basis that they hold contracted-out benefits accrued on both a defined benefit and defined contribution basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) tabled an amendment in Committee on this issue. I undertook to consider it with other representations, notably from the occupational pensions joint working group, which has raised related issues.
  The new clause and amendments that I have tabled will increase the flexibility for hybrid occupational pension schemes to contract out, and meet in full the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and the occupational pensions joint working group. I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Adam Ingram: I wish to point out that it is a strangely worded new clause. It starts out with the phrase:
  "In spite of anything in sections 9 and 12".
  That seems to me to be unparliamentary language. I should have thought that something more appropriate could have been put in its place. But that is not the point that I wish to make.
  In Committee, when the issue was considered, the Minister said:
  "Were we to make a change to the current arrangements, we should need to be sure that we could safeguard the position of individuals. For example, we should almost certainly need to introduce new rules to ensure that the value of accrued GMP rights

  147
  could not be eroded under any of the proposed new arrangements. It would be necessary to consider, in the light of those new rules, whether the change still seemed desirable."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 June 1995; c. 666.]
  I simply ask the Minister to give an assurance that that matter has been taken into account and that the guarantee will apply—that there will be no loss to accrued guaranteed minimum pension rights.
  I also raise a point on the contracting out arrangements that will apply to differing schemes. Would it not be appropriate to give a guarantee that the better arrangements should apply in those circumstances, because, where two different schemes are in operation, the less favourable arrangement could apply, which would affect the individuals? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain further the underlying purposes behind the new clause, and deal with the concerns that he himself raised in Committee.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: We did consider those points, and we are confident that the protection that the hon. Gentleman has asked for is there.
  The point of the new clause is to provide a helpful flexibility, so that both defined contribution basis schemes and defined benefits schemes can be included within the same scheme. It is not always possible to say which of those would necessarily be better, because they have very different characteristics and benefits available at the end.
  So the answer to the first point is yes, but on the second point, it would not really be possible to do that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

  CENTRAL DISCONTINUANCE FUNDS
  `The Secretary of State may, after he has consulted organisations appearing to him to be representative of employers and of employees, by regulations make provision as to—

  (a) the establishment of one or more bodies corporate, to be known as central discontinuance funds,

  (b) the circumstances and the manner in which the trustees of an occupational pension scheme to which section 48 applies and which is being wound up may transfer the scheme's assets and liabilities to a central discontinuance fund established under this section,

  (c) the regulation of the administration of central discontinuance funds established under this section and the management of their assets.'.—[Mr. Dewar.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  This is an innocent-looking new clause; it is also short, which is a virtue, and written in plain English. That marks it out from a large acreage of a Bill that, as a result of our efforts in Committee—or perhaps I should say the Government's efforts—has swollen by some 30 pages and a good handful of clauses.
  Although deceptively simple, however, the clause revisits one of the most complex and difficult parts of the new provision. It was discussed extensively in Committee, but I make no apology for returning to it now. I had hoped
  148
  that we would have a good deal of time in which to think about it, and particularly for the Government to think about it, but that did not happen; Report stage has arrived very quickly. Nevertheless, I think it important for us to canvass again what are very important and far-reaching arguments.
  As we have just been reminded, there is pressure of business, so I shall not rehearse the history and travel through the intricacies of the widely differing opinions that have been expressed; but I think that it would be helpful to summarise the progress that has been made since the original suggestions of the Goode committee.
  In shorthand, as it were, Goode recommended that, at all times, the assets of a pension scheme should be in a state to meet all liabilities, on the assumption that that scheme would be wound up. It was a matter of transfer values, and the transfer of cash equivalents. The aim, with which none of us would disagree although the practical problems of achieving it are manifest, was total security. Since then there has been considerable to-ing and fro-ing, along with many learned conferences and, I fear, many boring speeches; but I accept that the Government's position has moved considerably.
  We reached a compromise—if that is the right word—which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), in that he was the perhaps unwilling recipient of a long and complex letter which has given him an ersatz immortality, and the arrangement has been referred to as the "Butterfill compromise".
  The Government said, in effect, that, in the calculation of their pension liabilities, the larger pension funds would be able to take into account 25 per cent. of the calculation based on equities rather than gilts. That was intended to lighten the load to some extent, and to confer some flexibility. It was also agreed that the time within which pension funds must meet the various benchmarks set out by the Goode committee would be lengthened considerably.
  The compromise certainly helped, in that it was given a reasonably friendly reception, but many doubts remained—and, if anything, grew. The Confederation of British Industry, for instance, was unhappy with the arrangement, reflecting a wide range of concerns felt throughout industry. There was also a complex debate between actuaries and between the various pension funds, involving their representative body, the National Association of Pension Funds.
  We secured another important change—a presentational change, at least: the minimum solvency requirement became a minimum funding requirement. That, however, did no more than change the label on a product that has incurred consistent and increasing criticism.
  The trouble is that we are involved in a revolving door argument. We are trying to make compatible two basically incompatible aims: total security, and a wish not to inhibit unreasonably the management of funds in the scheme in the interest of maximising benefits for members. To be fair, I believe that that was recognised on both sides of the Standing Committee.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), for example, rather uncharacteristically—I do not say that sarcastically; he does not often think that it is required—expressed considerable sympathy with my view, at least in the context to which I have referred.

  149
  The trouble is that, the more one compromises on security in the interests of growth, the more insecure the prospects become, and vice versa. We are left with an uneasy compromise and a Government—this may be unfair to them—who, at the end of the day, have said, "We have been pushed and jostled, we have agonised and worried, we have come to a conclusion, we have settled at a point in the scale, and we will not change it again. We have had enough, and we are going ahead on the basis of the argument at this stage."
  I shall briefly try to invite the Minister—I suspect that it will be a hard job, but I intend to put my best foot forward—to reconsider the issue. Of course, he knows—the title of the new clause tells us—the burden of my plea.
  There has been a strong feeling that we should be moving away from the winding-up principle, involving transfer values and cash equivalents, and towards valuing the system. We should be assuming that pension schemes will continue. We should value them on a continuing basis, and move towards a contributions basis with that in mind.
  The actuary to the scheme should be invited and asked to draw up a schedule of contributions, the aim of which is to ensure that, at all times, the assets in the scheme keep closely in touch with—and I hope, in the majority of cases, up to 100 per cent. up to—the safety level outlined in the Goode committee report.
  There is no doubt that, with the minimum funding requirement, there is a possibility that people may coast and allow the asset valuation to drop, and to sag, if I may use that metaphor, below the safety point, no doubt with the well-intentioned view that, at some point in a year or two, they can put in a major cash injection and save the position.
  The trouble, of course, is that, if disaster strikes, we get a point where winding-up comes just when the sag is at its deepest. As a result, people may find that what they thought were well-protected and safely guarded assets are, at least in part, missing, and that their pension promise has unfortunately gone with the wind. Obviously, we are anxious to avoid that.
  The minimum solvency requirement has problems in terms of expense. As at present drawn, it assumes a substantial shift from equities to gilts, even after the compromise to which I referred has been taken into account. There is an argument about the costs. I do not want to go into that, because we did so at some length in Committee. But briefly, if I remember correctly, the Minister takes the view, based on the cost compliance memorandum, that the shift will be between £5 billion and £12 billion over a period. He put that at a cost to funds of between £300 million and £400 million over a 12-year period.
  That is a substantial sum of money and shift, and should not be shrugged off, but it is challenged in any event. The CBI is unsure whether its sample was as big as the Minister would have liked, and whether it was conducted before the adjustment was made to the formula, but it talked in terms of a £1.9 billion cost over 10 years. Even allowing for the adjustment, clearly those are substantial costs.
  My real concern is that, even now, the minimum funding requirement flatters to deceive, and has the inherent dangers to which I have referred. I did not look up the actual reference, but I clearly have in my mind an
  150
  exchange between myself and the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security in Committee on independent custodianship. The burden of his argument was that such custodianship should not be introduced because it flattered to deceive, to use a phrase that I have just mentioned: it offered or appeared to offer guarantees, or it would be seen and understood to offer guarantees that it could not offer. That was one of the main reasons why the Under-Secretary of State, with the aid of his hon. Friends, successfully resisted in Committee the introduction of independent custodianship.
  If that is a decisive argument in that case—I understand it, although I do not accept it—and if that is the opinion of the Under-Secretary of State, it seems to me that that opinion should be transferred into the aspect that we are discussing under the new clause, and that he should consider carefully whether there is a danger of inviting the public to assume that there is a guarantee when no guarantee exists.
  I accept that it is difficult to offer a guarantee; on that we are united. However, I believe that the contributions approach—a contributions approach that would be joined to a central discontinuance fund—holds out promise of genuine progress and improvement. I argued that alternative approach in Committee, and the Under-Secretary of State remained unconvinced. I hope that, in the intervening time—that was one of our earlier debates in a lengthy consideration in Committee—he may have had some second thoughts.
  The clause is not revolutionary. Some of my hon. Friends would say that I am not noted for revolutions, but in any event it is not revolutionary. It has been drawn sensibly in terms of enabling legislation, asking the Minister to consult and, by regulations, make provision for
  "the establishment of one or more bodies corporate, to be known as central discontinuance funds".
  It does not try to pretend that it can draft the framework and regulations at this stage, from the Opposition Benches—that would be arrogant and counter-productive. It is better, on this level, if the Minister is prepared to entertain the argument.
  The shift to the contribution basis makes sense. It would make it easier for people to keep in line with the pension promise and the liabilities they shoulder. The central discontinuance fund is an important safeguard—although I accept that there are arguments on both sides—because it assumes that, rather than compulsory winding up or continuing in a closed scheme, there is the option of handing the assets over to the central discontinuance fund and continuing to operate the scheme under its auspices.
  We thereby get away from the present position, in which, if an unexpected disaster arises or if there is a shortfall, there may be no option but to wind up. As the Minister knows, there have been one or two outstanding examples of that happening, and substantial percentages of accrued rights have had to be written off. I emphasise that I would expect the central discontinuance fund to operate on the basis that it takes over the assets and then calculates what it can afford to undertake, given the yield of those assets and their likely history in its hands.

  151
  There is no doubt that that continuity is advantageous. Winding up has the unpleasant side effects that I mentioned. With a closed fund, there are difficulties concerning trustees, administrative costs tend to be great, and there is little opportunity for growth.
  I emphasise that the central discontinuance fund would arise only where the employer has gone to the wall. Self-evidently, if the employer continued to trade, the employer would still have to shoulder the pension promise. If there were fraud, the central discontinuance fund would not arise, because the compensation scheme set out in the Bill would take charge. However, there are substantial arguments for a central discontinuance scheme in cases where the employer has gone to the wall.
  As I understand it, there was in the mind of the Minister of State one especially substantial argument against a central discontinuance scheme—the fact that the Opposition, who are proposing that scheme, were hopelessly over-sanguine about the possibility of a deficit emerging. I quoted Watsons, the well-known firm of actuaries, to suggest that it was a comparatively remote possibility, and one that would be eminently manageable and easy to cope with.
  We are told that the Government are less sanguine, although I think that it is fair to say that, when the Minister gave evidence to the Goode committee—the Pension Law Review Committee—he took the line that there was virtue in a central discontinuance fund system. However, the Minister certainly relied on his rather more pessimistic assumptions, and also talked about the American experience with the Pensions Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
  I do not want to plunge into such technicalities on Report, when we have already canvassed them very heavily. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is a substantial body of opinion that backs the approach that I take.
  I do not for a moment deny that there will be critics on the other side of the argument. As always—this is perhaps a happy reference at this hour and place—there will be those who will stay with the devil they know even though they are unlikely to take much satisfaction from it. In any event, there is no doubt that there is a strong body of support for the approach that I am outlining.
  4 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether we need regulations to make provision for the establishment of central discontinuance funds? Why should not the CBI set up its own central discontinuance fund pension scheme, to which the trustees of schemes that have gone bust could transfer assets and liabilities?
  Mr. Dewar: That may be a private enterprise solution that commends itself to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not sneer at his proposal. However, there is a general assumption on both sides of the House, and clearly in the mind of the Minister, that where we are offering safeguards for the pension promise and building an essential regulatory framework as the guarantee of security after public confidence has been heavily shaken in the aftermath of the Maxwell scandal and, less
  152
  dramatically, by the ravages of recession, which put many pension funds under pressure, such a fund should be on a statutory basis and supervised by the Government.
  That is why we are in the business of minimum solvency or funding levels, and I certainly would not want to depart from that. I am told that it would not be too difficult technically for the Government to move on that within the framework of the Bill. That is why new clause 3 has been drafted as it has.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield diverts me. I was going to point out to the Minister, as I come towards the end of my remarks, that the weight of opinion seems to be for my side of the argument, although not 100 per cent. behind me. The Minister recently paraded with great pride the Prudential insurance company and a memorandum from it. I am not sure that the arguments that it advanced were not equally valid against minimum funding levels. They were equally applicable in both cases. It was a reminder that perfection is hard to come by.
  There is support for a central discontinuance fund, through a contributions approach, from the Trades Union Congress, which has worked extremely hard on the issue and found, as it pushed the argument along, that it was not travelling alone. We had a great deal of support in the House of Lords. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Eatwell, who particularly espoused the cause. When he first brought it to me, I was somewhat cynical, but my enthusiasm grew as the argument progressed. The Pensions Management Institute, the PMI, strongly favours it, and a number of firms and important funds have said at least that they want it to be further investigated.
  I would especially like to draw to the Minister's attention the position of the CBI. I do not say that it is the fount of all wisdom—it would regard me with considerable suspicion if I argued that case—but it has some experience, and has spent a good deal of time considering what is on offer and what seem to it to be the best options. The best and easiest thing is for me to remind the Minister of the briefing material—he probably knows it—that the CBI produced for this debate. I will read it only briefly into the record, as the Minister, ever-efficient, has the very text on his lap.
  The briefing states:
  "There is … concern among CBI members that the MFR"—
  the minimum funding requirement—
  "would become more restrictive—and thus costly—over time. There would seem merit, therefore, in giving further consideration to the idea of an on-going funding standard backed by a central discontinuance fund (CDF) or funds. This would allow the trustees, in cases where the employer becomes insolvent, to transfer the scheme's assets and liabilities to a CDF which would operate as a pension fund and could invest in equities as do on-going schemes. Members would be protected as the benefits produced by a CDF should prove higher in the long term than could be expected from the current alternatives",
  which are winding up or going on as a closed scheme.
  The briefing continues:
  "We would, therefore, support the addition of a clause which would enable, but not require, central discontinuance funds to be set up. This would facilitate the move to an on-going funding standard in the future if, after further study, it appeared the better proposal."
  I accept that that is cautious. The CBI is not supporting the notion 100 per cent., but it makes it clear that it believes there are potential advantages, that the scheme should be considered and that machinery should be included in the Bill to allow progress along that route if,

  153
  as the CBI clearly thinks, it is likely to turn out to be the best approach. It is very much in that spirit that the clause has been drafted and is being moved.
  The Minister should reconsider and leave the option open. He must recognise that, although he may be able to quote cynics on one side of the argument, many people believe that the new clause is the right way forward. A little flexibility in government would mean that the debate could reasonably be pursued without the feeling that the door had been slammed on the proposal because there was no room for it in the current legislation. We want to get away from that kind of full stop and make a constructive attempt to get the right answer to a difficult problem.
  Ms Judith Church: I shall add only a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, in his usual superb way. This is an important but complex debate. There are several clear principles which highlight the need for the new clause.
  The case for a central discontinuance fund rests on three pillars: the inadequacy of having only a minimum funding requirement; the practical benefits of a central discontinuance fund; and the experience of how other countries with a CDF operate it.
  The essential problem with the Government's proposals is that, like Goode, they are trying to reconcile incompatible goals. With only an MFR, it is impossible to encourage long-term efficiency. It requires high-yield equity holdings while prioritising short-term security, which of course requires low-yield gilt. The MFR is too stringent for the first objective and too lax for the second. With just an MFR, the cost of full security—in terms of higher consumer premiums and effects on the equity market—is simply too great.
  The practical benefits of a CDF are clear. It would provide a low-cost complement to an MFR and make up for the deficit in security that exists if we remained with only an MFR. It would provide a cost reduction, because it would pool the risk of fund failure among all the schemes. The Government's approach will require all schemes to "insure", via the shift towards gilts, on the basis of an individual fund's probability of collapse.
  In contrast, a CDF would enable schemes to "insure", via a very small industry levy, on the basis of the aggregate probability of collapse. Because of the much lower aggregate probability of collapse, the cost of security under a CDF would be much smaller than under the Government MFR. Only through a central fund could one get such economies of scale and exploit them fully. The final result with a CDF would be a low-cost comprehensive insurance scheme for all pension funds.
  I shall refer finally to the experience of the operation of a CDF in other countries, which has been discussed in another place and in Committee. The practical evidence from other countries not only endorses all the arguments we have made today but expands the case for having a CDF in the UK pensions market.
  Finland, for example, has an exceptionally well-functioning CDF. Beyond the core advantages that I have already mentioned, it has further value-added benefits. As set out by the Government Actuary in his report to the Goode committee, the Finnish CDF acts as a clearing house for financial adjustments between schemes to permit the whole of an individual's pension to be paid by a single employer. That overcomes a major
  154
  weakness of occupational pensions, in that they discourage mobility between jobs and reduce labour market flexibility.
  The Japanese also have a very good CDF. In an economy such as theirs, with a heavy reliance on corporate social welfare and widespread occupational pensions, a CDF is regarded as an essential part of the market structure. Of course, America has an effective CDF too. Since 1974, when the Pensions Benefit Guaranty Corporation was established, the benefits of thousands of scheme members in the United States have been saved from a failure of their pension fund. Indeed, America is very similar to Japan, in that there is minimal state provision and significant corporate social welfare. Just as in the Japanese system, the CDF is viewed in America as a necessary part of an efficient market.
  The Government have held up the American CDF as a reason for not proceeding with a UK CDF, but their arguments simply do not stand up. The only caveat to success in the American instance has been a tendency towards deficit in the CDF, but that has been more related to the specific nature of the American experience than to the principle of a CDF itself. That could easily be avoided in the British CDF, by allowing only the entry of schemes from firms which have ceased trading.
  The lessons from those international examples are clear: provided that there is prudent implementation, a CDF would deliver in practice the advantages which make it so attractive in theory. Overall, a CDF would bring security to the benefit promise, and it would be efficient, equitable and just.
  In our evolving pensions market, with increased reliance on the private sector, the dangers of a fund collapse need to be taken more seriously. It is no accident that, in countries where there is widespread private provision, a CDF is an integral component of the market mechanism. We must take note of the theoretical reasoning, the practical evidence, and, above all, the real concerns of our constituents when we consider the new clause. If we truly take note of those aspects, there can be only one answer: this House must support this well-thought-out, widely supported and universally beneficial proposal.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) has spelled out the economic arguments for a central discontinuance fund very well, and I shall not detain the House further on those issues. The root of our argument is that it is better for people who pay into occupational pension funds to pool the unlikely risk of their employer winding up his business, and their pension therefore being put in jeopardy, than for each pension fund to pay a separate risk payment.
  We debated the matter at length in Committee, and the Minister and I agreed at the end of the day that there was no such thing as a free lunch for anybody in a pension fund. I am prompted to return to the issue, however, because since that debate I have received a letter from David Morgan, the group pensions manager of Nestlé, the largest manufacturer in my constituency. I have no financial interest whatever to declare, and I raise the matter simply because thousands of my constituents are Nestlé pensioners or members of the Nestlé pension scheme.

  155
  In the letter, Mr. Morgan says:
  "We do have severe worries about the level of cost volatility which could emerge from the current minimum funding proposals … It is with some interest that we saw the recent TUC paper revive the concept of a central discontinuance fund or pension protection fund as originally conceived by Watsons and espoused by the Government Actuary.
  If this could be made to work, it would be a preferable solution."
  Mr. Morgan also urges the Government to keep an open mind, study further the proposal for a CDF and express their willingness—I hope the Minister will respond to this point in particular—to keep the matter under review, and to change horses if a practical way of establishing such a fund is found.
  4.15 pm
  I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the new clause does not require the Secretary of State to establish a CDF; it simply permits him, now or in the future, to do so if he thinks fit. It provides the Minister with the opportunity to continue to study the issue. If, at some stage, he then feels it appropriate to bring forward proposals for a CDF that the pension funds think might help to reduce the cost of individually insuring against the unlikely event of winding up, the Minister could do so without having to return to the House with primary legislation.
  In Committee, we debated whether the Government would have to be a backer of last resort if such a fund were established. Of course, that is a possibility; indeed, they took on that responsibility for the Maxwell pensioners. However, the backer-of-last-resort responsibility could be shared by those pension funds that decided to cover their liability, in the event of a wind-up, through a CDF.
  Mr. Morgan expressed concern that, under the Bill, the burden of the minimum funding requirement would put pressure on all employers to consider whether they could continue with final salary pension schemes. Indeed, he predicts that there will be a reduction in the number of such schemes—although he does not think that there will be any change in his company, he feels that there will be in others—and that there will be an increase in money purchase schemes.
  If that is the case, it will underline the need to try to reduce the burden of the minimum funding requirement. It would be wise and prudent of the House to establish, as the new clause proposes, provision for a CDF, should the need arise and should a practical scheme for doing so be developed.
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, we debated this matter at great length in Committee. It is a complicated issue, and I have no objection to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues raising it again in this non-revolutionary way.
  In a moment, I shall deal with the argument whether a central discontinuance fund is a viable alternative to the Government's proposals. However, given that much of this debate stems from concern about the possible impact of the minimum funding requirement, it might be appropriate to offer reassurance—adding to what I said in Committee—to people such as the manager of Nestlé, to
  156
  whom the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) referred, and the CBI, whose briefing was referred to by the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  It is important to remember what the MFR is intended to achieve. It is about providing security for members so that, whatever happens to the sponsoring employer, they can expect pensions already in payment to continue and younger members to receive a fair actuarial value of their accrued rights. That is all we are asking for.
  We know from our survey that most schemes usually fund at a higher level, and it is right that they should continue to do so. In developing our proposals for the MFR, since the publication of the Goode report and last year's White Paper we have commissioned extensive analysis and consulted widely. We have made a number of changes—which I will not go over again, but which the hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned—which were laid out in the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who is now one of the country's most celebrated recipients of unsolicited mail of a highly technical nature. The changes have ensured that the likely costs of the MFR to British industry are those that are shown in the compliance cost assessment published with the Bill. They should also avoid any risk of a substantial shift in UK pension fund assets from equities into gilts.
  Our proposals for the MFR incorporate other flexibilities which I want to stress. In the extreme case of a scheme falling below the 90 per cent. level, we have fully accepted the case for secure alternatives—for example, funds held in a safe but separate account, or the provision of ring-fenced unencumbered assets. With the arrangements in place, members would be provided with security, and employers would have flexibility to spread cash contributions over a longer period than one year to restore the fund to the 90 per cent. level.
  The Bill also incorporates provision for the regulatory authority to extend the MFR time limits. That is intended to be an exceptional measure, but it does introduce an important safeguard into the arrangements. The exercise of the authority's discretion will be governed by regulations, and we will be consulting on what the regulatory framework should be.
  We envisage that an application to extend the MFR time limit could be made by either the trustees or the employer, but in the latter case, the regulatory authority would want to know the trustees' views on the application. As to the circumstances in which an extension might be granted, we envisage that an extension would be appropriate where an unforeseen external event outside the control of the employer or the trustees had resulted in a reduction in the scheme's funding level. We envisage that the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority would be more prepared to consider extending the time limit where there was objective evidence of an unusual divergence between gilt and equity yields.
  The regulatory authority would need to consider whether the scheme was properly administered with clean accounts, and the extent to which the drop in funding levels had been affected by internal factors such as benefit enhancement or substantial pay rises. It will be possible to ensure that we have good practice, guidance and sound regulation in those areas.
  The regulatory authority would need to take into account the probability of the scheme recovering—perhaps on the back of a longer-term funding commitment

  157
  from the employer, or, once time had been allowed for the employer to realise assets, to meet pension commitments. The important point that we will need to bear in mind in drawing the relevant regulations is the need to avoid any further deterioration in the security of scheme members. Subject to that, there should be considerable scope for a pragmatic application of this power. That should be reassuring to many companies.
  The power would be capable of being exercised in individual cases, but we would envisage it coming into play on a more general basis if there were, for example, extreme movements in equity yields relative to gilts, or a catastrophic stock market fall from which recovery was probable, but not likely to be immediate. In such circumstances, we envisage that the regulations would provide for the regulatory authority to authorise extensions to the time limit for all applicant schemes which met certain basic criteria.
  As a final safety valve, the Bill contains a power in clause 60 to modify the application of the MFR clauses in relation to particular schemes or classes of scheme. If evidence emerged that employers sponsoring a particular category scheme were being, or were likely to be, adversely and unnecessarily affected by their MFR, it would be possible to bring about a sensible resolution of the difficulty by using this power. I hope that that gives some reassurance about the MFR.
  That should deal with the reasons why people have put forward a central discontinuance fund as an alternative. In response to the new clause and the arguments that have been made for it, I shall state why I believe that the arguments in favour of a central discontinuance fund are highly questionable.
  I come first to the issue of administrative costs. Economies of scale will be realised only if a decision were taken to standardise the benefits provided by a central discontinuance fund. That would inevitably disadvantage some individuals, in so far as it would mean changing the nature of the benefits promised. More fundamental to the debate is the assumption that a central discontinuance fund could safely invest in equities. I seriously doubt whether that would be appropriate. A central discontinuance fund would tend to collect the liabilities of pensioner members and deferred members close to retirement. It would become a more and more mature scheme.
  The Trades Union Congress has said:
  "Schemes that have most of their liabilities in the future can justify a more risky investment strategy than those who are already paying substantial pensions each year."
  But the CDF would be in that position. If it is true of an individual pension fund, where the employer stands behind the scheme to make good any deficit, the need for a prudent investment strategy is all the more evident in the case of a central fund.
  In order to avoid any risk of members' benefits being reduced in a central fund, individual schemes would need to be funded at a level that would enable them to meet the central discontinuance fund's transfer premium. Those transfer terms would inevitably become a de facto funding standard based on a more prudent investment policy than that used by many on-going schemes.
  If that did not happen, and the central fund simply took over whatever assets the transferring scheme happened to hold, without having been funded to meet the transfer
  158
  terms, either members would take a cut in their benefits or the risk of the central fund running into deficit would be greater.
  It is difficult to see how the costs to sponsoring employers could be lower than those attributable to the proposed minimum funding requirement, which serves to underline the fundamental truth, which I set out in Committee, about there being no free lunch. Security has a price. It is not possible to improve security without some costs. Another misconception is that there would be little risk of a discontinuance fund falling into deficit.
  As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, there is a disagreement about that. He has quoted Watsons, a firm of actuaries. But other actuaries have come to a quite different conclusion. The Government Actuary took the view that, if a high equity investment strategy were adopted or optimistic rates of return were used in the valuation, the risk of a shortfall could be much greater. We have to consider how manageable even a small deficit would be, given the potential size of a central fund over time.
  Although a central fund would provide for risk to be pooled, as I think the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) said, it would not reduce the aggregate level of risk. It would merely increase the size of any potential deficit. If we set up a CDF, we might find large deficits, and we might find someone taking on an open-ended liability. We know that the CBI does not agree that employers should be liable to meet that deficit. The Government do not believe that it would be a suitable use of taxpayers' money to underwrite such a fund.
  The other option would be to reduce members' benefits, but I am sure that none of us would seriously want to advocate that as an option, as it would fail to provide members with the security they would expect from a central fund established under statute. That brings me to the crux of the various proposals for a CDF. The apparent agreement in support of a central fund does not rest on a common understanding of what is intended or any common objective in terms of the degree of protection that it is intended to provide for members, who would consequently shoulder the burden of risk in the event of a shortfall.
  The central discontinuance fund is a superficially attractive alternative to the MFR. Some people have been attracted to it because they have seen in it a way of providing security without the increase in costs which, we concede, the MFR is likely to entail for some people and some companies. But a CDF does not succeed in escaping from the basic issue—increased security can come only at some increased cost somewhere in the system.
  Therefore, the Government's strongly preferred approach is to ensure that the MFR works—to ensure that the flexibility is built into our arrangements for the MFR, so that it works in the future. I hope that what I have been able to say about the MFR has reassured people about that, and that what I have said about a central discontinuance fund has convinced hon. Members that it would not be the right course to pursue.
  Mr. Dewar: The man has a hard heart, and I can see that he has not been prepared to make any concessions since the Committee stage. I am perhaps a cynic, but I must confess that, when Ministers start dealing in fundamental truths, I start looking for the exit—and the Minister was strong on that today.
  I do not accept the Minister's argument. I think that there is merit in holding the door open for the possibility of a discontinuance fund system on a contributions basis.

  159
  I accept that there will be alterations if pension fund assets pass to discontinuance funds. Clearly, they will have to examine the assets and what they are likely to produce in deciding what kind of promises can be delivered. They may not be the same as the original fund, depending on the size of the deficit and the crash.
  4.30 pm
  Despite what the Minister said about equities and a cautious approach, I still think that this is a better option than simply winding up the scheme, with the immediate short-term losses that may emerge. It is not a matter of trying to produce a miracle cure of absolute security without anyone having to pay more to achieve it. That is not the line of argument that we have tried to deploy in this case. We believe that there will be costs involved with both schemes—there is no doubt about that. However, by moving to contributions and away from a winding-up to a continuing basis, we think that there is a better chance of ensuring increased security as against the present proposals.
  That is a matter for argument and debate. The primacy of purpose must be to try to produce a stable scheme that will offer, at affordable cost, the maximum security for those who invested in pension funds. On the advice that I have received, I regret what the Minister has said about not being prepared to entertain further change.
  I intend to put the matter to the vote, since I recognise that it will not be settled in the next few minutes by further argument across the Dispatch Box.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 271.

  Division No. 192]

  [4.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tom (Monkands W)

  Alton, David

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Coffey, Ann

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbett, Robin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Corston, Jean

  Beggs, Roy

  Cousins, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blunkett, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Darling, Alistair

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davidson, Ian

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

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Byers, Stephen

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Callaghan, Jim

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

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Denham, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dewar, Donald

  Campbell, Savours, D N

  Dixon, Don

  Cann, Jamie

  Dobson, Frank

  Chidgey, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Dowd, Jim

  Church, Judith

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Clapham, Michael

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  160

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCartney, Robert (N Devon)

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Flynn, Paul

  McFall, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foulkes, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mc William, John

  Galloway, George

  Madden, Max

  Garrett, John

  Mendelson, Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marek, Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martlew, Eric

  Graham, Thomas

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Meacher, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hain, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hall, Mike

  Milburn, Alan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Henderson, Doug

  Mudie, George

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Mullin, Chris

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Murphy, Paul

  Hinchliffe, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hogg, Norman(Cumbernauld)

  Olner, Bill

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Ian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pike, Peter L

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pope, Greg

  Hoyle, Doug

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hutton, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Illsley, Eric

  Radice, Giles

  Ingram, Adam

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Reid, Dr John

  Rendel, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jamieson, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Janner, Greville

  Rocker, Jeff

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Salmond, Alex

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jowell, Tessa

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Khabra, Piara S

  Short, Clare

  Simpson, Alan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Litherland, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Livingstone, Ken

  Soley, Clive

  161

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wallace, James

  Speller, John

  Walley, Joan

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Watson, Mike

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Welsh, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Straw, Jack

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wise, Audrey

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Touhig, Don

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mrs. Barbara Roche.

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Couchman, James

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Cran, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baldry, Tony

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Elletson, Harold

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Faber, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  French, Douglas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Gallie, Phil

  Burt, Alistair

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butcher, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butler, Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gillen, Cheryl

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Cash, William

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gorst, Sir John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hague, William

  Colvin, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hannam, Sir John

  162

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawksley, Warren

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Page, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Paice, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pickles, Eric

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

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

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jack, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sims, Roger

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lord, Michael

  Stephen, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sumberg, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sweeney, Walter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mans, Keith

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Thomason, Roy

  Marlow, Tony

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mates, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Merchant, Piers

  Tredinnick, David

  Mills, Iain

  Trend, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waller, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waterson, Nigel

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Watts, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wells, Bowen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whitney, Ray

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Whittingdale, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Norris, Steve

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  163

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 23

  PENSIONS ON DIVORCE, ETC.: SCOTLAND
  `.—(1) In section 8(1) (orders for financial provision) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 ("the 1985 Act"), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
  "(ba) an order under section 12A(2) or (3) of this Act;".
  .(2) In section 10 of the 1985 Act (sharing of value of matrimonial property)—
  (a) in subsection (5)—

  (i) after "party" there is inserted "(a)"; and

  (ii) for "or occupational pension scheme or similar arrangement" there is substituted—" "or similar arrangement; and (b) in any benefits under a pension scheme which either party has or may have (including such benefits payable in respect of the death of either party), which is"; and

  (b) after subsection (7) there is inserted—
  "(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

  (a) for the value of any benefits under a pension scheme to be calculated and verified, for the purposes of this Act, in a prescribed manner;

  (b) for the trustees or managers of any pension scheme to provide, for the purposes of this Act, information as to that value, and for the recovery of the administrative expenses of providing such information from either party, and regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a) above may provide for that value to be calculated and verified in accordance with guidance which is prepared and from time to time revised by a prescribed body and approved by the Secretary of State.

  (9) Regulations under subsection (8) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (10) In this section—
  "benefits under a pension scheme" includes any benefits by way of pension, whether under a pension scheme or not;
  "pension scheme" means—

  (a) an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension scheme (applying the definitions in section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, but as if the reference to employed earners in the definition of "personal pension scheme" were to any earners);

  (b) a retirement annuity contract; or

  (c) an annuity, or insurance policy, purchased or transferred for the purpose of giving effect to rights under a pension scheme falling within paragraph (a) above; and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations.

  (11) In this section, references to the trustees or managers of a pension scheme—

  (a) in relation to a contract or annuity referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) of the definition of "pension scheme" in subsection (10) above, shall be read as references to the provider of the annuity;

  164

  (b) in relation to insurance policy referred to in paragraph (c) of that definition, shall be read as a reference to the insurer.".

  (3) After section 12 of the 1985 Act there is inserted—
  "Orders for payment of capital sum: pensions lump sums
  12A.—(1) This section applies where the court makes an order under section 8(2) of this Act for payment of a capital sum (a "capital sum order") by a party to the marriage ("the liable party") in circumstances where—

  (a) the matrimonial property within the meaning of section 10 of this Act includes any rights or interests in benefits under a pension scheme which the liable party has or may have (whether such benefits are payable to him or in respect of his death); and

  (b) those benefits include a lump sum payable to him or in respect of his death.

  (2) Where the benefits referred to in subsection (1) above include a lump sum payable to the liable party, the court, on making the capital sum order, may make an order requiring the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, to the other party to the marriage ("the other party").
  (3) Where the benefits referred to in subsection (1) above include a lump sum payable in respect of the death of the liable party, the court, on making the capital sum order, may make an order—

  (a) if the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question have power to determine the person to whom the sum, or any part of it, is to be paid, requiring them to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, to the other party;

  (b) if the liable party has power to nominate the person to whom the sum, or any part of it, is to be paid, requiring the liable party to nominate the other party in respect of the whole or part of that sum;

  (c) in any other case, requiring the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, to the other party instead of to the person to whom, apart from the order, it would be paid.

  (4) Any payment by the trustees or managers under an order under subsection (2) or (3) above—

  (a) shall discharge so much of the trustees' or managers' liability to or in respect of the liable party as corresponds to the amount of the payment; and

  (b) shall be treated for all purposes as a payment made by the liable party in or towards the discharge of his liability under the capital sum order.

  (5) Where the liability of the liable party under the capital sum order has been discharged in whole or in part, other than by a payment by the trustees or managers under an order under subsection (2) or (3) above, the court may, on an application by the any person having an interest, recall any order under either of those subsections or vary the amount specified in such an order, as appears to the court appropriate in the circumstances.
  (6) Where—

  (a) an order under subsection (2) or (3) above imposes any requirement on the trustees or managers of a pension scheme ("the first scheme") and the liable party acquires transfer credits under another scheme ("the new scheme") which are derived (directly or indirectly) from a transfer from the first scheme of all his accrued rights under that scheme; and

  (b) the trustees or managers of the new scheme have been given notice in accordance with regulations under subsection (8) below, the order shall have effect as if it had been made instead in respect of the trustees or managers of the new scheme; and in this subsection "transfer credits" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.

  165
  (7) Without prejudice to subsection (6) above, the court may, on an application by any person having an interest, vary an order under subsection (2) or (3) above by substituting for the trustees or managers specified in the order the trustees or managers of any other pension scheme under which any lump sum referred to in subsection (1) above is payable to the liable party or in respect of his death.
  (8) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

  (a) require notices to be given in respect of changes of circumstances relevant to orders under subsection (2) or (3) above;

  (b) make provision for the recovery of the administrative expenses of complying with such orders from the liable party or the other party.

  (9) Regulations under subsection (8) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (10) Subsection (10) (other than the definition of "benefits under a pension scheme") and subsection (11) of section 10 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as those subsections apply for the purposes of that section.".
  (4) Nothing in the provisions mentioned in section 164(5) above applies to a court exercising its powers under section 8 (orders for financial provision on divorce, etc.) or 12A (orders for payment of capital sum: pensions lump sums) of the 1985 Act in respect of any benefits under a pension scheme which fall within subsection (5)(b) of section 10 of that Act ("pension scheme" having the meaning given in subsection (10) of that section).'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 1—Pensions on divorce, etc.—
  'In the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, after section 24A there is inserted—

  Pensions
  24B—(1) On granting a decree of divorce, a decree of nullity of marriage or a decree of judicial separation or at any time thereafter (whether, in the case of a decree of divorce or of nullity of marriage, before or after the decree is made absolute), the court may make a pensions adjustment order (referred to in this section as "an order") for the benefit of a party to the marriage.
  (2) An order shall where the court so determines bind a person who is not a party to the marriage but who is liable to pay any benefit under a pension scheme to a party to the marriage or any successor to such a person.
  (3) An order is an order adjusting the rights and benefits to which either party to the marriage is or may become entitled to under any pension scheme and in particular the court may by such an order require—

  (a) either party to the marriage to pay to the other such lump sum or sums as may be specified in the order (without prejudice to any other order which may be made under section 23(1) or (3)); or

  (b) the administrator of a pension scheme to treat the party to the marriage in favour of whom the order is to be made as a member of the pension scheme in relation to such benefits as may be specified in the order which were acquired by the other party to the marriage before the decree of divorce or nullity was made absolute or before the decree of judicial separation, or

  (c) the administrator of a pension scheme to make such payment or payments as may be specified in the order into such other pension schemes as may be nominated by the party to the marriage in favour of whom the order is made, or

  166

  (d) the administrator of a pension scheme to pay such part of any pension as may be specified in the order to the party in favour of whom the order is made for such term as may be specified not extending beyond the death of either party to the marriage, or

  (e) the administrator of a pension scheme to pay such part of any dependant's pension as may be specified in the order to the party in favour of whom the order is made for such term as may be specified beginning with the death of the other party to the marriage and not extending beyond the death of the party in whose favour the order is made, or

  (f) either party to the marriage to pay such administrative costs incurred by the administrator of the pension scheme in responding to any application for an order or in implementing an order.

  (4) An order shall not be made—

  (a) under subsection (3)(b) above unless the administrator of the pension scheme consents to membership of the pension scheme for the party to the marriage who is not already a member of the pension scheme, or

  (b) under subsection (3)(c) above unless the court is satisfied that the administrator of the pension scheme nominated by the party in whose favour the order may be made has agreed to accept such payment or payments, and in the event of the administrator being unwilling to accept such payment or payments he may be required to notify the parties to the marriage and the court.

  (5) It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under this section and, if so, in what manner to have regard in particular to—

  (a) the matters referred to in section 25 save for the words "in the foreseeable future" in section 25(2)(a), (b) and (f), and

  (b) the effect that child care or other domestic responsibilities have had or will have on the ability of each of the parties to the marriage to make provision for his retirement, and

  (c) any administrative complexity or cost to the administrator of the pension scheme.

  (6) The Secretary of State in agreement with the Lord Chancellor shall by regulations provide for the date and method of valuation to be applied by the court to rights under a pension scheme when making an order and to provide for notice of any application for an order to be given to the administrator of the pension scheme.
  (7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as may be appropriate to meet the special circumstances of unfunded public sector schemes by varying or excluding the powers of the court under this section.
  (8) Nothing in the provisions mentioned in subsection (9) below applies to a court exercising its powers under this section.
  (9) The provisions referred to in subsection (8) are—

  (a) section 203(1) and (2) of the Army Act 1955, section 203(1) and (2) of the Air Force Act 1955, section 128G(1) and (2) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or section 159(4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (which prevent assignment or orders being made restraining a person from receiving anything which he is prevented from assigning);

  (b) section 84 of the Pensions Act 1995;

  (c) any provision for any enactment corresponding to any of the enactments mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b); and

  (d) any provision of the pension scheme in question.

  (10) the making of an order shall in no circumstances form the basis of any decision made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to remove the exempt approved status or to alter the tax status of a pension scheme provided that—

  167

  (a) the party to the marriage in whose favour an order has been made shall be treated for the purpose of retention of benefits as the member; and

  (b) the maximum benefits payable to and in respect of the party to the marriage whose rights have been varied by the order shall be limited to the benefits that would have been payable if the order had not been made.

  (11) No order or orders shall be made which shall have the effect of increasing the liabilities of any pension scheme beyond those which might have been incurred had the parties to the marriage remained married until the death of the party against whom the order is to be made.
  (12) After paragraphs (2)(f) of section 31 there shall be inserted:
  "(g) any order made under section 24B(3)(d) or (e) above"
  (13) After subparagraph (ii) in section 35(2) there shall be inserted:
  "or (iii) by adjusting the rights and benefits to which either party to the marriage is or may become entitled under any pension scheme."
  (14) Nothing in this section shall affect any proceedings commenced before the commencement of this section.
  (15) In this section—
  "administrator" means the trustees of an occupational pension scheme or the administrators or managers of such a scheme in the absence of trustees or the administrators or managers of a personal pension plan;
  "member" means a member of an occupational pension scheme or a person having a personal pension plan or retirement benefit plan or other similar arrangement; and
  "pension scheme" means an occupational pension scheme or personal pension scheme or retirement benefit plan or other similar arrangement.'.
  New clause 2—Pensions on divorce, etc (Life Assurance)—
  'In the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, after section 24B there is inserted:

  Life Assurance
  24C—(1) On granting a decree of divorce, a decree of nullity of marriage or a decree of judicial separation or at any time thereafter (whether, in the case of a decree of divorce or of nullity of marriage, before or after the decree is made absolute), the court may make an order requiring either party to the marriage—

  (a) to nominate the other party to the marriage or a child of the family for such benefits under a pension scheme as may be specified in the order,

  (b) to effect such policy or policies of life assurance for the benefit of the other party to the marriage or of a child of the family as may be specified in the order,

  (c) to nominate the other party to the marriage or a child of the family as a beneficiary under any existing policy or policies of life assurance as may be specified in the order, and

  (d) to make such contributions to a pension scheme and pay such premiums in respect of a policy of life assurance for such term as may be specified in the order.

  (2) Any order made under subsection (1) above may contain such directions for the compliance with any conditions for the implementation and maintenance of such life assurance (including medical examination) as the court thinks fit.
  (3) It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under this section and, if so, in what manner to have regard in particular to the matters referred to in section 24B(5).
  (4) After paragraph (2)(g) of section 31, there shall be inserted:
  "(h) any order made under section 24C above."
  (5) Nothing in this section shall affect any proceedings commenced before the commencement of this section.
  (6) In this section "pension scheme" shall have the meaning referred to in section 24B(15) of this Act.".'.
  New clause 5—Pension provision on death of person not providing for spouse —
  `There shall be inserted in section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (Power of court to make orders) a new paragraph—
  "(g) an order in respect of any pension rights of the deceased.".'.
  Amendment No. 2, in clause 164, page 121, leave out from beginning of line 25 to end of line 26 on page 124.
  Amendment No. 6, in clause 164, page 121, line 26, after '1973', insert
  `in section 25 there is inserted after subsection (1)—
  "(1 A) Where a court is satisfied that it has not had regard to any pension in deciding whether to exercise its powers under sections 23, 24 or 24A above, it shall have power to vary any order which it has made to take account of that pension".
  (1A) In that Act,'.
  Government amendments Nos. 69 to 72.
  Amendment No. 3, in clause 164, page 122, line 15, after 'question', insert
  `(a) to ensure that the other party is informed of the extent of those rights, and (b)'.
  Government amendments Nos. 73 to 81.
  Amendment No. 4, in clause 176, page 129, line 26, leave out '165' and insert '164'.
  Amendment No. 5, in clause 176, page 129, leave out lines 29 to 31.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) predicted in Committee, we are once again discussing the difficult topic of pensions on divorce.
  I shall deal with the new clauses and amendments in some detail. New clause 1 is intended to provide a comprehensive pension splitting system. It would give the courts power to divide pension rights between divorcing spouses. Groups lobbying on behalf of ex-wives have suggested that divorce settlements could be made more equitable if courts could give them a share of their husband's pension. We must remember, however, that whatever provisions the courts are required to apply must be gender-neutral. As we know, the issue raises important and wide-ranging arguments, some of which we rehearsed in Committee. It was apparent from our thoughtful debate in Committee that there are no simple solutions in dealing with any of these issues. As I said in Committee, any solution must take into account more fundamental issues than merely producing a piece of legislation that gives some additional powers to the court. The three issues involved are cost, complexity and equity.
  I do not want to repeat on the Floor of the House all that I said in Committee. I shall summarise my remarks instead. The costs of the new clause would arise in two ways. First, there would be tax losses, which in the long term would amount to £200 million a year. Secondly, account must be taken of unfunded public sector schemes. On prudent assumptions, that extra cost would start at up to £500 million per annum. The complexity issue arises from the treatment of the state earnings-related pension

  169
  scheme, the guaranteed minimum pension and home responsibilities protection. The Opposition new clauses and amendments ignore that complexity. Finally, inequity results from giving to the divorced a tax advantage that is not available to the married.
  4.45 pm
  I am firmly of the view that pension splitting is not easy to effect and implement. I am supported in that view by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in last Thursday's ruling on Brooks v. Brooks. He observed:
  "The problem does not admit of one simple solution."
  In his final paragraph, he said:
  "This decision should not be seen as a solution to the overall pensions problem. Not every pension scheme constitutes a marriage settlement. And even when a scheme does fall within the court's jurisdiction to vary a marriage settlement, it would not be right for the court to vary one scheme member's rights to the prejudice of other scheme members. Directing a variation which does not meet with Inland Revenue approval would normally be prejudicial to the rights of the other scheme members. A feature of the instant case is that there is only one scheme member and, moreover, the wife has earnings of her own from the same employer which will sustain provision of an immediate pension for her. If the court is to be able to split pension rights on divorce in the more usual case of a multi-member scheme where the wife has no earnings of her own from the same employer, or to direct the taking out of life insurance, legislation will still be needed."
  Lord Nicholls has acknowledged the complexity that could arise from the diversity and complexity of pension provision and systems. From our discussion in Committee, it seems that the outcome of the case of Brooks v. Brooks does not go as far as Opposition Members might have wished.
  Any so-called solution to effecting pension splitting must clearly be one that neither imposes an unacceptable additional burden on schemes nor leads to additional state scheme expenditure. But it is recognised that to include the state scheme, especially SERPS and its private pension equivalent, the guaranteed minimum pension, will add a specific layer of complexity. Pensions experts have already acknowledged that.
  The amendments tabled by the Opposition appear to include the state scheme in their scope. Surprisingly, they also include the state basic pension scheme, which already has a precise and generous system for dealing with divorce. It allows a divorced wife to substitute her ex-husband's national insurance contribution record for her own.
  The state scheme is another type of unfunded scheme. There is no pool of assets available to split or to transfer out. Payments of pension are met by current national insurance contributors, who in most instances are also the taxpayers who would be asked to fund the cost effects that I mentioned. Those are the cost effects of unfunded pension schemes and tax losses.
  It would be difficult to put an accurate value on SERPS rights before they are due to come into payment. Enhancements to SERPS through home responsibilities protection and the family credit/disability working allowance measure contained in the Bill can properly be factored in only at the end of the working life. There is no concept of an early leaver from the state scheme, so there is no method of valuing on a cash-equivalent basis.
  In addition, however, despite the new contracting out measures in the Bill, SERPS entitlement will continue to be calculated net of any guaranteed minimum pension for
  170
  several decades to come. SERPS is calculated in the following way. It is rather complicated and at one stage I asked the Committee to hang on tight; I now ask the House to do the same.
  First, a person's gross state earnings-related pension scheme is considered, regardless of whether he is contracted in or out. Secondly, any guaranteed minimum pension that he has accrued is taken into account. The guaranteed minimum pension is subtracted from his gross state earnings-related pension scheme to achieve his net state earnings-related pension scheme entitlement. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Garscadden finds it amusing.
  If a person's occupational pension scheme were split, a smaller guaranteed pension would be deducted from his gross state earnings-related pension scheme entitlement, so SERPS would pick up the tab. That is why we would need to ensure that any splitting of a scheme member's pension did not result in an artificial boost to his net SERPS entitlement. That would mean costs once again falling on the general taxpayer.
  I accept that excluding SERPS and guaranteed minimum pensions, as some have suggested, could have problems of its own. It would mean that, for many years to come, only ex-spouses whose former partners had built up substantial private pensions would stand to gain. Those whose former partners had only a SERPS entitlement or private pension equivalent would effectively be excluded from the change and we do not believe that that would be fair.
  I have touched on some questions of equity between married and divorced couples, between members of different schemes and their ex-spouses, and between divorcing couples and current taxpayers and national insurance contributors. Those matters of fairness have important implications that cannot be pushed aside, even by the courts, especially when increasing numbers of women are building up pension rights of their own.
  It has been claimed by the Family Law Committee that pension splitting is widely supported. There is considerable support for the idea, but it needs to be closely examined before the House can accept it. New clause 1, which I understand will be spoken to by the hon. Member for Garscadden, does not deal with the fundamental issues that I outlined. In view of the fact that I set out the problems in Committee, perhaps at greater length, I am surprised that Opposition Members are asking the House to accept the new clause. We are not even clear about the nature and extent of the problems that courts face when dealing with pensions in divorce settlements. That is why we commissioned the research to which we referred in the White Paper published last summer. As far as I am aware, that research is the largest ever survey of the facts behind the problem.
  I shall now repeat something that I said in Committee, which was more important than Opposition Members may have realised at the time, so I shall say it more slowly:
  "We recognise that some people would prefer a different, pension-splitting, approach to the treatment of pensions on divorce. However, our amendments will enable the courts to reinforce and build on their existing powers; they represent a much improved framework to enable the courts to take proper account of pension rights in divorce settlements.

  171
  We shall review the treatment of pension rights on divorce in the light of the outcome of the research project that my Department commissioned to gauge the nature and extent of the problem."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 June 1995; c. 813–14.]
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I had the misfortune not to serve on the Standing Committee. Is the Minister saying to those of us who were not on the Committee that the Government made a commitment to legislate further if they believed that the results of the research merited it? Is that the case?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The misfortune was ours rather than the hon. Gentleman's. The commitment is in precisely the terms that I have just stated, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect to tempt me further.
  New clause 2 would give courts the power to require either party to the marriage to order a spouse to take out life assurance for the benefit of the other or for a child. It would also allow the courts to require one party to nominate the other or to nominate a child for any benefits due to him under a pension scheme.
  In my view, it would be unrealistic to require the court to require someone to take out life assurance. In some circumstances, such insurance would be prohibitively expensive, it might be refused or it might be terminated. In any case, nominations for scheme benefits would be subject to their availability under scheme rules.
  Mr. Dewar: Mortgage interest.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman says, sotto voce, "Mortgage interest." The two varieties of insurance are not analogous, as he well knows. In some cases, it is already possible for scheme members to make nominations for scheme benefits.
  I cannot see any genuine merit in new clause 2. As I said in Committee, it is clear from anecdotal evidence that pension rights are not always put before the courts for consideration in divorce settlements. That is why we accepted the intentions of amendments tabled in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Young, to whom I paid tribute in Committee, and I repeat those tributes here. She persuaded us that pension rights were not always taken into account and her amendment, which was successful, will have a dramatic and important effect for women going through divorce from now on.
  We also accepted the intention of the amendment tabled by Baroness Hollis, to the effect that orders should have the power to bind the pension scheme as well as the ex-husband. That will have the benefit of not forcing ex-wives to drag their husbands through the courts in order to enforce the orders.
  We tabled our amendments in Committee to improve on the amendments that were accepted in another place. The fact that pensions on divorce have now been debated at some length should increase the awareness of all parties of the number of settlements in which pensions feature, but our amendments will highlight the duty on the courts to take those pensions into account.
  With regard to amendment No. 2, I am a little disappointed that Opposition Members are now asking the House to rescind the amendments to which I have just referred and which were agreed and improved in Committee. Opposition Members seem now to reject what
  172
  I thought amounted almost to a consensus that those amendments were desirable, generally acceptable and potentially useful. In the light of our wide-ranging debate in Committee, I undertook to consider concerns that were raised, and that is why we are introducing today further amendments to deal with those undertakings.
  I now refer to Government amendments Nos. 69 to 81. One concern is the limitation that the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 puts on the time scale to which the courts have regard. In Committee I referred to the use of the term "foreseeable future". I understand that in some cases that can be, and has been, construed as referring to a period of up to 10 years. I agree that such a construction seems to put an undue restriction on the courts when they consider pensions, which are built up over a whole working lifetime—and I see that Opposition Members, too, have attempted to deal with that difficulty in their amendments. Our amendments Nos. 69 to 71 and 80 remove the restriction, and I hope that the House will welcome that.
  5 pm
  Another concern, which I well understand, is that an ex-wife could lose access to any payments from her ex-husband's scheme if he died. I explained in Committee that in some circumstances the court may be able to make some provision under the Inheritance (Provisions of Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for the ex-wife, but said that I was prepared to consider the argument further. I have done so. I therefore ask the House to agree to a further amendment that would give the ex-wife access, if the court deemed appropriate, to such share of any lump sum payments from the pension scheme as she may have had access to if the couple had not divorced.
  There was also some concern about the effectiveness of the amendments when pension rights were transferred from one scheme to another. Amendment No. 73 allows that where a court order is in force requiring scheme trustees or managers to make payments to an ex-spouse on a scheme member's behalf, that requirement transfers automatically to the new scheme if all pension rights are transferred. If, however, only a part of the rights is transferred, any of the parties will be able to seek further direction from the court.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has suggested amendments to bring in analogous provisions for Scotland so far as is practicable, given the very different nature of the legislative regimes and procedures. The hon. Member for Garscadden said that he hesitated to dip his toe into English law. Well, I hesitate to dip mine into Scottish law, but it seems to be my duty to do that today.
  Since Committee stage, my right hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to consider what amendments to the law of Scotland might be required. Of course, Scotland is a separate jurisdiction, and it is not possible to lift wholesale provisions designed for one jurisdiction into the law of another. As divorce law in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales, it has not been possible for the Government amendments for Scotland to mirror in all aspects those for England and Wales.
  One purpose of new clause 23 was to clarify the law under section 10(5) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. That section sets out the principle to which the court is to have regard in determining a fair division of matrimonial property on divorce. In particular, it provides that the pension rights of a party to the marriage are to

  173
  form part of a matrimonial property. However, the definition of pension rights has left some room for interpretation by the courts. One of the thrusts of the Scottish amendments is therefore to clarify what pension rights the courts are to take into account.
  Secondly, the amendments provide for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make regulations for Scotland, as are made for England and Wales, covering how pension rights are to be valued. As the hon. Member for Garscadden pointed out in Committee, Scottish courts have reached inconsistent decisions on that matter, the majority favouring the continuing-service basis of valuation. Under the enabling power, the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to make regulations to introduce consistency in the courts' practice.
  The Scottish amendments also make provision for empowering the courts to make orders of various sorts where a party's pension benefits include or may include a lump sum. In particular, where the court orders one party to pay an immediate or deferred capital sum to the other party, it will be able to provide the other party with some security, by making an order binding the trustees or managers of the pension scheme to pay that sum to the other party direct when the pension comes into payment.
  The court could order the party to nominate the other party for all or part of any benefit payable on death, and order the pension managers or trustees to exercise any discretion that they had in respect of a pension guarantee so as to benefit the other party. Finally, the court could order the pension scheme managers or trustees to pay any benefit accruing on the death of a member to the other party, overriding the normal rules regarding who is entitled to receive such a benefit.
  I believe that the measures that we are introducing for Scotland will pave the way for a significant improvement in the consistency with which the courts approach pension rights. They will also align the law of Scotland on pensions to a significant extent with that of England and Wales.
  Another serious concern was raised by Opposition Members in Committee. They seemed anxious to ensure that any amendments did not have retrospective effect. I shared that anxiety then, and I share it now. It has been our clear intention from the outset to avoid such retrospection. However, amendment Nos. 6 and 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), suggest that he has no such qualms. Amendment No. 6, which would amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, would enable courts to revisit all existing financial settlements to take account of any pension not previously considered. That would have the adverse retrospective effect that the Committee was anxious to avoid.
  The hon. Gentleman also appears to have no strong qualms about imposing costs on schemes, or about imposing on trustees and scheme managers extra unnecessary obligations that would give an ex-spouse the right to more information from a scheme than is available to a spouse. I suggest that that would be unfair.
  The hon. Gentleman also tabled amendment Nos. 4 and 5—far-reaching amendments which, for reasons that I explained, would be unworkable in practice. He would like pension splitting to operate from the date of Royal Assent. However, pension schemes would have no idea of what they were supposed to do, or of how to value the rights of pension scheme members. So I hope that the House will not accept those amendments.
  174
  I shall now talk about new clause 15. Hon. Members who have followed the Bill through all its stages will know how complex pensions issues are. Adding the hugely variable personal circumstances of divorcing couples must add to those complexities. The Opposition amendments do nothing to address that problem or the other key issues that I have outlined—cost to the taxpayer and fairness. It is not sensible to attempt to devise solutions, especially legislative solutions, when the nature and extent of the problems have not yet been identified.
  New clause 15 does not appear to be directly related to the previous amendments. It seeks primarily to ensure a fair allocation of death benefits that may be payable by occupational pension schemes. I do not think it necessary or appropriate to legislate in that way. Employers set up occupational schemes voluntarily, and they are free to decide what scheme benefits will be payable and what, if any, conditions should surround their payment. That includes benefits payable on the death of a member, subject to the relevant rules on tax approval and, if appropriate, on contracting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme.
  Perhaps I should clarify that. There are two main forms of death benefit—a survivor's pension and a lump sum payment. Under Inland Revenue rules, a survivor's pension can be paid only to a widow, a widower or someone else financially dependent on the member. Currently, the trustees of a scheme can decide, within their discretion, whether a person is financially dependent, but they must act in accordance with the scheme's trust deed and rules.
  The rules surrounding the payment of the lump sum death benefit are more flexible. It can be paid to a nominated beneficiary or to a member's legal or personal representative, or it can be distributed at the discretion of the scheme's trustees. Payment does not have to be limited to someone who was financially dependent on the member, and the trustees can decide to divide up the lump sum among several people.
  Finally, I repeat that it is a complicated matter. The Opposition amendments do not begin to deal with the complexities. Instead, they incur for the taxpayer significant costs while operating in a way that we consider unfair. I urge the House to accept instead the amendments which have been adopted by the other place, and which we have improved, as well as the analogous amendments for Scotland that we are now introducing.
  Mr. Dewar: I thank the Minister for what, by his standards, was quite a sharp trot over a time trial. I was quite impressed; it was all good dense stuff, which I am sure was the intention.
  I start by dealing briefly with the Scottish aspects of the new clause. The Minister is quite right that Scottish law has been in a state of some flux. In a sense, we started with a lead over our colleagues south of the border in terms of good intentions, but case law is confused. I do not object in principle to the idea that some attempt should be made to ensure shape and discipline.
  I am sure that the Minister accepts that this is a complicated area and that there has been only a short period between the end of Committee and Report. I telephoned the Law Society of Scotland to ask whether it had any comments. Its brief message was that it was not consulted and that it does not know much about it. I hope that the Scottish Office has got it right, because there does

  175
  not seem to have been any real contact—at least not according to the information that has been given to me, and, obviously, I am acting here as a go-between.
  I may say, as a taster of the debate to come in the next few minutes, that the person who spoke to my office added gratuitously, but pithily, that earmarking is a very poor second best. The problem is being swept under the carpet. In Drumsheuch gardens—that will puzzle the Hansard reporters—there is not a unanimity of purpose with the Minister on this matter.
  I now come to the main argument, and I make no apologies for revisiting an old friend in this debate: whether we go beyond earmarking into splitting. The Minister was dismissive of new clause 1, with which, I am not ashamed to admit, we got help. Indeed, it is largely—I hope that it will not mind being identified in this way—the work of the English Law Society. I was rather surprised that the Minister was quite so scathing, in his own gentle way, of its efforts. The new clause is an attempt to put into reasonable parliamentary form an important argument, with which I shall now deal.
  A great deal of work has been done. The House will remember that in May 1993 the Pensions Management Institute report was published with the Government's blessing. It produced one general proposition and a number of proposals on how that proposition could be implemented. It argued that pension rights that have accrued during a marriage should be treated as assets at the point of divorce when financial settlements were being considered. It considered a number of possibilities, one of which is that, having valued those rights, payment should be made out of other assets of the marriage—the option that most of us would certainly favour—if it is possible to do so. In many cases, however, pension rights may be the most valuable asset of the marriage, and it would not be possible to take that course.
  The Government seem to have settled for earmarking, a shorthand term that I shall not try to explain at length. Basically, it means that the court, at the time of divorce, should instruct that when the pension is in payment to the husband—for the sake of convenience, I shall assume that the husband holds the pension entitlement—a portion of it should go to the wife. It is a form of deferred maintenance that may not come into play for 10 or 20 years, depending on the point at which the divorce took place in the life cycle.
  There are then two variations of splitting, which is the assumption that the courts, having valued the pension rights that are to go to the ex-wife to be, should then split the pension fund. It should be retained by the wife, who becomes a member of the same scheme and in fact becomes a deferred member within it, or there should be a splitting of the fund and a transfer to another pension provider picked by the wife. I have expressed strong support for splitting as an option, and shall return later to the reasons for doing so.
  I do not want to spend a lot of time on history, but it is a little cruel of the Minister to talk about people trying to legislate for splitting when they do not even understand the problem. The Government have made up their minds about earmarking, and I would have thought that precisely the same problems and difficulties attend that.
  176
  5.15 pm
  I suppose, to be fair to the Minister, that the Government have been cautious. It might even be said that I have been driven to take action. At various points we were told—I shall not rehearse the references—that further research was required and that nothing could happen until that was to hand. In fact, on 20 February, when the Under-Secretary was explaining that to us in the Chamber, Lord Mackay of Clashfern was scrambling for cover down the Corridor, announcing that there was to be a major movement without waiting for any further research. I presume that the Government thought that that was defensible and workable.
  The result, of course, has been changes to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. There was a particularly dense—perhaps opaque is a better word—passage in Committee, when the Minister attempted to explain precisely the impact of this change in terms of whether the courts had to take it into account but could ignore having done so, or whether they had to do a split and recognise the value of the pension entitlement in the final decision. He said that he thought that there was general acceptance that the result of these changes will be to place greater emphasis on the duty of the courts. That will mean that the valuation of the pension fund will become much more important.
  I am slightly puzzled by this, as it is a little disingenuous, but when the Secretary of State wrote to me on 1 May, he said
  "we gave our full support to an amendment to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to place greater emphasis on the duty of the courts to take account of pension rights in divorce settlements."
  He continued:
  "Lord Mackay did not, in fact, propose a system of 'earmarking'."
  I do not know whether this is playing with words, but the Government have acceded to a form of earmarking and have proceeded to defend it through thick and thin, despite the best efforts of those of us in Committee to introduce an element of flexibility.
  I ask the Government to reconsider their inflexibility and their refusal to listen to the arguments because I believe that this is an area where the strength of the argument is overwhelming. The objections advanced, even with the additions that have been paraded in the last half hour by the Under-Secretary, are totally unsatisfactory.
  My first objection to earmarking as the only possible way forward for the courts other than adjusting from other assets in the matrimonial property is that it is very hard to see it living happily and co-existing with the clean-break settlement. It is, as I said earlier, a form of deferred maintenance. The whole thrust of law over recent years, and Government policy, too, is to see divorce as a final severance.
  Children, of course, are different considerations. In terms of the relationship between the parting spouses, as far as is possible there should be a once-and-for-all settlement, and we should not be left in a situation where the valuation of the divorce gives rise to a claim on the pension in payment many years hence. Admittedly, that has been very much improved by the amendments that were moved by the noble Baroness Hollis of Heigham in another place, which placed on the pension provider the duty to extract an amount due to the former spouse and to pay it direct. I was relieved and pleased that the

  177
  Government accepted that. Nevertheless, this is an odd set of proposals, which surely does not represent the only way forward.
  I do not think that what the Minister said destroyed the force of the important social point that, if splitting is not an option, ex-wives will frequently find that their future is open to a degree of uncertainty. Although the ex-wife has been given a right to the pension in payment, a number of things may happen to that right, by chance or design, and she will have little or no control over those developments. The uncertainty strikes me as a fundamental difficulty.
  The most obvious problem is that if the husband—the pension holder—dies before drawing his pension, which is always a possibility, his ex-wife's right to the earmarked portion will die with him. She might, of course, wish him a long and happy life in any event; but she would undoubtedly have a financial incentive to do so, regardless of her view of his general conduct and desirability as a member of the human race.
  I do not think that the Minister dealt adequately with the much commoner circumstance in which the husband receives the pension in payment and the ex-wife receives her earmarked portion, but the husband then dies before her. For reasons that I have never quite understood, men tend to marry women a little younger than themselves. As we know from actuarial tables, women live longer than men, and it is likely that someone in the position that I have described would have a lengthy widowhood. She would draw the pension on the earmarking principle, but on her ex-husband's death she would be abruptly deprived of it. There might be survivor's benefits, but they would either die with the ex-husband or, in the event of a second marriage, go to the "actual" widow. No claim even on the survivor's benefit pro rata with the original earmarking would be open to the "notional", displaced widow.
  In his letter of 1 May, the Secretary of State wrote:
  "This is one of the issues which we are currently considering in the light of the amendments adopted in the House of Lords."
  It is possible—I say this with no mock modesty—that I have missed something in the substantial number of amendments that we are discussing that answers the question, but I do not think that I have. I am sure that the Minister will understand why I consider that point a practical difficulty that stands in the way of his determination to retain earmarking as the only option open to the courts.
  I could continue on this theme for some time, but those who have nothing else to do with their lives can read about it in the report of the Committee stage. I am not sure that I warmly recommend the experience, but many similar points were made then. For example, what will happen to the earmarked portion if the ex-husband surrenders part of his pension in favour of his second wife? If he is reasonably wealthy, he may wish to use the new powers in the Bill for reasons of personal management or, indeed, malice. He may defer the purchase of the annuity, and draw from the capital. Presumably, that would have the effect of reducing the pension when it is in payment—perhaps not dramatically, but to some extent. While he is going through that performance, his former wife will be denied the pension that she may consider to be due to her.
  178
  It would be possible to embroider the argument intellectually for a long time. I shall merely say that I view the proposal as a fundamental attack on the Government's determination to make earmarking the only possible option.
  Messengers surround me on all sides, speaking sotto voce. The Secretary of State looks remarkably cheerful; I do not know whether that is because what has just happened is a triumph for the hard right of which he is a distinguished ornament, or whether he has become, for the occasion, an establishment figure, but I have no doubt that all will be revealed shortly.
  I believe that the advantages of splitting are overwhelming, and should be considered seriously. Clearly, if a capital sum is put into the hands of a departing spouse, and that sum must be lodged with a pension provider, the woman concerned will be mistress of her own pension. She can define it; she can build on it; she knows what it will produce. There will be certainty at the end of the day. Surely there is a case for retaining splitting as an option, rather than ruling it out of court. I put my view in modest terms; I hope that the Minister will at least consider it. It conforms to the clean-break principle, and was originally favoured decisively by the PMI report.
  Let us examine some of the arguments that the Government have advanced against that option. In Committee, on 22 June, the Minister said:
  "I shall put my anxieties about pension splitting in a nutshell."
  One might consider that quite a good place in which to put them.
  "I am worried about three matters: cost, complexity and fairness of treatment between divorced and married couples."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 June 1995; c. 808.]
  I do not think that the Minister advanced a very powerful case in regard to any of those three matters, and I am not sure that he improved on it greatly today. It was clear in Committee, however, that cost was uppermost in the Government's mind.
  A pretty massive red herring was introduced in column 810, when the Minister told us that there was a possibility that the cost of splitting would be as high as £1.3 billion a year. He has courteously written to me saying that there was an error in the calculation, and that the £1.3 billion was in fact £600 million. I accept that these things happen, and there are no hard feelings; but, in my opinion, it does not matter whether the figure is £600 million or £1.3 billion.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I apologise for making that mistake in Committee, but I explained in my letter that, although the figure would start at £600 million, it would rise to £1.3 billion in the fullness of time.
  Mr. Dewar: I understand that, but I do not think it relevant. The Minister is offering us the possibility that a substantial sum will be involved if we decide that married couples can allocate any pensionable income between them to minimise their tax bills, but, to the best of my knowledge, no one else has made the same suggestion. The Minister is on a little trip of his own. If he is saying that someone else might make the suggestion because they had read one of the Minister's speeches, and that he will then lie down like a puppy and allow himself to be swept away, I find that very unconvincing. I do not

  179
  imagine for a moment that what he has said represents a threat, and I consider it entirely irrelevant to the circumstances that we are discussing.
  Much more serious is, for example, the suggestion that the cost will be around £800 million. It is interesting that that £800 million is made up of two components: £500 million, which refers to the liability of unfunded public sector pension schemes, and the rest, which was to do with the impact on the tax take and the expense of funding additional voluntary contributions that may be paid in because a pension holder, who has seen his pension split, will want to build it up again to the same position as before.
  The £300 million was not mentioned in Committee. I think the £200 million figure has appeared, but the £300 million was taken from the Secretary of State's letter of 1 May and has been used on many other occasions. I do not make too much of that discrepancy, but I say strongly that the lower tax take from the split, if that is a concern, will still be a concern with earmarking. At least if the Under-Secretary introduces machinery to overcome the problem at that stage, it is possible to introduce machinery to overcome it in splitting.
  5.30 pm
  If we accept the idea that a substantial number of people will cost the state money by paying in more additional voluntary contributions to make up for the loss from their pension fund as a result of splitting, it is equally possible that they will do the same with earmarking. They will consider the end product—they are not silly—and say that, with earmarking, exactly the same result will come about. It is therefore sophistry to argue that the disadvantage of splitting does not apply to earmarking. I am not impressed by what the Under-Secretary has said.
  There is of course the £500 million for the liability for unfunded pension schemes in the public sector. Our point is a fair one: the Minister would not dispute it. In Committee, he said:
  "As we do not know precisely how people would behave, it would be prudent to examine the worst possible effect of the proposal.
  In calculating the figure it was assumed that pensions would be split in all divorces relating to public service scheme members and that 50 per cent. of the accrued cash equivalent transfer valuation would be transferred out of the scheme…If all ex-spouses were to transfer their pensions, the cost to the taxpayer would be up to £500 million a year".
  That is the worst case scenario: everyone does it; no one remains in the scheme. That is a remarkably unlikely concept.
  In Committee, I put it to the Minister, and I still hold to this view, that, if a spouse finds herself getting a split of a public sector scheme, she will be much more likely to want to stay in the scheme as a member than to leave. The Under-Secretary had some sympathy with that point. He accused me of saying that ex-wives should be banned from leaving and should stay in the unfunded scheme as a matter of law. That was not my argument, which was that best advice would be that ex-wives should stay and most of them would. When I explained that to the hon. Gentleman, he said:
  "I can only say yes, best advice might be to stay."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 June 1995; c. 810–12.]
  180
  If he agrees that best advice might be to stay—and almost everyone else I have spoken to says that it certainly would—to quote that the cost of the prospect of splitting is that no one will stay, despite the best advice that almost all would have to stay, is an almost worthless assumption. It is almost perverse to follow that line of argument in the extreme way in which the Under-Secretary has followed it.
  Perhaps I could quote from Mr. Richard Malone, president-elect of the Pensions Management Institute, who is a well-known and authoritative figure. He said:
  "The £500M a year figure was openly acknowledged by the Minister to be a worst-scenario cost … In practice, comparatively few ex-spouses would transfer their pensions from such schemes in my view, and in any case it is not a 'cost' but a cash-flow or incidence issue".
  He is agreeing with my point, and indeed with the Under-Secretary's point that almost all ex-spouses will be advised to stay. Most of them will take that advice and the Under-Secretary's £500 million explodes before our very eyes. He should at least concede that that is a real possibility.
  I recognise that there can be problems, but as we know from the work, for example, of Mr. Geoffrey Wilson of Binder Hamlyn, and all the advice that we have had from a range of sources, there are a number of different ways in which it is possible to overcome this problem if it is worrying the Under-Secretary. Perhaps I should mention that he will find that new clause 1(7) contains provision to make regulations to exclude public sector unfunded schemes. That was put in not by the Law Society but by me as a friendly gesture to the Under-Secretary. Lots of ways exist in which the problem can be overcome. That is at least a possible way of pursuing that problem.
  Mr. Arbuthnot rose—
  Mr. David Winnick: On the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? More than 100 Conservative Members of Parliament have refused to support the Prime Minister. In those circumstances and in view of the humiliation that the Prime Minister has undoubtedly suffered, is it possible for a statement to be made by the Prime Minister as quickly as possible? More than 100 Tory Members have said no to the right hon. Gentleman—more than are in the Government. We should have a statement quickly in the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair is here to serve and if the Government or any Minister wish to make a statement, the occupant of the Chair will respond.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Prime Minister has received the handsome majority that he sought—a majority larger than that achieved in any leadership ballot bar one for this party, and substantially larger than that achieved by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—presumably we may expect the right hon. Member for Sedgefield to seek a reaffirmation of his leadership, resign, go to his party and try to succeed in receiving the support that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has achieved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These seem to be points of political observation rather than points of order.
  Mr. Arbuthnot rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: No. I was in the process of intervening on the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and got blown off track. In the light of new clause 1(7)—I apologise for drawing us back to pensions and divorce—does he now accept the point that he would be banning the transfer out of public sector schemes, about whia he was so indignant in Committee?
  Mr. Dewar: No, of course I would not be doing that. I am just trying to be helpful. The Under-Secretary knows how helpful I am on these occasions. If he considers the new clause, he will find that it is a permissive clause that makes such provisions as may be appropriate to meet special circumstances. It is simply that I was seized of the point that the Under-Secretary, who sometimes has a one-track mind, would appear before the House today saying that the unfunded pension scheme liability was so frightening to Ministers in the Department of Social Security that further consideration was not possible. I moved to meet that with a permissive clause, but I have made it clear where we stand. I have argued, I hope with some force, that the £500 million figure is nonsense and that the £300 million figure would largely arise in any event with earmarking as well as with splitting.
  I make a final point on financial matters. The Under-Secretary made a point and he incomprehensibly repeated it at some length—I shall read it; no doubt it will read better than it sounded—about GMP and the state earnings-related pension scheme. I shall read to him again from Mr. Malone, to give him an example of at least one person of some knowledge and weight in that respect who does not accept that argument. He says:
  "The arguments about splitting SERPS and GMPs are not well-developed."
  I am sorry that that is a criticism of the Minister by implication, but never mind.
  "To say that SERPS 'does not exist' is absurd. It may be unfunded, but the entitlements exist and it is those which are under discussion. GMPs are not an insurmountable problem as we have explained at length, face-to-face with DSS officials. A GMP is a deduction from the SERPS entitlement, and it could continue to be deducted in full despite a divorce settlement. This would not be 'an unacceptable burden on schemes' and I do not know that anyone has ever claimed that it was. It is earmarking that it is an unacceptable burden on schemes as everyone has repeatedly made clear to the government."
  Mr. Malone expressed that with some force, and perhaps a hint of exasperation.
  I say firmly to the Government that, having tried, to the best of my ability, to consider the financial arguments, I do not believe that they stand up in any substantial sense against the social arguments of certainty—to which I referred—and justice and fairness, which at least argue eloquently for the possibility of including splitting among the options.
  The argument is, on the whole, familiar to hon. Members who served on the Committee, and I promised that I would not rehearse it over-zealously. I must say, however, that there is a very powerful coalition in favour of at least going ahead with the option that I have discussed.
  Fairshares is unashamedly a pressure group, but it has worked hard and fairly to inform its members and itself and to put its case. I pay tribute to that. In addition, I have quoted the PMI extensively. The PMI did the major piece
  182
  of research that is the foundation of the proposals to which the Government have now agreed. Unfortunately, they would not take the further step down the road with the PMI.
  The Equal Opportunities Commission has been quoted. It has rightly expressed its opinions clearly. It does not want to find itself in a position where splitting is ruled out—I do not blame it for that.
  The Law Society of England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland, the Institute of Actuaries, the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland, the Solicitor's Family Law Association and the National Association of Pension Funds—and a lengthy and impressive list of other organisations—have all said that the Government have got that matter monumentally wrong, and should be considering splitting.
  If that is really so difficult to do—I understand that that is the Minister's position—let me quote what was said by the Pensions Board of Ireland. I do not pretend to be an expert about it, but I have been supplied with the annual report and accounts of the board, in which the board discusses the Family Law Bill, which was introduced in the Irish Parliament in February 1994 and I suspect will now be the law.
  The board deals with different approaches to the division of pension rights on marital breakdown available under the terms of the Family Law Bill. They fall into four principal categories. One is pension splitting within the scheme, which we suggest is the answer to the unfunded public sector pension problem. The next is pension splitting by transfer payment:
  "A variation of the approach immediately above, and it involves the transfer of an amount equal to the value of the pension rights allocated to a member's spouse out of the scheme to an approved insurance contract or to another pension scheme of which he or she"
  becomes
  "a member."
  That sounds like a very simple statement of what we propose.
  The myriad difficulties do not appear to have stopped the Irish. I have no doubt that there are differences in their system and their social security system, and I do not pretend that I have had time to consider that in detail, but I put that in as a corrective against the way in which the Minister is throwing his hands in the air and saying, "It is impossible."
  5.45 pm
  I expected that we might end up with Brooks v. Brooks, and I took the trouble, as the Minister did, to equip myself with a copy of the judgment in that contentious case, which ran on for a long time and ended up in the House of Lords.
  I do not believe that the Brooks v. Brooks case argues the case for splitting, as the Minister accused me of believing. I do not think that he has heard me speak on the subject of Brooks v. Brooks, and therefore he must suffer from the delusion that he is a thought transference expert. In any event, I do not hold that opinion.
  Brooks v. Brooks is a rather special case and it is narrow in its application. For a start, the decision does not provide for pension splitting on divorce in a normal case. Brooks v. Brooks, as the House will remember, depended to some extent on whether the specific pension scheme that was discussed was a marriage settlement. In addition,

  183
  the husband and wife were members of the same, very small, pension scheme, and therefore no problem of prejudice to other members of the scheme, or any other complications, arose.
  It has been suggested to me that there are some messages from the decision. In the normal case of a wife who has not worked for the same employer as her husband, the case will allow a wife, on divorce, not necessarily to split, but to receive a dependant's pension if, first, her husband's pension scheme is capable of being a marriage settlement—that is one great exclusion—and, secondly, the ex-wife remains a dependant. The latter is not something that we would want to encourage, and is not a case, in these days of women working in the labour market, that will arise very often. Finally, it must not prejudice other scheme members.
  I do not believe, therefore, that we can assume that the Brooks judgment is in any way a final word. However, I would urge on the Minister that it gives impetus to the need to clarify the position. If the Government leave the position as it is, in many cases the wife will have an earmarked portion of her husband's pension—assuming that the Bill becomes law—and the question whether her husband's pension arrangements might be the subject of a Brooks order would then arise, to secure a deferred pension as a replacement for the lost widow's pension. That will lead to enormous complication and difficulty, much of which would be removed if the amendments to which I spoke today—or at least their spirit—were accepted by the Government.
  One might also draw some perverse conclusions from Brooks. For example, if one is a middle-aged, middle-income executive, one is probably better off in a large company scheme than in a small scheme in which one is the prime figure; but that is another matter.
  I do not believe for a moment that Brooks settles the issue; indeed, it probably complicates the issue, but, by doing so, argues the case for completing the nap hand of options that should be available to the court in reaching the right decision in the circumstances of an individual case.
  I was interested that the Minister quoted the leading judgment, which is by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. The Minister triumphantly quoted the last paragraph, but before we reach the last paragraph I shall draw his attention to page 4 of the judgment.
  Lord Nicholls reviews the various possibilities with some care. He expresses—I want to make this clear—some reservations about splitting pension rights, but they are rather minor reservations. He suggests that there would be
  "significant administrative burdens and expense for scheme trustees; there may be problems over guaranteed minimum payments and protected rights; and there would be major financial implications for unfunded public service schemes."
  I concede that he is entitled to refer to all those matters, but that is nothing to the objections that he raises to earmarking. I am surprised that the Minister did not read the passage to us, as he is so keen a fan of Lord Nicholls' prose. It says:
  "A second method involves earmarking part of the pension benefit for payment direct to the spouse when the pension comes into payment. This earmarking method suffers from the disadvantages that it would not be a 'clean break': payment of benefit would depend on the happening of events some of which would be under the member's control; there would often be uncertainty for some
  184
  years for the former spouse, not knowing when benefits would start or what would be their duration; and in most cases this method would yield nothing for the wife after the husband's death, she no longer being entitled to a widow's pension under the scheme."
  That might be a summary of many of the arguments that I have made in the last half hour or so.
  If we are going to reflect on Lord Nicholls' opinions, we should take his strictures—not an unfair word—about earmarking, and certainly earmarking as the only way forward, very much into account.
  The Minister quoted the final paragraph of Lord Nicholls' speech:
  "If the court is to be able to split pension rights on divorce in the more usual case of a multi-member scheme where the wife has no earnings of her own from the same employer, or to direct the taking out of life insurance, legislation will still be needed."
  I accept that entirely: it is exactly what we are trying to do. Lord Nicholls said that that possibility requires legislation. We are trying to supply that legislation through new clauses 1 and 2, which the Minister especially disliked but which were referred to specifically by Lord Nicholls. They were drafted because the Law Society thought that they were right.
  I believe that we can by rational argument seriously shake the opposition to these proposals, certainly in respect of the financial arguments. When we come to the social arguments, to what is best for stability in the aftermath and trauma of a divorce and consider someone who may well find herself—it is likely to be the former wife—on her own, it is important to try to provide circumstances where she has certainty and knows that what she has been promised will be delivered, however modest it may be. That is not going to happen with earmarking and there will be many cases in which it will not be possible to accommodate a capital payment from other assets and in which earmarking may seem singularly inappropriate.
  I believe that the Minister even now should go a little further down the road than he did in his exchanges with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and make it clear at least that the door is genuinely open to splitting and that the Government accept that there is a strong social case for making arrangements that would allow that.
  Mr. Kirkwood: For the past 45 minutes, I have listened with care to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has dissected the Government's position in a forensic way and demonstrated his well-known skills, especially in respect of the financial aspects. I concur with him. I am also grateful to him because I no longer have to repeat the arguments—he has deployed them with enough skill to satisfy anyone who has been listening that many questions about the Government's current position remain to be resolved.
  As one who did some divorce work as a solicitor before coming to the House, I can say that it was clear to everyone practising such work that the situation was unfair. Things have moved on at some speed during the past 12 or 13 years, and the courts are going to take the issue further than the Government are prepared to take it in a legislative sense if this measure is the Government's last word on the matter.

  185
  If the Government were willing to leave the door open to further reform, there would be a case for reconsidering the problem after the commissioned research had borne fruit and, after they had had a chance to consider it, more sensible provisions could be made.
  When the Bill was published, I was concerned that the amendments that were tabled in the other place started to tackle the issue as they did. I should have much preferred the issue to have been dealt with in a free-standing matrimonial family Act and separately from occupational pensions, the protection that schemes are now perceived to need and the rest of the burden of the Bill.
  Matrimonial disputes are complicated and deserve their own legislation. I came to that view when I was looking at how such matters work out in the courts. I have felt for some time that the courts should be given more discretion to deal with individual circumstances. I do not believe that the straitjacket of a legislative framework can deal with the panoply of ramifications of all the peculiar circumstances that can arise during the dissolution of a marriage.
  It is extremely difficult for legislators to cater for everything that can happen when a marriage is dissolved. If judges were given discretion, within a framework of law, to consider all the circumstances, including the cost to the public purse and to other members of the scheme, they could weigh those factors in the balance judicially. I have felt for some time that they should be given proper freedom and discretion and that we should have the confidence to allow the courts to make fair settlements. Case law could be established in that way.
  I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Garscadden said about the Brooks v. Brooks case. I entirely agree that some of the press reporting of that case, certainly in the initial hearings, was misleading. The case involved a very peculiar set of circumstances and no great conclusions could be drawn. The courts should be trusted a bit more and charged with considering the effects on the public purse and on other scheme members. That could permit more sympathetic consideration of individual circumstances when settlements are made.
  I am nervous about how we have come to be in this situation. I fully understand the frustration felt by pressure groups such as Fairshares. I, too, commend them. They have played an excellent role. We have also been provided with briefing material during the passage of the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Garscadden about the role that has been played by the Pensions Management Institute report and Mr. Malone. They have exploded, certainly to my satisfaction, many of the positions that the Government have taken.
  I have not yet studied all the Committee proceedings in great detail. I am taking them on holiday to the beaches with me and, in the autumn, I shall be in a much better position to target questions, but the explanation of the financial reasons against splitting seems to me to be wholly bogus and unsubstantiated.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garscadden because he effectively demolished the Government's argument that there would be a £500 million a year cost to unfunded public service schemes and tax losses estimated at some £300 million pounds a year by 2037. In passing, 2037 seems a gie long way away. It puzzles
  186
  me how such figures can be conjured up out of the air. If a bolt of enlightenment is to come from the Treasury Bench, I am more than willing to receive it.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not know that I have ever described myself as a bolt of enlightenment. I want to correct the hon. Gentleman on the £300 million. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) properly and fairly drew attention to the fact that the tax cost had changed. We now consider that the tax cost of pension splitting would be up to £200 million, not £300 million; £100 million is quite an important difference.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am tempted to ask the Minister to explain why the estimate has been revised, but that would perhaps only provoke him.
  Mr. Arbuthnot rose—
  Mr. Kirkwood: I see that it would, so I shall not ask him.
  There are many questions to be asked and there is a lot more work to be done before I shall be convinced that the financial difference between splitting and earmarking is as the Government allege.
  What consideration have the Government given to equity between sexes in this argument? If the Government scheme goes on to the statute book, what view will the European Union and the European courts take of the current earmarking proposals? Has that been considered? I should be interested to hear the view of the Equal Opportunities Commission and other interested bodies. I am not confident from a legal point of view that the Government could successfully take a case to the European Court and argue that the earmarking provisions are not inherently discriminatory. I believe that they might fall foul of the European Court. I am certainly persuaded that the provisions for splitting on divorce are far more equitable from a social point of view—and, indeed, from every other point of view.
  6 pm
  I understand that there are problems but I, too, have considered some ways to get around some of the difficulties that have been suggested by the Government. I should like to think that, if the Government had had longer to work on some of the objections, solutions to them could have been found. If the Government are saying that they will continue to examine the problem and that the current proposals are not the final word, I hope that the research that they have rightly commissioned will lead them to favour splitting and to introduce free-standing legislation that will, of itself, produce the fairness, justice and equity that we believe can be achieved only by a move towards splitting.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State to look carefully at Government amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71, which amend clause 164 and refer to section 25B of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. I know that he dealt with these amendments in his opening remarks, but I have to confess that I did not fully understand the need for Government amendment No. 70, which would appear to be completely unnecessary if Government amendments Nos. 69 and 71 are carried.

  187
  Amendment No. 69 deletes "in the foreseeable future" in line 32 on page 121, and amendment No. 71 deletes the same phrase in a later proposed subsection of the 1973 Act. Amendment No. 70 adds the words:
  "and, accordingly, in relation to benefits under a pension scheme, section 25(2)(a) above shall have effect as if 'in the foreseeable future' were omitted".
  If that phrase is already omitted, where is the need for amendment No. 70? That is the main element of the Minister's remarks that I did not understand. Much of what he said concerned the complexity of the issues with which we have been dealing but, in Committee, we were able to distil that complexity into relatively simple terms and I managed to follow most of what was said. I have not, however, understood the reason for amendment No. 70.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The reason for the proposed change is that we want to remove the words "in the foreseeable future" only in so far as they apply to pension schemes to which they are not appropriate. The amendment to section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 would therefore not remove those words in relation to any other types of asset.
  Mrs. Kennedy: I am sincerely grateful to the Minister. He has cleared up what, to me, was a puzzle.
  We can also distil into relatively simple arguments the complexity of what divides us. There is no difference between us on the principle that pensions are assets that can be split; the real difference relates to when we think that split should take place, which is why we have come to use jargon such as splitting and earmarking.
  The Minister referred to the case of Brooks v. Brooks. The importance of that case has already been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The House of Lords' ruling means that the courts have the power to order the payment of part of an individual's pension to a divorced spouse. There is no intention on either side of the House to diminish the importance of that ruling, although the Minister has tried to underplay its importance. This is the first time that it has been found that pension benefits can belong to someone other than the scheme member for whom they are intended.
  As I understand it, the courts in England have the power to compensate a divorced wife for the loss of expected pension benefits, but they are not allowed to vary pension schemes by splitting pension rights between the parties. The facts of the case of Brooks v. Brooks are recognised as unusual, but the Financial Times reported last Friday:
  "Solicitors for Mrs. Brooks said…that the judgment was likely to set a precedent for division, at divorce, of personal pensions, most of which also are single-member plans paying benefits based on contribution.
  Mr. Norman Russell"—
  the solicitor in question—
  "said: 'It is hard to see that there is one law for the wife whose husband bought an executive pension and"
  another for
  "the wife whose husband bought a personal pension'."
  There is no doubt that the argument will continue and that the courts will continue to make decisions. We should be failing if we did not help the courts to arrive at fair and equitable decisions.
  188
  One of the problems with the Bill is that it allows only the earmarking of pensions at divorce and dismisses the benefits of splitting. Under earmarking, divorcees are left entirely dependent on their ex-partners. It is only when a scheme member draws the pension that part of it is paid to a divorced partner. If that pension is drawn early, the divorced partner gets less than expected. If it is drawn later—if late retirement is taken—the ex-partner will have to wait for a share. If the scheme member dies before retiring, the ex-partner get nothing at all. The injustices of that will continue to be questioned by the courts. It is therefore right and proper that we now consider a solution which would assist the courts to arrive at fair and equitable decisions.
  The Bill supports earmarking despite the recommendations of the Pensions Management Institute which, in May 1993, published the report of an independent working group that investigated in depth the issue of pensions and divorce. Despite Government claims to the contrary when the Bill was considered in the House of Lords, the PMI argued—and continues to argue—that its report was supported by the Law Society, the Society of Pension Consultants, the Association of Consulting Actuaries, the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Actuaries. In passing, I have to say how much members of the Committee owe to the actuaries for their assistance with some of the complexities.
  The PMI argues that its report came up with solutions that are practical, workable and effective. The report came out in favour of splitting pensions at divorce rather than waiting until the retirement of the partner who was a member of the scheme, thus allowing a full, clean break on divorce. It is worth quoting at length the PMI's memorandum which was submitted to the Select Committee on Social Security and appears on page 106 of the Select Committee's report. It states:
  "We believe there are political motivations behind the Government's reluctance to make more fundamental changes in this area and we find this profoundly disappointing. In recent years the pensions industry has been accused of failing to be innovative and failing to keep pension scheme provisions in line with changing social needs and attitudes. Here we have an example of the industry (and the legal and actuarial professions) taking the lead only to meet a refusal from the Government to implement the recommendations. We believe it is critical to sort out pensions on divorce urgently because of the social ramifications. Furthermore, it will not be long before questions to do with pension rights between partners in relationships other than marriages become a legal, not to mention a social issue."
  We have gone into the problems of earmarking at length but they bear further consideration. The ex-partner would receive benefit only when the member retired and receive nothing if the member of the scheme, their former partner, died before retirement. The divorcee would therefore be required to keep track of their partner over a number of years when all that they wanted was a clean break. Divorce practitioners believe that a break is desirable so that those concerned are free to go their separate ways without being financially dependent on each other.
  If the scheme does not require a direct payment of the earmarked sum, the ex-partner might have to use the courts to enforce the rights under the earmarking agreement. The costs of that—to both parties—are obvious. The only people who would benefit from that are lawyers, with all due respect to all hon. and learned Members present.

  189
  Another problem with earmarking is that, although divorcees would obviously have an interest in the financial performance of the scheme, how the pension was reinvested, and so on, they would have no say in any decisions because they would not be members of the scheme. They would be linked to the scheme only through their former partner. Scheme members could face difficulty on leaving a job and transferring their pension rights if they were earmarked in a divorce settlement.
  There would be uncertainty about the level of retirement income, so it would be difficult for both parties to plan ahead. As I have already said, if the scheme member dies, former partners could have no income at all for their latter years. That would be a particular problem for women, as we tend to outlive men.
  There are several benefits of splitting: most important, it would allow a clean break. Divorcees could begin their lives again without continuing to be reliant on each other in any way. It would also allow the courts to reallocate other assets without complicating the value of the pension and ensure that both parties had their own entitlement to their own retirement benefits.
  I want the Minister to reconsider new clause 1, which is extremely constructive. It does not say that all pensions should be split at the point of divorce. At proposed new section 24B(3)(a), new clause 1 would allow for a lump sum to be paid to a partner if that was what the court determined and if it made an order to allow it. Paragraph (b) would allow the administrator of a pension scheme to treat the former party of a marriage as a member of the pension scheme in relation to such benefits as may be specified. The former partner would therefore become a full member of the scheme. Paragraph (c) would allow the administrator of the pension scheme to make such a payment into any other pension scheme that may be appropriate.
  There are throughout new clause 1 a range of options for the courts or the administrator of a pension scheme. In each case, it would be possible for the courts and the administrator to determine exactly the best outcome for the two partners.
  I know that there are difficulties with many of the solutions, just as there are with the earmarking solution that the Government have opted for. In new clause 1, proposed new subsection (4) allows for safeguards in that the administrator of the pension scheme would be able to present to the court a reason why any of the solutions being suggested should not be adopted. Paragraphs (b) and (c) in particular would allow the former partner to be brought into the scheme as a full member or allow payment from one pension scheme into another.
  Proposed new subsection (7) would allow a safeguard for unfunded schemes by enabling the Secretary of State to introduce regulations which may be appropriate when it was felt that an unfunded scheme could not or should not be part of the settlement.
  Will the Minister reconsider those points? I am not satisfied with the case that he has made against splitting on divorce. The new clause would allow the courts to choose the best solution for the two people before them when determining divorce settlements. That is the best solution for everybody and I commend new clause 1 to the House.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I have tabled amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 and new clause 15. I also rise to support the amendments in the name of the official Opposition—excellently explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—especially new clause 1, which puts the case for pension splitting within the scheme and, at the discretion of the courts, via transfer values to the ex-spouse of the pension fund member.
  I note that the Minister will review the matter in the light of research. Indeed, he was cautious in replying to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) about whether such a review would reveal a need for further legislation. I suspect that, when the Government receive the research, they will need to introduce further legislation and move toward a pension-splitting approach, as has been suggested not only by Opposition Members but by many expert organisations. I also suspect that, by relying on the research, the Government are kicking the whole matter into touch, and that further legislation will probably have to be introduced by a Labour Government after the next election.
  The mere fact that amendments and new clauses have been tabled on pensions relating to divorce is a triumph for fairness, and a victory for the campaign to recognise the issue in the Bill. To begin with, the Government did not envisage dealing with the matter of dividing pensions in the event of divorce. I am pleased to have played my part in the recognition of the problem and bringing about change. I introduced two ten-minute Bills on the subject: one at the end of last year and one earlier this year, which greatly raised the profile of the issue.
  An excellent campaign has been organised by Fairshares, a working party of the Pensions Management Institute has produced excellent reports, and I pay tribute to the work and achievements of Baronesses Young and Hollis in the other place in tabling an amendment on the subject.
  The Government accepted the principle of the amendment, although I do not know whether they were dragged kicking and screaming to that view. Perhaps that is a rather ungentlemanly thing to say, so instead I shall praise them for at least accepting the principle, realising that there was an issue to face, and accepting that changes needed to be made to ensure fairness for ex-wives, who are badly treated under the current law and often do not get a share of the ex-husband's pension.
  Nevertheless, my hon. Friends and I remain concerned, because the way that the provision is implemented could lead also to unfairness in the system. The earmarking method chosen by the Government, against all the advice from the experts, could result in unfairness. I have read the Hansard report of the Committee proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden asked whether I did not have better things to do with my life. He made an excellent speech in Committee on pension splitting on divorce, and he has done so again today.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) asked whether the Government were not in danger of following the path of the Child Support Agency by making a mistake in their choice of how to implement the legislation. The principle is good, hut if the implementation is wrong, that could lead to unfairness and the Bill would have to return to the House for

  191
  clarification. That would have cost implications. It would have been better to follow the reports of the Pensions Management Institute and the Goode committee.
  On 30 June, The Independent described the Government's approach as "a strange mish-mash." It said that the Brooks v. Brooks case, which has been mentioned today, had made the Government alter their original intentions. Doubt has been cast on the overall effect of the Brooks case, and I agree with that. For example, The Independent said that a number of women would be
  "entitled to a share of their former spouses' pensions at retirement. They can claim this even if the partner dies before reaching retirement age."
  I am not at all sure that that is a consequence of the Brooks case. Indeed, my understanding is that Mr. Brooks is still very much alive, so I do not see how The Independent can make that judgment.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, the Brooks case was narrow, and there were special circumstances, as Mr. and Mrs. Brooks were the only two members of the personal pension fund. Because of that, Mrs. Brooks had a right that would not necessarily apply to other spouses with a range of different circumstances. I certainly do not think that the right would apply if the partner were to die, which is why I have tabled my amendment.
  If a member of a pension fund dies, that should not negate the right of the ex-spouse to his pension, which should have been guaranteed at the time of the divorce. If, subsequently, the member of the pension fund inconveniently dies, the ex-wife should not lose her rights. I do not think that the Brooks case resolved that problem, as The Independent maintained, although I shall be interested to hear the Under-Secretary's view. If it does not resolve that problem, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider my amendment, which would.
  I want to press the case for pension splitting on divorce. Many of the expert organisations support that, rather than the Government's earmarking approach. I want to draw the attention of the House to two documents. May's edition of "Parliamentary Brief' carries an article by Stewart Ritchie, the director of pensions development for Scottish Equitable. In an article entitled "A Prescription For A Messy Divorce"—which in itself sheds some light on the Government's proposals—he states:
  "The government's proposed answer is for the court to make an order which will oblige the pension arrangement to pay a proportion of the relevant pension to his ex-wife when he retires."
  That is the key point. He continues:
  "However this is contrary to the conclusions reached by the Working Group appointed by the Pensions Management Institute in its widely acclaimed report of May 1993, and the government's approach has been greeted with dismay by many parts of the pensions industry."
  The article then gives a number of reasons for that dismay, such as the fact that the ex-spouse will have no control over her pension arrangements subsequent to the divorce.
  Mr. Ritchie asks what would happen if the member of the pension fund deliberately postponed his retirement out of spite, to delay the ex-wife access to her share of the pension. That point highlights the unfairness that will arise out of the Government's approach. If we must have earmarking, the ex-wife should be able to exercise her
  192
  right on her retirement, rather than her ex-husband's. He should not be able to postpone his retirement out of spite. Mr. Ritchie was referring to a key point in my amendments—that the pension fund member may leave pensionable service and die before retirement. His pension would then die with him, as would the ex-wife's entitlement to her share. That would be unfair.
  Mr. Ritchie stated:
  "The PMI Working Group approach is to allow the ex-husband and ex-wife to agree a clean break using other assets if feasible … If this is not feasible, a transfer value can be paid…The ex-wife is then in charge of her own pension destiny."
  That is the approach favoured by the Opposition.
  Mr. Ritchie concluded:
  "If there is a political will for a clean break, it can be done, and it would be less messy than the current proposals."
  That is an expert opinion.
  The other document comes from the PMI. It is a press release dated 13 June, headed "Pensions and Divorce: is Disaster Looming?" It quotes Mr. Richard Malone, the president-elect of the PMI, as saying:
  "The hopes and expectations of thousands of divorcees will be badly let down if the present provisions for pensions on divorce are not changed as the Pensions Bill goes through the House of Commons. The PMI has been pressing for divorcees to be allocated a pension of their own as part of the divorce settlement; a pension which they can control themselves and around which they can plan their own financial affairs and independence."
  The press release continued:
  "Only when the scheme member decides to draw pension will part of it be paid to the divorced spouse; if it is drawn early, the ex-spouse will get less than expected; if retirement is deferred, ex-spouses will just have to wait for their share; if the scheme member dies before retiring, they will often get nothing at all."
  Mr. Malone said that those are "fundamental flaws" in the current proposals, and concluded:
  "Further complications arise because between the divorce and the time of retirement the scheme member may transfer the pension … Divorcees will have no say in any of these decisions despite the fact that they have a substantial interest in the form that the final pension takes and in the financial security of the investments."
  That is a pretty scathing criticism of the Government's earmarking approach, and there are arguments in favour of going down the road that the Opposition propose, of pension splitting. If the Government are insisting on earmarking, they should address the flaws and tackle them, even at this late stage.
  6.30 pm
  In my amendments, I propose to give the Government an opportunity to ameliorate at least some of the worst effects of their proposals. My amendments relate to four main areas, which I shall now go through. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 talk about the date when the legislation should be enacted. The fundamental point behind my amendments is that they should come into force on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  In Committee on 22 June, the Minister said:
  "We are talking about orders made after April 1996 for pension rights accruing after April 1997…If the divorce proceedings have started now, but have not concluded by the time that that time scale comes into effect, they will be affected in the ordinary way."
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I should correct a word that I used in Committee and which the hon. Gentleman referred to in his quotation. I said "accruing" when I should have said "paying". I am sorry to be pedantic.
  Mr. Cohen: That is a fair point. The effect on the ex-spouse of a pension fund member if the case is

  193
  on-going is that she will not have the rights which the Bill would pass to her for payment. It is understandable that, if the legislation is not passed, one will not get the rights. But why should an ex-spouse wait until April 1996 or 1997? Once the Bill is enacted and the ex-spouse goes to court, she should have those rights, as that is clearly what Parliament intends.
  In his opening speech, the Minister said that my amendments were retrospective, but I do not think that that is the case. I am saying that the measure should come into effect when the legislation is formally passed, as that is reasonable. Since taking up this matter, I have received letters from women who have been extremely badly treated in divorce settlements, and I have considerable sympathy with them. I understand the arguments about retrospective legislation, and I accept that we cannot reopen past divorce settlements. But I do think that we could start afresh from the date that the legislation is passed.
  The amendments would allow the provisions of the Bill to come into force on the day that the Lord Chancellor decides. It might not even be April 1996 or 1997, as the Minister said—although I presume that that is the Government's intention—as the Lord Chancellor could put off the introduction under the provisions of the Bill. We should be clear, and let divorced couples know where they stand, as that is the fairest way forward.
  There will be an anomalous situation if the Bill is enacted but its provisions are delayed until the rights start to come into effect, because couples will be bringing divorce cases to the courts and seeking settlements in the period between enactment and when the Lord Chancellor brings the measure into effect. It is unfair for the ex-spouse, and could create court chaos. Ex-spouses going to court for a settlement will—if properly advised by their lawyers—say, "Delay it until the Lord Chancellor brings the measure into effect," while the husband's solicitor will be telling him to get into court right away.
  That is not a proper way for the courts to be looking at divorce settlements, either. It is a recipe for chaos and unfairness, especially when the legislation is on the statute book. There is a strong case for bringing into effect the provisions related to pensions and divorce as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, and I hope that the Minister will consider that carefully when he comes to respond.
  My amendments would give an ex-spouse the right to be informed of any transfers of the pension fund money which occur when the ex-partner moves the money around different pension funds. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden wondered whether the duty to inform should fall upon the provider, and asked how an ex-spouse would know where the pension fund money was and what her rights were. Someone should have the duty to keep the ex-spouse informed.
  The Under-Secretary replied:
  "Those are both fair points, which I shall consider further because they are important."
  The Under-Secretary might have considered those important points, but we have not heard the results of his consideration; he has not come up with anything. I have helped him out with my amendments that propose that the ex-spouse should have the right to be kept informed about where her pension money is.
  In his opening remarks, the Under-Secretary said that we would be giving more information to her than to her former spouse. I find that hard to believe. There is a basic
  194
  case for saying that, if it is her money, she has the right to know where it is. That is a fundamental point. I find it hard to believe that she has more rights to information than her former partner, as he is the one shifting the money around—he will know where he has put it. If he changes jobs and joins a new employer's pension fund, he will know where the money is. His partner will not know. I think that, on reflection, the Under-Secretary will realise that what he said is not right, and that the ex-spouse will not receive more information than her partner.
  The Under-Secretary also argued against the right for the ex-spouse to receive information, because the trustees would have to bear the cost. A cost probably would be involved, but I do not think that the cost is unreasonable. It is better for the trustees and the managers of the pension fund to have that duty than her ex-partner, who would have no incentive to tell her. It would be tricky to place a duty on him to do so in law. It would put the couple back into contact with each other, when their marriage was over and they wanted to break contact. It would not be wise to put the duty on the ex-partner. It would be far better to place it on the trustees and the managers of the fund. I acknowledge that, as the Under-Secretary said, my proposal would involve a cost, but it is a minimal cost—a letter, perhaps even a standard letter, and a stamp. That should not be too onerous a cost for the trustees to bear. At present, the ex-spouse is in the dark about where her money is, which is wrong.
  The third of my four amendments relates to reconsidering the divorce settlement if the pension was not initially considered under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—an important point. The matter was dealt with by the Under-Secretary on 22 June, when he drew attention to the 1973 Act:
  "The position now is that the courts are obliged to take into account the pension assets"—
  when there is a divorce settlement—
  "But the experience of many people is that, despite that, such assets have not been taken into account—that is important"— —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 June 1995; c.803–8.]
  The Under-Secretary acknowledged that, although there is, nominally, a legal right, in many cases the pension right is not taken into account.
  6.45 pm
  My amendment gives the ex-spouse rights when that new pension money comes to light. It does so only in those circumstances where she may not have known that her partner had a pension fund, so it was never taken into account. The matter can be taken back to the court for consideration. But the case is reopened only in those specific circumstances—when the pension fund has not been taken into account in the original settlement hearing.
  The court would not reopen the whole divorce settlement, but only the pensions aspect of the settlement, which should have been taken into account at the original hearing, as the Under-Secretary acknowledged. That is not retrospection on any grand scale, but merely an adjustment to take into account existing law which is not being fully implemented. People are losing as a result of that omission.
  I have perhaps garbled my argument a bit, but I hope that I have made my point as best I can. I do not think that my amendment calls for too much retrospection—certainly not on a significant scale. It would allow for

  195
  pension rights, which are not always initially taken into account by the courts at the divorce settlement, to be considered as the law intended.
  I come now to the fourth of my amendments, and I see that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), is concerned that I have been talking for too long. I apologise to the House for that. I certainly do not intend to make a speech as long as the one I did the other night, but I am making relevant points.
  New clause 15 deals with what happens when the husband dies. I am strongly of the opinion that his ex-spouse should not lose her pension rights—they should not die with the husband, which would be extremely unfair. I shall not quote from the Committee Hansard again because of the shortage of time, but the Under-Secretary said that the matter was important. I give him credit for the fact that he was concerned about it. In response to points raised by Opposition members of the Committee, he said that he did not have the answers. He might not have the answers, but an answer is needed. My amendment gives the House the opportunity to have the answer.
  The basic principle behind the amendment is that the pension rights of the ex-spouse should not die when her partner dies if he dies before the pension comes into effect. That is the crucial point of the amendment. The ex-spouse should be entitled to what she would have received had her partner lived. My amendment amends the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 to allow that to happen.
  It is a clever amendment, and I pay tribute to the Clerks for its wording. It gives the ex-spouse the right under that Act for pension rights to be considered. The new clause is entitled
  "Pension provision on death of person not providing for a spouse".
  The new clause therefore goes a little wider than my original intention, but in a good cause. Regardless of divorce, if a person has not provided out of his pension for his ex-spouse, she can use the amendment to go to the courts to obtain her rights. I think that the Under-Secretary should accept the amendment.
  I think that the Under-Secretary said tonight that he was proposing to give the ex-spouse access to the lump sum. That goes part of the way to accepting my case that the ex-spouse should have rights, and that those rights should not die when her ex-partner dies.
  Mr. Arbuthnot indicated assent.
  Mr. Cohen: The Under-Secretary nods his head, and I am grateful that he has accepted the principle behind my amendments. I welcome that acceptance, but access to the lump sum is only half a loaf. If the Minister accepts that principle, a widow should have full pension rights and receive all she would have been entitled to if her spouse had not died. I hope that the Minister will take my points into account. Although I welcome his partial concession and his acceptance of the principle, I hope that I can persuade him to accept all my amendments.
  I believe that pension splitting is the best approach. A clean break would be best, and the courts should have the flexibility to arrange settlements and transfer values to the ex-spouse. The Government do not have time to address
  196
  all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, but I believe that they have over-egged the pudding in terms of the cost of pension splitting. I do not think that the cost is as great as the Government maintain. Many wives who do not have pension rights are forced to claim benefit, which the Committee was told amounted to about £70 million. That sum must be offset against the Government's estimated cost.
  I noted the Minister's argument about barring people from leaving public sector pension schemes because that would cost the taxpayer money. I thought that the Government wanted people to leave the state earnings-related pension scheme—in fact, the Government have awarded tax relief and tax bonuses to people to encourage them to leave SERPS and secure private pensions. If the Government do that as a general rule, I do not see why they should not do the same for ex-spouses. It should not be taken into account in the Government's calculations, because that is their policy, anyway.
  I am in favour of pension splitting, but in this Bill it appears that the Government are stuck with the second-best earmarking approach. If the Government are stuck with that approach, my amendments at least clarify and improve the law. According to the Minister's own criteria, they are cost-neutral, less complex, and certainly a lot fairer than the Government's proposals. I recommend them to the House.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Time moves on. The pensions issue has been well documented by many of my colleagues and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for the way in which he dealt comprehensively with that issue in putting the case for pension splitting. The Committee missed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) during its deliberations.
  Divorce is a traumatic event in the lives of the people involved. Many entanglements must be resolved, including emotional, financial and practical considerations. Sadly, in the United Kingdom the number of couples who opt for divorce has reached unwelcome proportions. Some two thirds of marriages now end in divorce, and that is the highest figure in western Europe. According to Mr. David Salter, vice-chairman of the Solicitor's Family Law Association, consecutive Governments have failed to take action on the issue of pensions and divorce. He went on to say that the current law creates inequitable settlements that often leave one partner of the marriage in poverty and that the courts need the power to redress the situation more fully.
  I have received a large amount of correspondence from individuals and organisations who point to high levels of suffering as a result of the inadequacies of the current settlement procedures. Social trends will make the issue increasingly more important. That view is shared by many, including Goode and the Pensions Management Institute.
  In marriage, careful provision is usually made by way of a pension and/or insurance to ensure that, if one partner dies, the other partner will be able to pay off a mortgage and to top up any existing pension entitlement. It is vital

  197
  that the dependent partner be provided for. At present, upon divorce, the dependent partner receives no such consideration. According to the organisation, Fairshares:
  "Divorce is as traumatic as widowhood. There is no partner, no breadwinner, no friend, instead there is an adversarial situation where each is trying to get as much as they can financially".
  That can be, and is, an horrific position in many cases—especially for the partner who has no on-going salary or pension provision for the future. As Fairshares says, the situation is particularly bad for older women, who may have had no opportunity to build their own pension rights through employment because of child care and family responsibilities. Those women—many of whose children have grown up and left home—face many other problems also, including social isolation, which is made worse by a lack of finance. The average total retirement income of divorced women is £65 per week. In 1993, 80 per cent. of the 1.5 million income support claimants over state pensionable age were women. The Government already face a considerable cost.
  Under existing trust law, a wife loses all her rights to her husband's pension upon divorce. We believe that our new clauses will assist the courts in quantifying the pension assets of partners through the pension-splitting process. It will not be the panacea that cures all ills, but it is a significant step in the right direction. Splitting pensions has the advantage of apportioning to a deposed or disposed-of partner a capital sum that may be passed to a pension provider if that is the required option.
  As has been said, that arrangement would fit in well with the clean-break settlement philosophy that the Government claim to believe in. The procedure and calculations for splitting would not be a disaster from the point of view of individual pension funds and they would not disadvantage the Treasury in the long term. The extravagant figures cited by the noble Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in the other place have been extensively dismantled by notable experts such as Mr. Geoffrey Wilson, an ex-Government Actuary and a partner in Binder Hamlyn.
  A Pensions Management Institute report of May 1993 opted decisively in favour of splitting, and a wide range of organisations have come to the same conclusion. The Equal Opportunities Commission said:
  "Any new legislation should be based on the now established clean break principle which underlies the current legislation on divorce settlement. It is important that a share in an ex-spouse's pension is not regarded as a form of deferred maintenance".
  The Law Society is also in favour of the Labour party's arguments. The Solicitor's Family Law Association, the Institute of Actuaries—despite some differences about the details—and the National Association of Pension Funds take the same line and have said so publicly. However, as usual, the Government have not gone far enough and, as in so many policy areas, have missed the opportunity to do what is right and fair. The Government have stalled for too long. Their proposal is too complex and it does not address the core needs of those involved.
  Earmarking makes no provision for the death of an ex-husband and would prove far more costly in administrative terms. It would not offer a clean break, with calculations having to be made for many years after divorce and all the agonising difficulties that bringing people together would bring. One cannot argue for parental responsibility with regard to child support provision and then not be consistent in ensuring that the
  198
  same responsibilities are applied to dependent partners who are divorcing. The law must reflect the changing face of our society and be adequate to meet people's needs. Pension splitting would allow people to get on with their lives, independent of their former partners. We believe that the Minister should reconsider the proposal.
  Organisations and professionals in the industry have said that pension splitting is the best option. As has been said, the Bill has reached Report stage very quickly after the conclusion of consideration in Committee. However, it is important that we do what is right. The Bill, which is very long and complex, must put the statute right because we are not sure when we shall return to the issue in future—albeit that the Minister has said that he is prepared to examine the survey results with a view to future legislation.
  We believe that our new clauses are appropriate and right and have the support of the majority of people. We urge the Minister to reconsider his decision.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am sure that my colleagues will agree that some of the saddest and most difficult cases with which we deal in our constituency offices involve divorce. There are a number of reasons why that is so. Partners often disagree about property, children and, recently, about the Child Support Agency. The current pension situation will now be added to those problems.
  Dreadful bitterness arises in many divorces, and sometimes children are used as pawns by one partner to get at the other. The situation that the House produced with the creation of the CSA has made matters worse. If it is now suggested that it is agreed by almost everyone that a former wife should be entitled to part of her former husband's pension, but only in the dim and distant future, we shall add to the burden of difficulty and anger. Divorce makes life hard enough for the children of a broken marriage without adding to it.
  7 pm
  It would seem fair, equitable and reasonable that when a divorce goes to court, the judge should review the circumstances and make a decision at that time. That way, the pension issue could be put to one side, which would at least do away with some of the anger and frustration that surround a divorce. I ask the Minister to reconsider even at this late stage. Hon. Members, for all the best reasons, missed certain opportunities with the child support legislation. Let us not make the same mistake again, but decide that new clause 1 represents the best thing to do.
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am conscious that a number of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate, because the subject is of considerable interest. We have all been lobbied extensively on pensions and divorce. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spoke at length and most ably, and I support his detailed, reasoned and sensible line.
  We are seeing the consequences of the Government being caught on the hop. For the past 10 years there has been pressure to rectify anomalies in the treatment of people after divorce. I accept the Minister's point that we must aim at gender neutrality, but the reality is that the vast majority of persons disadvantaged by the current situation are women, and women's organisations have been at the forefront in lobbying.

  199
  Opposing new clause 1—and one understands the Government not being interested, because that new clause took the argument further along the road than they want to go—the Minister referred to costs, complexity and fairness. The costs issue gives me cause for concern. There was lengthy consideration of the Bill, which spent 10 weeks in Committee. There was also the Bill's gestation period, the Goode report and that of the Social Security Select Committee, and the aftermath of various frauds and misappropriations affecting pension funds. There has been public demand for a review of pension funds. It is, therefore, regrettable that there is a sense that certain clauses have been cobbled together. The Government, having been caught on the hop in respect of pensions and divorce, have not thought through the matter properly and logically.
  In Committee on 22 June, the Minister explained that the estimated cost of allowing pensions to be split by all married couples was £1.3 billion in the first full year. I am grateful to the Minister for advising the Committee that the figure had been rechecked by the Inland Revenue, when the estimate fell dramatically to £600 million—a substantial change. In view of the Minister's comments this afternoon, it appears that the figure has now fallen to £500 million.
  Mr. Arbuthnot indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Liddell: The Minister shakes his head, but I understood him to say that £200 million would be lost in tax revenue and £300 million would be lost as a consequence of unfunded public sector schemes.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The latter was £500 million.
  Mrs. Liddell: I stand corrected. That makes a total of £700 million. I would like much greater analysis of those figures. Having served an extended period before the legislative mast, as a member of the Committee on the Finance Bill prior to being a member of the Committee that considered the Pensions Bill, I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the Treasury to recoup some money.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I hope that it will help the hon. Lady if I set out the figures. The figure of up to £200 million is the amount of tax revenue that could be lost as a result of direct pension splitting, but it would grow over time. The figure of up to £500 million is the potential immediate cost of splitting pensions in relation to unfunded public sector pension schemes. The figure of £600 million relates to the immediate cost—it would eventually grow to £1.3 billion—of giving the same sort of tax breaks to married couples as the pension-splitting effect would give divorced couples.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the Minister. We are always grateful to the Government for fiscal prudence. In fact, our Whip is always careful to ensure that similar prudence is exerted by ourselves. The sum mentioned by the Minister is exactly the same that the Government spent on reorganising Scottish local government, which nobody wanted. The Government took that action in the hope that it would benefit them in some way, but instead they suffered the most humiliating result ever. If that is an example of the Government's fiscal prudence, I invite them to think again.
  200
  The Bill is unbelievably complex, and its very complexity deliberately confuses. The complex nature of pension law prior to the Bill was always a problem. Complexity was debated in detail in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden greatly advanced the knowledge of Committee members, as he often does. He quoted from an article in New Law Journal by Maggie Rae, a matrimonial partner with Mishcon de Reya:
  "Pension splitting is not complicated. Since 1988 it has been possible to transfer a pension from one fund to another, say when a person changes jobs."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 June 1995; c. 789.]
  The mechanism is not complex, so I fail to comprehend why the Government favour earmarking over splitting, when people who have no party political axe to grind make it clear that there is no question of undue complexity.
  The Minister spoke also of fairness, which is at the heart of my hon. Friend's new clause. Until debate in another place—and I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lady Hollis—there existed the concept of women as chattels, even after divorce. Women lost control over their pensions because an ex-spouse, out of spite, could make sure that no pension or flexibility was available, which would allow the prudent person to plan ahead. It is important in the interest of fairness that those matters are considered. It is regrettable that the Government have not been more imaginative.
  New clause 2 draws our attention to insurance. It is intriguing that the Government speak with forked tongue. On many occasions, the Prime Minister has commended private insurance for what it can do to protect the mortgages of those who are unfortunate enough to become unemployed. Yet when we are seeking to enforce prudence on those who are walking away from a marriage, voluntarily or involuntarily, we find that such enforcement is not acceptable and, indeed, would be far too costly to implement.
  I was heartened to some extent by the Minister's rather evasive response to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) about the research that the Government are undertaking. I would be grateful if the Minister were to provide greater elucidation on the direction that the Government are planning to take.
  We must be conscious of the signal that we are giving to the outside world. The complexity of pensions is a major inhibiting factor when it comes to people planning prudently and wisely for their retirement. We have not managed to overcome that problem during our consideration of the Bill.
  The Government should have taken the opportunity to think again. Social trends suggest that by the year 2025, 13 per cent. of divorced women will be more than 60 years of age as against 3 per cent. in 1985. Those of us who are conscious that the sittings of the House relate more to English school holidays than to those holidays in Scotland might be concerned about joining that band by 2025, if longevity allows. The Government must take into account changing social trends.
  We have had 10 years in which to think about how pensions and divorce should be considered. The new clause moves us further on. It seems that the Government have been bounced and that they have not done justice to the extensive and widespread lobbying of those who are likely to be affected by the proposals that we are considering.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) on the quality of her speech. I have no doubt that she was encouraged to make it by the assiduous efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie).
  Pension rights have become the most important matrimonial asset for a significant number of divorcing couples. They have become more valuable, perhaps, than the matrimonial home. Yet despite the financial significance of pensions, they have been insufficiently appreciated by those advising on financial arrangements after divorce. We can compare the growing appreciation of professional advisers of the importance of pension assets with the development of the law on the division of the matrimonial home.
  Traditionally, the matrimonial home was in the husband's name. That was because, traditionally, the husband went to work and made the mortgage payments each month. Given a growing recognition of the contribution in kind that was made by the wife, the courts eventually developed ways around the clear terms of the conveyance into the husband's sole name. That gave the divorced wife some interest in the former matrimonial home. Eventually the law, as made by Parliament, reflected that change and allowed courts a wide range of discretion in disposing appropriately of the asset of the matrimonial home.
  This debate should be about giving the courts similar comprehensive powers to deal with that other significant financial asset, the pension. Our debates in Committee, and again today, have focused on how to deal with the pension, and have been characterised by three different approaches. First, there is what might be described as the compensatory approach, which means balancing the value of pension rights against non-pension assets. Secondly, there is the earmarking approach, which means deferring pension rights until the ex-spouse reaches retirement age. Thirdly, there is pension splitting.
  The first option of balancing the various assets available to the spouses has, in effect, always been allowed under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It has, however, significant disadvantages. It is difficult to calculate the exact amount of compensation that should be provided for the non-pension-paying spouse. One party may end up receiving a disproportionate share of the matrimonial home, but a poor pension. There may be insufficient assets to enable transfer from one spouse to the other. As a result, the debate has turned towards the Government's approach contained in clause 164, which would amend the Matrimonial Causes Act and allow for earmarking. Balanced against that is new clause 1, which sets out practical proposals for pension splitting.
  7.15 pm
  There is no doubt that earmarking is an improvement on the present position. It would not alter the total sum to be paid out by a pension scheme. It would at least allow the courts to award a pension to an ex-spouse on retirement as long as the scheme member is still receiving a pension. It would save the court making complex calculations in balancing the parties' various financial interests.
  There are still problems, especially in the failure to observe the clean-break principle. It is now well established that where possible it is attractive to the parties that they be allowed to continue to lead their lives
  202
  independently. That is what divorcing couples decide to do. As far as possible, the courts' approach should be to permit those couples to do so without continuing financial entanglements.
  Earmarking means that where one spouse fails to pay his or her share there may be a necessity to return to court to enforce any order of the court relating to the pension. That is a particularly unfortunate consequence of earmarking. It means that there will always be a continuing connection between the former parties to the marriage. It means also that the former partner depends on the member spouse surviving to retirement. We have already heard of the difficulties that that involves.
  In failing to observe the clean-break principle, there is considerable uncertainty about the level of retirement income. That means that individuals have difficulty in planning their future, including their retirement. That is why I hope that even at this stage the Government may still be considering the possibility of pension splitting. The Minister has already referred to surveys and investigations. We were much enlightened in Committee about the various surveys that the Government have conducted. As the reality is that there will not be further pension legislation in the near future, I hope that the Government will have some sympathy with the idea of pension splitting. It is a principle that supports the idea of a clean break. It would give former married partners the possibility of leaving their defunct marriage to go their own separate ways without being financially dependent on each other. With pension splitting, there would be no need for them, by and large, to depend on a continuing relationship with the former spouse.
  Pension splitting has regard to the modern world of work, in which people are likely to pursue a series of occupations with a series of different pensions. That was the underlying theme of all that we discussed in Committee. That theme recognises the modern world of relationships, in which people have a series of different relationships and may well, therefore, have a series of different pensions on which they depend. That is something to which pension splitting gives recognition.
  It follows that it would be sensible to take into account the contribution that is made by the non-member spouse in terms of the length of the marriage. It would appear to be possible to consider the contribution that has been made during the course of the marriage and to account for that financially in a split pension.
  The Government's objections were set out thoroughly in Committee and again by the Minister today. The Minister is concerned about the cost, the complexity of any arrangements and the fairness of treatment between married and divorced couples. Cost is based on losses to the Exchequer in the form of lost tax revenue and the potential cost of transfers from unfunded public sector schemes.
  I shall return to the tax implications in a moment, but it does not seem particularly complex for a pension fund to calculate a transfer value at the time of divorce. That transfer value can then be divided as appropriate, according to the length of the marriage, recognising that some people may have paid into a pension fund before the marriage. It seems perfectly straightforward to calculate the contribution in kind by the non-member spouse at the time of divorce. In those circumstances, I

  203
  cannot see that pension splitting is necessarily any more complicated or difficult than earmarking, which the Government appear to advocate.
  I accept, however, that there are more substantial problems in respect of cost and I would be interested to hear the Minister's observations as to whether the substantial argument from the Government is based on complexity, or whether it is a disguised way of saying that they are concerned about the cost.
  Obviously, there are potential costs of pension splitting. The substantial cost is likely to involve unfunded public service schemes, but that assumes a transfer at the time of divorce from the ex-spouse's share in the unfunded public sector scheme. Why not simply enrol the former spouse in the public sector scheme? That person would then receive a pension from the unfunded public sector scheme according to the length of time that they were eligible to receive such a pension, without involving the Exchequer in any substantial payout. I cannot see how it involves any greater cost to the public sector than would he the case if they had continued to be married and received a pension on retirement. Simply to put the former spouse into the pension scheme, with a guaranteed right to a pension on retirement, would not seem to involve any extra expenditure from the revenue.
  In respect of tax losses, I am grateful that the Minister appears to have revised down the original assessment of £300 million to £200 million. The first element of that cost appears to result from the splitting of personal allowances. If I understood the Minister's argument properly, the divorced couple would claim two personal allowances instead of the one that formerly would have been available to the person in receipt of the pension. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that calculation. It assumes that the non-earning spouse on retirement has no other income and, therefore, does not take up her—as it is likely to be the woman—personal allowance. That does not appear to be the most realistic approach. It is likely that that person will be entitled, for example, to a state pension which will take up all the personal allowance on retirement. If that assumption is correct, as more and more women are entitled to the state pension and, therefore, use up their personal allowance with the state pension, I assume that the costs of pension splitting would correspondingly diminish and might not increase in the way that the Minister has suggested.
  The second cost has been said to be the potential consequence of former spouses making extra tax-deductible contributions to top up their divided pension. Surely there are straightforward means of ensuring that a spouse does not claim more tax relief than that to which he or she is entitled. If that is likely to be a serious cost to the revenue, I assume that it is possible to produce regulations to limit the effect of that potential topping up. On the assumption that the topping up would be only within the existing revenue rules, it is unlikely to be a significant cost.
  The third cost was in respect of fairness. The Minister felt that it might be necessary to give benefits to married couples on retirement to put them in the same position as divorced couples. The cost has been estimated at £600 million, but I cannot see any reason why it should be necessary. The law on taxation already treats married couples significantly differently from single couples.
  204
  There are arguments for many married couples to divorce and take advantage of the various allowances that then would be available to them, so I am not clear why we should take a different view of couples in retirement receiving a pension. That fairness argument is not nearly so substantial as the Minister suggests.
  The real benefits of splitting as against earmarking seem to be in terms of simplicity and fairness. It provides a clean break, it allows both former partners to take benefits when they need them, and it assures ex-spouses a pension when they need it. That is an attractive argument in favour of splitting.
  Ms Church: We have heard several excellent speeches from Opposition Members, and I shall add just a few words. Opposition Members recognise that thousands of women—and some men—up and down the country are watching the outcome of the debate, but it is mainly women because, at the end of the day, it is mainly women who will benefit from our amendment.
  The normal pattern of life for many women will involve divorce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) said earlier. We should not pretend that it is an undesirable social change. We cannot hide our heads in the sand and pretend that it has not happened. It has happened and the Government have recognised it in their proposals for earmarking.
  Tonight's debate is clearly between a clean break and earmarking. It is a debate about what thousands of women want and what the Government choose to deny them. Women earn pensions in their own right, but those pensions are often very small or virtually non-existent, and we all know the reasons for that. Many women do not earn at all because they care for children and have other caring responsibilities. Even when they work, there is still gross inequality in earnings. Women have broken periods of employment because they devote time to bringing up their children and, increasingly, to the care of elderly and dependent relatives. All those issues are interrelated. In practice, few women have adequate pensions in their own right. Following a divorce, women often do not have pensions appropriate to the standard of living to which they became accustomed during married life.
  As many Opposition Members have already said, divorce is a painful emotional experience. The circumstances giving rise to it can be long drawn out, as can the process of the divorce itself and its aftermath. The Government must recognise that social change; they cannot turn back the clock. Not only do many marriages end in divorce, but many second and subsequent marriages also end in divorce.
  The Government's earmarking option will leave thousands of women once or twice divorced without a clean break. They will be unable to put marriage behind them and plan a new life in full and complete independence. In their later years, they will have to track down their benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said. They may have to find various pension schemes in which small sums of money are buried because their former partners had many different employments. It is totally unrealistic to expect elderly women, often burdened by many other problems, to undertake time-consuming tasks which are often a bureaucratic nightmare simply to claim what is rightly theirs. Why should they have to do that when they may be

  205
  suffering from ill health or other detriment or incapacity? Women do not want the Government's inadequate option; increasingly they recognise that it is a mealy-mouthed measure—another example of the Government's failure to understand what modern women want and deserve.
  The women concerned know that pensions are deferred pay and that they are entitled to the money. When they divorce they want to be sure that, as part of the divorce settlement, they will know exactly what their pension rights are. They also want to know that the money is theirs, and is in their name, so that they can do with it what they want.
  Surely the Government—I understand that at the moment they are a reshuffled, or rather, a reshuffling Government—can bring their great mind to bear on trying to overcome the difficulties of bringing about a clean break. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said, many people in the financial and pensions world realise that that is achievable, so that women who want a fair and equitable settlement can pick up the strands of their lives after divorce.
  The Minister's explanation of the Government's failure to rise to the challenge was unusually foggy—if that is not too unparliamentary an expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We do not accept that explanation, and neither will our constituents. They want a modern pensions law—something clear on the statute book that will ensure that when they go through the painful process of divorce the law does not add to the pain and uncertainty of their future lives.
  7.30 pm
  When will the Government recognise that we are now becoming a nation of multi-marriages—or at least two marriages in many cases? When will they admit that marriage for a lifetime is not what is actually happening to everybody and therefore provide clarity in pensions law? To protest that they cannot do that does not wash, and thousands of women know that it is wrong. It is an appalling failure to recognise what women want and to provide it.
  We shall return to the matter another time, but it will not be while the Minister and his friends occupy the Government Benches. We can be clear about that tonight: the moment will come, and I believe that it will come soon.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: From the mood of the House I sense that we feel that we have heard the arguments on both sides. They have been developed in another place, further developed in Committee and developed even further by the amendments that we have now tabled.
  It is important to remind the House what we are doing. We are giving the courts important extra powers which we believe that they will value, and which will be especially valuable to women going through divorce. The position of such women will be significantly strengthened. I commend the Government's proposals to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1
  PENSIONS ON DIVORCE, ETC.
  'In the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, after section 24A there is inserted—

  Pensions
  24B—(1) On granting a decree of divorce, a decree of nullity of marriage or a decree of judicial separation or at any time thereafter (whether, in the case of a decree of divorce or of nullity of marriage, before or after the decree is made absolute), the court may make a pensions adjustment order (referred to in this section as "an order") for the benefit of a party to the marriage.
  (2) An order shall where the court so determines bind a person who is not a party to the marriage but who is liable to pay any benefit under a pension scheme to a party to the marriage or any successor to such a person.
  (3) An order is an order adjusting the rights and benefits to which either party to the marriage is or may become entitled to under any pension scheme and in particular the court may by such an order require—

  (a) either party to the marriage to pay to the other such lump sum or sums as may be specified in the order (without prejudice to any other order which may be made under section 23(1) or (3)); or

  (b) the administrator of a pension scheme to treat the party to the marriage in favour of whom the order is to be made as a member of the pension scheme in relation to such benefits as may be specified in the order which were acquired by the other party to the marriage before the decree of divorce or nullity was made absolute or before the decree of judicial separation, or

  (c) the administrator of a pension scheme to make such payment or payments as may be specified in the order into such other pension schemes as may be nominated by the party to the marriage in favour of whom the order is made, or

  (d) the administrator of a pension scheme to pay such part of any pension as may be specified in the order to the party in favour of whom the order is made for such term as may be specified not extending beyond the death of either party to the marriage, or

  (e) the administrator of a pension scheme to pay such part of any dependant's pension as may be specified in the order to the party in favour of whom the order is made for such term as may be specified beginning with the death of the other party to the marriage and not extending beyond the death of the party in whose favour the order is made, or

  (f) either party to the marriage to pay such administrative costs incurred by the administrator of the pension scheme in responding to any application for an order or in implementing an order.

  (4) An order shall not be made—

  (a) under subsection (3)(b) above unless the administrator of the pension scheme consents to membership of the pension scheme for the party to the marriage who is not already a member of the pension scheme, or

  (b) under subsection (3)(c) above unless the court is satisfied that the administrator of the pension scheme nominated by the party in whose favour the order may be made has agreed to accept such payment or payments, and in the event of the administrator being unwilling to accept such payment or payments he may be required to notify the parties to the marriage and the court.

  (5) It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under this section and, if so, in what manner to have regard in particular to—

  (a) the matters referred to in section 25 save for the words "in the foreseeable future" in section 25(2)(a), (b) and (f), and

  (b) the effect that child care or other domestic responsibilities have had or will have on the ability of each of the parties to the marriage to make provision for his retirement, and

  207

  (c) any administrative complexity or cost to the administrator of the pension scheme.

  (6) The Secretary of State in agreement with the Lord Chancellor shall by regulations provide for the date and method of valuation to be applied by the court to rights under a pension scheme when making an order and to provide for notice of any application for an order to be given to the administrator of the pension scheme.
  (7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as may be appropriate to meet the special circumstances of unfunded public sector schemes by varying or excluding the powers of the court under this section.
  (8) Nothing in the provisions mentioned in subsection (9) below applies to a court exercising its powers under this section.
  (9) The provisions referred to in subsection (8) are—

  (a) section 203(1) and (2) of the Army Act 1955, section 203(1) and (2) of the Air Force Act 1955, section 128G(1) and (2) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or section 159(4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (which prevent assignment or orders being made restraining a person from receiving anything which he is prevented from assigning);

  (b) section 84 of the Pensions Act 1995;

  (c) any provision for any enactment corresponding to any of the enactments mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b); and

  (d) any provision of the pension scheme in question.

  (10) the making of an order shall in no circumstances form the basis of any decision made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to remove the exempt approved status or to alter the tax status of a pension scheme provided that—

  (a) the party to the marriage in whose favour an order has been made shall be treated for the purpose of retention of benefits as the member; and

  (b) the maximum benefits payable to and in respect of the party to the marriage whose rights have been varied by the order shall be limited to the benefits that would have been payable if the order had not been made.

  (11) No order or orders shall be made which shall have the effect of increasing the liabilities of any pension scheme beyond those which might have been incurred had the parties to the marriage remained married until the death of the party against whom the order is to be made.
  (12) After paragraphs (2)(f) of section 31 there shall be inserted:
  "(g) any order made under section 24B(3)(d) or (e) above"
  (13) After subparagraph (ii) in section 35(2) there shall be inserted:
  "or (iii) by adjusting the rights and benefits to which either party to the marriage is or may become entitled under any pension scheme."
  (14) Nothing in this section shall affect any proceedings commenced before the commencement of this section.
  (15) In this section—
  "administrator" means the trustees of an occupational pension scheme or the administrators or managers of such a scheme in the absence of trustees or the administrators or managers of a personal pension plan;
  "member" means a member of an occupational pension scheme or a person having a personal pension plan or retirement benefit plan or other similar arrangement; and
  "pension scheme" means an occupational pension scheme or personal pension scheme or retirement benefit plan or other similar arrangement.'.—[Mr. Dewar.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 292.

  Division No. 193]

  [7.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fatchett, Derek

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Faulds, Andrew

  Ainger, Nick

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Alton, David

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry

  Fraser, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Battle, John

  Galloway, George

  Bayley, Hugh

  Garrett, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gerrard, Neil

  Beggs, Roy

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bell, Stuart

  Godsiff, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Graham, Thomas

  Berry, Roger

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blunkett, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hain, Peter

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

  Hall, Mike

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Burden, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Byers, Stephen

  Henderson, Doug

  Caborn, Richard

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cann, Jamie

  Home Robertson, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Chidgey, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Church, Judith

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monkands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jamieson, David

  Corston, Jean

  Janner, Greville

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cunningham, Jim(Covy SE)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Denham, John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dowd, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eastham, Ken

  McAllion, John

  Etherington, Bill

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McCartney, Robert

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Macdonald, Calum

  209

  McFall, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McKelvey, William

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McLeish, Henry

  Rogers, Allan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooney, Terry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Salmond, Alex

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Short, Clare

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Simpson, Alan

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Snape, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Miller, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stevenson, George

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Timmis, Stephen

  Murphy, Paul

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Turner, Dennis

  Olner, Bill

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wallace, James

  Parry, Robert

  Walley, Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Watson, Mike

  Pike, Peter L

  Welsh, Andrew

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Winnick, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wise, Audrey

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Worthington, Tony

  Purchase, Ken

  Wray, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Radice, Giles

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Randall, Stuart

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Reid, Dr John

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Eric Clarke.

  Rendel, David

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alexander, Richard

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Booth, Hartley

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ancram, Michael

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ashby, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Baldry, Tony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Burns, Simon

  Bates, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butcher, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butler, Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Butterfill, John

  210

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heald, Oliver

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dunn, Bob

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

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knox, Sir David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Elletson, Harold

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribbte Valley)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evennett, David

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Lightbown, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Luff, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gallie, Phil

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hague, William

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  211

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stephen, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Stern, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Stewart, Allan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Streeter, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Page, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Paice, James

  Sykes, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thomason, Roy

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Richards, Rod

  Trend, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Trotter, Neville

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robathan, Andrew

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waller, Gary

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Ward, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sackville, Tom

  Watts, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Willetts, David

  Sims, Roger

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wood, Timothy

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Yeo, Tim

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Dr. Liam Fox.

  Steen, Anthony

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 164

  PENSIONS ON DIVORCE, ETC.
  Amendments made: No. 69, in page 121, line 32, leave out 'in the foreseeable future'.
  No. 70, in page 121, line 38, at end insert—
  'and, accordingly, in relation to benefits under a pension scheme, section 25(2)(a) above shall have effect as if "in the foreseeable future" were omitted'.
  No. 71, in page 121, line 41, leave out 'in the foreseeable future'.
  No. 72, in page 122, line 6, leave out from 'above' to end of line 11.
  No. 73, in page 122, leave out lines 33 to 39 and insert—
  '(7) Where the party with pension rights may require any benefits which he has or is likely to have under the scheme to be commuted, the order may require him to commute the whole
  212
  or part of those benefits; and this section applies to the payment of any amount commuted in pursuance of the order as it applies to other payments in respect of benefits under the scheme.

  Pensions: lump sums
  25C.—(1) The power of the court under section 23 above to order a party to a marriage to pay a lump sum to the other party includes, where the benefits which the party with pension rights has or is likely to have under a pension scheme include any lump sum payable in respect of his death, power to make any of the following provision by the order.
  (2) The court may —

  (a) if the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question have power to determine th e person to whom the sum, or any part of it, is to be paid, require them to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, to the other party,

  (b) if the party with pension rights has power to nominate the person to whom the sum, or any part of it, is to be paid, require the party with pension rights to nominate the other party in respect of the whole or part of that sum,

  (c) in any other case, require the trustees or managers of the pension scheme in question to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, for the benefit of the other party instead of to the person to whom, apart from the order, it would be paid.

  (3) Any payment by the trustees or managers under an order made under section 23 above by virtue of this section shall discharge so much of the trustees or managers liability in respect of the party with pension rights as corresponds to the amount of the payment.

  Pensions: supplementary
  25D.—(1) Where —

  (a) an order made under section 23 above by virtue of section 25B or 25C above imposes any requirement on the trustees or managers of a pension scheme ("the first scheme") and the party with pension rights acquires transfer credits under another pension scheme ("the new scheme") which are derived (directly or indirectly) from a transfer from the first scheme of all his accrued rights under that scheme (including transfer credits allowed by that scheme), and

  (b) the trustees or managers of the new scheme have been given notice in accordance with regulations, the order shall have effect as if it has been made instead in respect of the trustees or managers of the new scheme; and in this subsection "transfer credits" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.

  (2) Regulations may—

  (a) in relation to any provision of sections 25B or 25C above which authorises the court making an order under section 23 above to require the trustees or managers of a pension scheme to make a payment for the benefit of the other party, make provision as to the person to whom, and the terms on which, the payment is to be made'.

  No. 74, in page 122, line 42, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert 'sections 25B and 25C'.
  No. 75, in page 123, line 3, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert 'sections 25B and 25C'.
  No. 76, in page 123, line 16, at end insert
  'and sections 25B and 25C above'.
  No. 77, in page 123, line 28, leave out 'subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'section 25B(1) and (2)'.
  No. 78, in page 123, line 31, at end insert
  'and sections 25B and 25C above—

  213
  '"the party with pension rights" means the party to the marriage who has or is likely to have benefits under a pension scheme and "the other party" means the other party to the marriage'.
  No. 79, in page 123, line 47, leave out from 'section' to end of line 4 on page 124 and insert—
  '31 of that Act (variation, discharge, etc. of orders) —
  (a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
  "(dd) any deferred order made by virtue of section 23(1)(c) (lump sums) which includes provision made by virtue of —

  (i) section 25B(4), or

  (ii) section 25C, (provision in respect of pension rights)", and

  (b) after subsection (2A) there is inserted—
  "(2B) Where the court has made an order referred to in subsection (2)(dd)(ii) above, this section shall cease to apply to the order on the death of either of the parties to the marriage'''.
  No. 80, in page 124, line 10, leave out 'in the foreseeable future'.
  No. 81, in page 124, line 23, leave out `(8) of section 25B' and insert
  `(7) of section 25B, and section 25C'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 7

  APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES
  Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
  '(1 A) Where an application is received from the member nominated trustees of a scheme and where those member nominated trustees including any pensioner trustees selected by the members of the scheme comprise less than 50 per cent. of the total number of trustees the Authority may direct the trustees of the scheme to appoint an independent trustee to be drawn from a register of approved trustees to be compiled by the Authority.
  (1B) The Authority shall establish and maintain a register of approved independent trustees.
  ( IC) Where a direction under Clause 7(1)(a) is not complied with, sections 3 and 10 apply to any trustee who has failed to take all such steps as are reasonable to secure compliance.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 16, page 9, line 39, at end insert—
  '(6A) The arrangements must provide that when a scheme has more than 850 members, and pensioner members comprise a majority, one additional trustee shall be nominated, who shall be a pensioner member of that scheme.'.
  No. 10, in clause 16, page 9, line 39, at end insert—
  '(6A) The arrangements must provide that when a scheme has more than 500 members, one trustee shall be nominated who shall be a beneficiary of that scheme or a person approved by the beneficiaries of that scheme.'.
  No. 11, in clause 17, page 10, leave out lines 4 to 30.
  No. 12, in clause 17, page 10, line 9, after `procedure', insert
  `and are not rejected by at least 10 per cent. of active and pensioner members or by 5, 000 such members, whichever is the lesser number.'
  Mr. Ingram: In dealing with this group of amendments, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 16 and 1.
  Amendments Nos. 16 and 1 set out to achieve very different objectives. Simply put, the purpose of amendment No. 16 is to provide a mechanism for member-nominated trustees in schemes with less than 50
  214
  per cent. of member-nominated trustees to ask the regulatory authority to appoint an independent trustee. If the grounds for that application satisfy the authority, the authority may direct the trustees of the scheme to appoint an independent trustee from a register of approved independent trustees.
  Those of us who have spent weeks and months achieving a smattering of knowledge about the Bill will know that it already gives the regulatory authority considerable power to remove or suspend trustees in given circumstances: clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 refer to those powers. Provisions also permit the appointment of independent trustees in given circumstances: clauses 23, 24 and 25 relate to those powers. Amendment No. 16 proposes that member trustees be given a role in that process in circumstances where they consider it to be in the best interests of scheme members that an independent trustee be appointed to assist in the on-going running of a scheme.
  Although the issue was dealt with briefly in Committee, it was discussed in broad terms. Amendment No. 16 adopts a specific approach. Amendment No. 68, which was debated in Committee on 9 May, drew particular attention to clause 7(4), which vests wide-ranging powers in the regulatory authority, including the power to
  "appoint a trustee of a trust scheme in prescribed circumstances."
  It could well be argued that amendment No. 16, which aims to give powers to member-nominated trustees to adopt such an approach, is already covered by clause 7.
  Although I do not wish to go into all that was said in Committee on 9 May, I think it is worth examining what the Minister said:
  "Clause 7 deals with the power to appoint trustees. In view of the expense that an additional trustee might impose on a scheme, the Government felt that it was important not to give the authority unfettered power to appoint trustees in any circumstances. That would have been one of the alternatives to a regulation-making power. Indeed, we have sought to set out on the face of the Bill the situations in which we believe that the power is most likely to be exercised."
  The Minister continued:
  "It would be nice to think that we had been able to anticipate all such situations, but we need to be able to add to the list in case, in the light of experience, there proved to be other situations where it would be desirable for the authority to be able to make appointments."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 May 1995; c. 107–8.]
  We could drift into an argument about the unfettered powers of the regulator, as we are dealing with the powers vested in the authority and in the Government, through regulation; but I think it useful to examine precisely what the Minister said on 9 May. The amendment gives him the chance to be "nice". We had some pleasant debates in Committee, and I am sure that this would not be the first or, indeed, the last opportunity for him to be nice.
  Others have speculated about the future that lies before the Minister, given the events that have taken place elsewhere this afternoon. Someone may well be nice to him if he is nice to those who tabled amendment No. 16. What could be nicer than to accede to the request of member-nominated trustees that an independent trustee be appointed? If such a request were made, it would not be made lightly or frivolously, but in the context of specific circumstances pertaining to specific schemes.
  The argument in support of the amendment is linked to the wider debate on the number and percentage of member-nominated trustees appointed to schemes. That

  215
  issue, too, was debated extensively in Committee: we discussed the balance between member and employer-based trustees, which was also dealt with at length in the other place. Strong arguments were advanced in favour of the principle of a 50:50 split between member and employer-nominated trustees, notwithstanding the view adopted by the Goode committee—and expressed in the Bill—that the statutory requirement should be a minimum of one third member-nominated trustees in schemes above a certain size. It is worth repeating that some of the best and biggest final-salary schemes in the country operate above that minimum: Rothmans, Jaguar, Leyland DAF, Thomas Cook, Shell, Allied Lyons, Albright and Wilson, Courtaulds, Lucas, Sainsbury and Boots all have 50 per cent. member-nominated trustees.
  ICI has six employer trustees, six member trustees and one independent trustee; its scheme has been in operation since 1926. Unilever—one of the top companies internationally, not just in the United Kingdom—has 12 employer trustees, 12 employee trustees and one pensioner trustee. That, without doubt, is a roll-call of some of the best companies in British industry, and it could be expanded further. For instance, the Rolls-Royce pension scheme has 80, 000 members and a market valuation of £1.63 billion. It goes further than most: it has 13 trustees, five appointed by the company and eight elected by the members.
  Mr. Michael Stern: The hon. Gentleman and I share the distinction of being Rolls-Royce Members. Does he agree—I hope to say more about this later if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that, at least until recently, not a single pensioner was represented among those eight employee trustees?
  Mr. Ingram: That is true, but it could be changed tonight if the hon. Gentleman votes with us. Rolls-Royce falls into a category with which I shall deal when I speak about amendment No. 1; at present, however, I am speaking to amendment No. 16, and referring to the balance between member and employer-appointed trustees.
  The Government rejected our argument originally. An earlier amendment was not selected, and this is not an attempt to return to it, but the underlying argument in amendment No. 16 relates to the rights, role and functions of member-appointed trustees, and what they can and cannot do. It aims to give them additional power, strictly regulated by the authority. I think that the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) is more relevant to amendment No. 1.
  In Committee, in another place and on the Floor of the House, Ministers have strongly opposed the extension of the one third-two thirds member-employer relationship laid down in the Bill, but that argument is not solid. It is based on the list of companies during the two Committee stages. There is nothing to show that a 50:50 split is impracticable, cumbersome or costly; if it were, none of those blue-chip schemes would have adopted such an approach. Experience and best practice tell us that the 50:50 balance is a respectable and tried-and-tested approach.
  216
  On 16 May, the Under-Secretary of State said—this relates directly to the underlying principle of amendment No. 16—
  "However, it would not be right for us to go further than setting a floor. We have set a floor of at least a third of the trustee board being member nominated and many people may wish to build on that floor."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 May 1995; c. 173.]
  If the Government are serious in their intention that schemes should be allowed to build on the one third-two thirds floor set down in the Bill, they can have no argument against amendment No. 16, which provides for precisely that. It identifies the concept of the floor and allows member trustees to argue something at variance with that floor—again, only with the approval of the regulatory authority. Clearly, granting the power proposed in amendment No. 16 would give much encouragement to member trustees who may be operating in a one third-two thirds environment and finding that all their reasonable requests are simply being rejected or overturned by the majority view of the trustees.
  We accept and understand that the purpose of trustees is not to represent sectional interests, but another argument is involved here that does not stand up to examination. To be realistic, it must be recognised that, in many instances, employer-based trustees will represent the interests of their company where they believe the better interest of the company must be served and, likewise, employee-based trustees will seek to operate in a similar fashion. That is the reality.
  8 pm
  Sir Andrew Bowden: The hon. Gentleman makes the point about specific interests being represented by trustees. Surely each group has a specific interest. Employers have an interest and contributors to the scheme who are still employees have an interest. Why do we not have a pensioner interest as well? They all have particular interests to further and to work for.
  Mr. Ingram: I agree entirely. I do not have time to return to the Second Reading debate but, in reply to it, I welcomed the hon. Gentleman's speech and suggested that it might be worth his serving on the Committee as he was clearly a man of independent spirit and mind. His views could have added considerably to our debates in Committee. I do not know whether it was his or someone else's choice that he did not serve. He makes a strong, valid and telling point, but it deals with amendment No. 1, to which I shall come shortly. I agree, however, with his point.
  The Government say that there must be a floor of one third member-nominated, employee-based trustees, which can be exceeded and amended with the approval of the trustees, the company that is funding the scheme and the other contributors. In those circumstances, however, member trustees who consistently argue what they believe to be a reasonable case and find themselves frustrated—it will and does happen—have no way of amending the scheme to achieve a 50:50 split.
  Amendment No. 16 therefore proposes the simple mechanism of putting a case to the authority. If there is a logjam and something in a scheme is not in the interests of the scheme members, who may be losing out because of the intransigence of the employer trustees, those

  217
  members could say to the regulator, "Please consider the appointment of an independent trustee to assist us in determining a way out of this impasse."
  It is important to consider in detail what amendment No. 16 proposes. It does not propose that power be given to member trustees to insist that an independent trustee be automatically granted. That must happen by leave of the regulatory authority, so that important power resides elsewhere. Clearly, trustees would need to submit a strong case to satisfy the conditions that are likely to be laid down by the regulator.
  That is the underlying principle of amendment No. 16. It touches on some of the arguments relating to the balance of trustees on schemes. If passed, it would give some comfort to member trustees who may be battling away, doing their best in difficult circumstances and acting honestly to achieve changes to the operation of the scheme, but making no progress. In the normal course of events, they would have no recourse other than to the authority. Amendment No. 16 says that one helpful recourse would be for member trustees to be able to put the case to the authority that they need to break the logjam or to overcome the difficulties that they face. If the authority agrees, an independent trustee could be appointed and would undoubtedly be of great benefit not just to trustees, but to the scheme members involved in a scheme.
  I commend amendment No. 16 to the House on that basis. Others may wish to speak in relation to this point, but I suspect that the real debate will take place in relation to amendment No. 1, which relates to the appointment of pensioner trustees.
  All those who have been involved in the consideration of the Bill—and, I suspect, all other hon. Members—have received considerable correspondence from a wide variety of interests making the case for a pensioner trustee. The issue was debated at length in another place, and of course during our deliberations in Committee. When the matter was considered in the other place, a wide-ranging amendment was proposed. It says simply:
  "At least one trustee to be nominated by pensioner members of the scheme".
  That wide-ranging demand was modified when we debated the matter in Committee.
  Despite the fact that in this country there are 4, 500 schemes with 1.83 million members that have a pensioner trustee, the Government have rejected the arguments in favour of the principle proposed in the amendment. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said:
  "If pensioner members were singled out to have the right to nominate their own trustee, there could be a danger that that trustee might not enjoy the confidence of active members."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 1995; Vol. 561, c. 460.]
  That is a strong statement by a Minister, but he did not back it up with any facts. He simply ignored the fact that 4, 500 schemes already have such an approach. I am aware of no evidence—perhaps the Minister has evidence that Lord Mackay received but did not give to his Committee—that the pensioner trustee members in those schemes do not enjoy the confidence of active members. If the Government are basing their rejection of the principle of pensioner trustees on such an assertion, they must prove their case. That case has not been proven.
  Mr. Frank Field: Is my hon. Friend not being typically generous to Treasury Ministers? If their
  218
  argument is correct, surely they must move even further. If the pensioner interests on pension trusts are behaving in the way that was described in the other place, surely they should be removed from the trust.
  Mr. Ingram: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to say that those Ministers should be removed from the Treasury, but that may come as well. That is a strong point. If pensioner trustees did not enjoy the trust of active members, that action could be taken. The case advanced by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish was not supported by any fact, but he based his rejection of the arguments advanced in another place on that case.
  In Committee on 11 May, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) moved an amendment with the support of Labour Members, which appeared in column 143 of the Official Report.He was more specific about the way in which this matter should be dealt with. Rather than adopting the general approach of the amendment in the Lords, his amendment provided:
  "Once a scheme of more than 1, 000 members comprises a majority of pensioner members, for at least one trustee to be nominated by pensioner members on that scheme".
  Clearly that narrows it down to particular schemes—large, mature schemes. It says that, where there was a majority of pensioner members, one of the trustees should be nominated by pensioner members on that scheme. That was an advance on what was being proposed in the other place simply because it dealt with schemes that operate in a particular way. It was supported by the arguments advanced in the Goode report. That document was used extensively in Committee.
  On page 261, Goode reported that
  "The case for pensioner trustees is not without merit. There is some anxiety that the interests of pensioners may be very much in the background if there is no pensioner trustee, particularly since they are not involved in the negotiating process between employer and employees. In addition, they are thought to be less susceptible to some of the pressures that face active members. The case for pensioner trustees is particularly strong where they represent the majority of the scheme beneficiaries".
  Goode went on to reject the idea of pensioner trustees. However, the analysis that I have quoted is met by the amendment that was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Antrim, South, and met, in its entirety, by amendment No. 1.
  Simply put, the case for pensioner trustees is that a pensioner trustee will bring a wealth of experience to a trustee board. The experience of the many schemes that have pensioner trustees shows that such trustees tend to be people with considerable experience in the company. Many are retired senior managers who know the company inside out, who are committed to advancing the company's interests, who have served for many years, ensuring that the company was successful, and therefore who want it to continue to be successful. There is incredible loyalty among the pensioner trustees whom I meet and many pensioner members of schemes who wish to serve in that capacity. They have a loyalty to the company that they have served—in many cases, for 20, 30 or 40 years. They often bring expertise of senior management.
  Perhaps more important—this argument was picked up by Goode in the passage that I quoted—pensioner trustees would not be susceptible to pressure from elsewhere. That is very important, given the new concepts that have been developed in the Bill about whistleblowing.

  219
  We must live in the real world. Many member trustees would have second thoughts about blowing the whistle if they considered, notwithstanding the protection that may or may not be in the Bill, that they had only, say, a 40 per cent. question mark in their mind about wrongdoing. Most member trustees would have to be very satisfied about what was going on before they ever blew the whistle on the scheme.
  Such pressure and uncertainty would never exist in the mind of a pensioner trustee. A pensioner trustee has no need to fear, however strong his commitment and loyalty to the company. The minute that there was any hint of mismanagement or perceived irregularities in the operation of a scheme, he would not hesitate in blowing the whistle.
  Mr. Stern: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. Employer-nominated trustees or member-nominated trustees have a vested interest in the well-being of the scheme, which may in itself encourage them to blow the whistle over malpractice, but surely the same considerations apply to a pensioner trustee whose pension is not necessarily purchased outside the scheme but depends on the future funding of that scheme by the employer and by existing employees.
  Mr. Ingram: I am not adopting an absolute position that pensioner trustees will always operate on that basis—they will undoubtedly have other factors in their mind. I hope that I have not lost the support of the hon. Gentleman for that concept because he believes that there is illogicality in what I have said.
  Mr. Frank Field: If the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) recalls the genesis of the Bill, it resulted from what happened in the Maxwell pension schemes. An employer removed people at his will if they did not do as he wished. That would not occur if they were retired, because they would not have jobs to lose, which would lose them the place on the pension scheme.
  The case of Imperial Tobacco appeared before the courts. Trustees had been removed from pension schemes, and the judge said that to lose one set of trustees was carelessness, but to move two was a much more serious charge against the employer. Surely, given the origins of the Bill, we are trying to build some safeguard into it.
  Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend makes his own argument extremely well, based on his knowledge and experience of investigating that specific scheme. My memory tells me that one of the trustees was not simply moved but was sacked by Maxwell, because he was the one who was identifying much of the wrongdoing. That trustee was dismissed from the company, not from the trust, but obviously, the minute that he was out of the company he was no longer eligible to serve as a trustee. That could not happen to a pensioner trustee, who is free to tackle such matters.
  8.15 pm
  I do not believe that such things will be happening daily. We have come to expect and accept that most pension schemes in this country are well run. However, it has been clearly proven—in the Maxwell case and in many other cases documented in the Goode report and elsewhere—that irregularities do creep in and major
  220
  wrongdoing does take place. A pensioner trustee would simply be another bulwark against that eventuality occurring in schemes covered by amendment No. 1.
  Some people may want to argue differently, but I emphasise that amendment No. 1 does not argue that pensioner trustees should be appointed as of right. A pensioner trustee should be appointed only to mature schemes, the majority of whose beneficiaries are pensioners.
  We must respond to another development that has taken place in the economy in which we all now have to exist. Many large companies have been divesting themselves of employees rapidly in the past 10 or so years, creating a shift, which many people could not have predicted, in the balance in pension schemes between active members and pensioner members.
  The National Federation of Post Office and British Telecom Pensioners says, in its briefing material, which has been sent to all hon. Members, that 66.3 per cent. of members of the Post Office scheme are pensioners and 69.4 per cent. of members of the British Telecom scheme are pensioners. In absolute terms, there are 192, 000 pensioner members in the Post Office scheme and 211, 000 members in the BT scheme. Those are very large numbers of people who have no right of direct representation.
  Ten or 15 years ago, people could not have predicted that shift, which has been mirrored in large scheme after large scheme, and the percentages to which the National Federation of Post Office and British Telecom Pensioners draws attention are borne out by arguments advanced by other groups acting on behalf of pensioners' interests.
  It is therefore right that that reasonably new and developing make-up of pension schemes—of pensioners being in the majority—is recognised.
  I accept that the Government may argue that there is nothing to prevent pensioner members from becoming trustees. We discussed that at length in Committee, and it is correct. Pensioners can become trustees if they are so elected.
  However, we should return to the real world. The real world proves that it is very difficult for pensioners to organise. They lack the financial resources; they do not necessarily have all the relevant information to hand. It is quite a task to organise 192, 000 pensioners, as in the case of the Post Office scheme, or more than 200, 000 in the BT scheme.
  I accept that 850 members is an arbitrary figure. Other figures could be set; I think another amendment sets the figure at 750. In Committee, the hon. Member for Antrim, South set the figure at 1, 000. It is the principle that is being argued for.
  I hope that the Minister will accept the arguments about the need to recognise the changed circumstances that now apply in many large pension schemes and the important role that pensioner trustees can play in a free and unfettered way. They would not need to look over their shoulders or worry about employer pressure if they reported perceived wrongdoing in a scheme.
  The expertise that those pensioners can bring to the operation and management of individual schemes is important. There is a wealth of talent screaming out to he included in many sue) schemes. We can address that argument by accepting amendment No. 1. I am sure that it will be warmly welcomed by hundreds of thousands of pensioners in schemes throughout the country.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I should like to concentrate my comments on amendment No. 10, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I support a large part of the comments made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) in moving his amendment.
  I ask the Government to understand that there is strong feeling among pensioner organisations about their lack of representation. Many hundreds of thousands of people are involved. They are frustrated because they feel that they have no effective say and no direct influence on the handling of schemes or on the boards of trustees.
  I know that there was considerable debate on this issue in Committee, where my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said:
  "The Government agree that there should not be a requirement to appoint pensioner trustees, but we are trying to facilitate pensioners having a voice on an equal basis with active members, which would go further than the Goode report suggested."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 May 1995; c. 156.]
  I am glad that they are trying to do that. What we are asking my hon. Friend the Minister to do tonight is to put those words into operation. It is a great opportunity for him to do so.
  I believe that the Goode committee side-stepped the matter. It took the soft option when it used words to the effect that pensioner trustees should be encouraged. It should have gone much further. I do not know why it did not. I suspect that there was some disagreement in the committee about how far it should go and it compromised on encouragement instead of being more positive.
  The 1993–94 report of the pensions ombudsman makes an interesting statement:
  "Trustees' conflicts of interests…Trustees are often appointed from the management sponsoring company, or company itself … Conflicts of interest can arise in which consciously or unconsciously the individual concerned may not distinguish between their differing responsibilities adequately."
  That refers to the point that we were discussing earlier.
  Frankly, it is a fig leaf argument to claim that trustees should not represent sectional interests. In the real world, in practice, they do. Quite correctly, employers and member trustees have sectional interests. Why on earth should not the pensioners have a sectional interest and a sectional voice, too?
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he and the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) used the phrase "pensioner trustee". My interest was not aroused when the hon. Member for East Kilbride used it because amendment No. I refers to a trustee
  "who shall be a pensioner member",
  but amendment No. 10 refers to a trustee
  "who shall be a beneficiary of that scheme or a person approved by the beneficiaries of that scheme."
  Is my hon. Friend using those two phrases interchangeably or does he see a distinction between a pensioner trustee who is a pensioner and a trustee appointed to look after the interests of pensioners?
  Sir Andrew Bowden: There is a distinct difference on this point between amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 10, which extends a view that I have expressed in the House before. Where appropriate, we should encourage people to join boards of trustees who are not necessarily
  222
  beneficiaries and who do not necessarily contribute to the scheme but who would be there with the approval and support of the pensioner beneficiaries. That would enable a much wider range of people to join trusts and use their expertise and knowledge.
  In groups of beneficiaries, there will be individuals who could do a very useful job, but there may well be occasions when the beneficiaries will want to bring in from outside somebody who might have had a great deal of experience and knowledge of pension matters. Such a person might be a retired solicitor who specialised in that subject or a Member of Parliament who had retired or whose services had been disposed of by the electorate but who had some expertise that could be used. There is a range of possibilities. We should not be rigid and say that trustees must come from one category or another.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: As a Back Bencher, I appreciate the difficulty of drafting amendments. For clarity in this debate, would the hon. Gentleman confirm that he uses the word "beneficiary" to mean somebody in receipt of a pension? I ask because there has been confusing use of that word. For example, consider the judgment against Lord Hanson in the Hanson-Imperial Tobacco case. The word "beneficiary" is used to cover active scheme members, deferred pensioners, pensioners and, indeed, the company. I take it that the hon. Gentleman means specifically those people in receipt of a pension.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: Yes, I mean people who actually get the benefit of the pension. It is always difficult, as the hon. Gentleman said, for Back-Bench Members to get the wording of amendments exactly right. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister knows what I mean and I am certain that the House does.
  I should be delighted if my hon. Friend the Minister were to say, "I have to tell my hon. Friend that his amendment is not quite correctly worded, but I agree with the spirit of what he intends and wishes. I shall take it back to my Department, get the wording right and submit it through further stages of the Bill so that it will become law." I very much hope that that will happen. I am clear that I am talking about those actually in receipt of a pension.
  There are large groups of people who meet regularly to discuss their schemes and their problems as pensioners. There is one other thing that slightly worries me. I have no specific, hard evidence to establish it, but I get the feeling that there is some prejudice against allowing pensioner beneficiaries to become trustees because there is a feeling that they might be a bit old and past their best. People wonder whether they can really make a useful contribution. I hope that that is not the case because a large number of people in their 60s, 70s and, indeed, 80s are very able. There are some hon. Members in that age group who are excellent Members of Parliament. I therefore trust that I am mistaken, but I have a feeling that I am not.
  There is also a feeling that beneficiaries who are on the board of trustees will lack impartiality. I should not mind if they lacked impartiality in the sense that they were battling to ensure that the beneficiaries got a full and fair deal. If we put the right people on boards—people who can also consider the overall position of the trust and the decisions that it has to make—they could make a valuable contribution.

  223
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be more positive tonight than he was in Committee. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I support amendments Nos. 1 and 10 for various reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who spoke with typical force, outlined one of the most important arguments that we ought to consider. No one but a knave or a fool would claim to have the panacea with which to safeguard pension funds. We are trying to knit together a series of mechanisms that will minimise the chance of any group of pensioners going through what the Maxwell pensioners had to go through.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride spoke about the need for pensioner trustees, he meant that they might be less easy to nobble than other trustees, given the frailty of human nature. He was not saying that, if only we had a pensioner trustee on every trust, we could guarantee the safety of the funds. We could not do that, but the chances are that we would improve the safety of funds if there was such a trustee whose job was not dependent on his carrying out his employer's wishes.
  In response to my intervention, my hon. Friend made my point more forcibly than I did and in the manner that I should have employed. People are often on boards because they hold a particular job. If they prove difficult as trustees—if they do not do what the employer wants—they risk losing their job because dismissal can be the only way to take them off the trust board. It is crucial to have on the board a number of people who speak the truth as they see it, without fear or favour of their employer.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about people who are trustees of a pension fund and in related employment. Often, the pressure may not be as direct or overt as the risk of losing a job. If someone is making a nuisance of himself, as it were, his prospects in the company can be diminished—it might be no more than that, but it can nevertheless be very damaging.
  Mr. Field: Most people would be helped by there being an independent/pensioner trustee behind whom other trustees could group their arguments. I should hope that that case alone would persuade the Government even at this late hour to improve the Bill by accepting the amendments.
  There is another reason for supporting the amendments. The more the Government claim that people do not speak for specific sectional interests but are bound by trust law, the weaker is their case against having on trust boards people who represent particular special interests. In this context, I disagree slightly with the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden)—I call him my hon. Friend tonight—presented his case. It is important to have on trusts people who represent specific ideas while abiding by the framework of trust law, or who have a general duty to promote the trust, as specified in law.
  Let us consider our roles as Members of Parliament. We all enter the House with a party label. Indeed, we should be foolish to think that we would be elected without our party
  224
  labels. We therefore bring a particular interest, whether it be Labour, Tory or Liberal. However, once elected, we represent all of our constituents. Bringing a particular point of view to our work here does not make us any the less Conservative, Labour or Liberal, but we regard our constituents' interests with particular eyes.
  The same applies to a member of a trust. He joins the trust with employer or employee interests, trade union interests or, as we are discussing now, special independent interests or pensioner interests. That trustee brings different qualities. If I compare the qualities that I try to bring to the House with those of my colleagues or Conservative Members, it is clear that we all bring something different to the debates although each of us tries to represent properly the views of all our constituents. That argument applies equally to members of pension trusts.
  There is a final reason why the Government should concede the amendments. I believe that they would do so had they been present when the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and I took evidence in Northern Ireland about the Harland and Wolff pension scheme. The evidence that we heard was disgraceful, as was the attitude of those in charge of the pension fund. In fact, it was doubly disgraceful because they did not know how disgraceful their views appeared to all those present.
  The prevailing attitude was not merely condescending but a dismissal of people who had given all their working life to Harland and Wolff. People were publicly humiliated for trying to represent their interests effectively as pensioners. I believe that I am right to say that they were denied information about other pensioners. Their efforts to represent pensioner interests were thwarted at every turn. Instead of seeing a mature group of individuals in charge of the Harland and Wolff scheme and rejoicing in the fact that people were actively trying to represent their own interests—that, after all, is the very lifeblood of democracy—those in charge tried to humiliate those people. Those in charge have now made some minor concessions. They will appoint someone from the group, but they did not trust the vast majority of those interested in the scheme to make that decision themselves.
  If one believes the Government's rhetoric, as I do, that ownership of pension assets is probably more important than the value of one's house—even before the age of negative equity—one must surely move with alacrity to accept the amendments.
  The genesis of the Bill was the theft of pension funds from Maxwell pensioners and future pensioners. No one pretends to be able to guarantee the absolute safety of pension funds. The amendments seek to make pension funds more representative and to make it a little more difficult for the awful Maxwell scenario to happen again. Given the purpose of the Bill, I think that the Minister will have to have some pretty good arguments if he is, with a clear conscience, to persuade his colleagues to vote against the amendments.
  Mr. Stern: I am happy to continue in the spirit with which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) concluded. When considering this group of amendments, I find myself in a not unusual position for any Back Bencher of any party. I am pretty convinced that the Government have got it wrong. I am also pretty convinced that the amendments do not represent much of an improvement. By using a couple of arguments, I shall explain why, from experience, I believe that.

  225
  I came to the House in 1983 as the representative of an area in which Rolls-Royce Aero Engines was—and still is—the second largest employer. My first involvement in this argument occurred when a small group—first two people, then half a dozen—of Rolls-Royce pensioners came to see me to complain with some fairly abstruse figures that the pension scheme into which they were locked had been disadvantaged by a subsequent action by the company in favour of another pension scheme into which a larger number of employees was locked, but in which there was also a larger number of non-pensioner members.
  The group of half a dozen people tried to enlist my help and I contacted Ministers and the company. In the end, I suggested to them that it would be a good idea, given the local involvement of Rolls-Royce, to arrange a meeting and invite a representative of the company to explain its point of view. I was a little surprised when more than 500 people turned up—it was just one branch of the company.
  The nub of the argument was very simple. Although it was not as extreme an example as Harland and Wolff, which the hon. Member for Birkenhead described, Rolls-Royce had taken a decision which appeared to be in , the interests of the company and the on-going contributors to the pension scheme, but which meant that a group of pensioners had no say, and no opportunity of a say, in the argument. They had no representative on either the pension trust or the company funding committee, which examined the levels of contributions made to the pension trusts. They were the ultimate disfranchised minority whose financial future was being affected by decisions that were outside their control.
  I suppose that, from that date, I became convinced that some greater pensioner involvement was necessary to look after—or at least speak for—the interests of pensioners. A second example, again in my constituency, confirmed that feeling. It concerned another former major employer in the Bristol area, Imperial Tobacco, which was much more to do with southern Bristol than northern Bristol, but nevertheless involved a considerable number of people.
  After the war, Imperial Tobacco set up the dream pension scheme especially for its managers—the famous Ross-Goobey scheme, which was the benchmark for many years. When I was elected, a large number of my constituents—as is the case even now—enjoyed very generous pensions because of the way in which that pension scheme was set up.
  A few years ago, efforts were made by the then owners of Imperial Tobacco, Hanson plc, to alter the rules of the scheme. Those efforts ended up in a highly expensive legal action which the company happened to lose. There may well be a division of opinion across the Floor of the House on the rights and wrongs of that action but, as was explained to me by the company, it was not a raid on the pension fund as some people thought. It was a straightforward lack of anybody at decision-making level able to put forward the very deeply held views of the majority of pensioner members.
  That is another example of the interests of pensioners being deliberately or inadvertently damaged—at least from the pensioners' point of view—because of the pensioners' lack of even one representative on the scheme whom they could regard as acting in their interests.
  226
  So far, I have advanced arguments that back those, especially those put by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, for the need for further prescription, but this is where I start to have some doubts. I have spent a large part of my working life as a practising chartered accountant. Inevitably, as such, I have advised companies on setting up schemes and advised companies with schemes in place on how to change them. The one conclusion that I have come to, which makes me very doubtful about any setting up of rules for pension schemes generally, is that every pension scheme is different. The ebb and flow of individual interests in a pension scheme not only varies from month to month, but from company to company and from industry to industry.
  8.45 pm
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead talks—rightly— about mature schemes in which there are a large number of pensioners. I have to ask him how it would be possible, for example, to set up rules for the following two schemes with an identical number of pensioner members. With Rolls-Royce, pensioners are concentrated in two or three places, so a large number of them can get together. In another company, such as a tour operator, in which the employers are worldwide, every individual receives his or her pension in a different way and the interest of each individual varies according to the movement of currencies, and it is virtually impossible to get a common opinion, let alone a common voting system, among pensioners. I therefore come to a slightly different solution from that suggested by the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
  In the 1980s, I was proud of being in this House and of serving on the Committee on the Bill that abolished compulsory membership of pension schemes, which I regard as one of the great advances in pensions. The Government have given employers and active employee members of pension schemes a way out. Just as employers always had the right to cease to fund a pension scheme subject to existing contracts, employees were given the right, by a Conservative Government under the Social Security Act 1985, to opt out of pension schemes that they found inimical to their interests. That right does not apply, except to some extent, to deferred pension scheme members and it does not apply to any extent to pensioner members.
  Mr. Frank Field: Before the hon. Gentleman congratulates himself too much on supporting that particular measure, does not he see some inconsistency with the general stance of those on the Treasury Bench, which I also accept, that wherever possible people should provide for themselves and not draw means-tested welfare? Will not that very measure, which he is so proud to support, increase the number of people on means-tested pensions and therefore the burden on taxpayers?
  Mr. Stern: I fear that the hon. Gentleman's comments, however apposite they may appear, have nothing to do with the subject that we are discussing. I prefer to stick to the subject that we are discussing.
  Compulsory membership of pension schemes still exists in all its full force for people who are currently drawing a pension. The Government need to go a little further to address that and see whether additional rights can be given to those pensioner members. I reject the prescription approach set out in the Opposition

  227
  amendments simply because it is too prescriptive and would create as many anomalies as it would destroy. I also reject the hands-off approach, which the Government appear to be proposing, that we cannot do anything right and, therefore, should do nothing.
  There is scope for the Government and, in particular, OPRA—which is being set up under the Bill—to go further than the Government have so far. It should be open to the Government positively to encourage all schemes regulated by OPRA to introduce as soon as possible, within the circumstances of each particular scheme, some form of pensioner membership. My hon. Friend the Minister has previously argued, and may well do so again tonight, that that would create representative vested interests on a scheme. However, I join the Opposition in saying that those vested interests already exist and it would do no harm to recognise them.
  Mr. John Denham: During discussions in Committee and on earlier stages of the Bill, I have found rather curious the Government's resistance to the idea of pensioner-nominated or pensioner-member trustees. It appears quite straightforward to me that such trustees would add strength to the trustees of pension funds, would add a welcome element of independence and would reassure millions of pensioner members of funds. Those are all good reasons for having pensioner trustees. The Government have not produced any strong or overwhelming arguments for resisting the extension of those trustees to a much larger number of schemes.
  The amendment focuses on larger, mature schemes where the majority of members are pensioners. However, I do not see any absolute reason why we should restrict our support for pensioner trustees to schemes that have a majority of pensioners. The advantage in debating the amendment is that it focuses clearly on the interests of pensioner members of schemes, which are not properly represented at the moment.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) moved a similar amendment, but with a slightly higher threshold—1, 000 scheme members rather than 800. Both amendments have the same principle. The hon. Gentleman estimated that his amendment would cover 720 of the 128, 000 schemes in this country. A relatively small number of schemes would need to adjust to fall within the terms of that amendment, but it would cover more than 4 million people, many of whom feel that they are not adequately represented. The slightly lower threshold in the Labour amendment would draw in a larger number of schemes. However, both amendments, with the condition of schemes being of a certain size and with a majority of pensioner members, are aimed at a particular group.
  Three or four key questions must be asked about the principles behind our amendment. First, would pensioner members of schemes feel more confident about their pensions if those principles were adopted? I cannot believe that any hon. Member—certainly none who served in Committee—could be in any doubt that pensioner members would feel more confident if someone whom they had directly chosen represented them on the board of trustees.
  I am sure that we have all received letters from the British Telecom and Post Office schemes and had meetings with and representations from the Confederation
  228
  of Occupational Pensioners Associations. That has left us in little doubt that people speaking for the majority of pensioners have a strong case. For as long as they are excluded from representation in a scheme, they and those whom they represent will continue to feel that their interests are not being adequately safeguarded.
  It is true that, as has already been said, no one measure could absolutely safeguard the pensions either of people who are already receiving them or of those who will do so in future. However, the very act of exclusion—and that is the way in which the Government's proposals are being interpreted—leaves many pensioners feeling disfranchised. If the amendment was adopted, people would feel more secure and would be reassured that their pensions were being better looked after.
  Secondly, would it cause any substantial problems to adopt the amendment? Are there any overriding difficulties or overwhelming problems standing in the way of doing so? In Committee, the Minister produced a series of rather curious arguments. He raised a complete red herring about making regulations that cover a wide variety of schemes. However, under the Bill, schemes will have to make arrangements, and rules will have to be drawn up for consulting on the selection of member trustees', so there seems to be no reason why the modest amount of additional work and thought needed to find a way to consult pensioner members, and so choose a representative whom they find satisfactory, cannot be part and parcel of drawing up those rules.
  Thirdly, what would the role of the trustees be? Would they act irresponsibly or pursue narrow, sectional interests to a point that damaged the operation of the fund and the trustees as a whole? I felt in Committee—and nothing has been said today to change my mind—that the clinching argument is that there are already a significant number of schemes with pensioner representatives in one form or another, yet no one has shown us any evidence that pensioner-nominated trustees are more inclined to breach trust law, or that they are more likely to act more irresponsibly than any other type of trustee. There is no evidence that pensioner-nominated trustees would create problems for the operation of existing funds.
  I agree with the points made by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government are in a stat of complete confusion about whether trustees from different constituencies represent certain interests. Throughout our debates on the Bill, the Government have failed to produce a single logical argument. When it has suited them, Ministers have argued that trustees are responsible only to the trust deed and to the operation of the fund, so that where they come from is irrelevant. The Government have used that argument to resist the idea of pensioner-nominated trustees. They have said that that would be a terrible step in the wrong direction as it would create a set of special interests, and they have added that they do not wish to encourage the recognition of special interests within pension funds. But the Government have not used that argument when it comes to the overall make-up of the trust.
  When we advocated a 50:50 split of employee and employer representatives on the trust, the Government said that that was not a good idea and was going too far. They readily conceded that employers would take the view that such a scheme would involve too many people

  229
  who did not represent the employers' interests on a trust. For the sake of logic, the Government should have been consistent on the principle throughout the Bill.
  When the Government rejected the idea of a 50:50 split of employer and employee representatives in the membership, they recognised de facto that the members would represent different interests within the pension funds. The members will all be bound by trust law—as a pensioner's representative would be bound—but they will bring to the operation of the pension fund a special knowledge of and a special interest in their own area.
  We expect that the people who are nominated by employers will bring to the operation of a pension fund a special interest in the employer's viewpoint of the management of the fund, and we also expect that employee representatives will bring a special insight of the view of the active members of the fund of the way in which the fund is administered. There is nothing wrong with recognising that.
  We think that the Government have got it wrong, and that there could well have been a 50:50 balance that would not have harmed the operation of the funds. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) gave a long list of examples where such schemes work perfectly satisfactorily. During the consideration of the Bill, the Government should have reflected on the underlying principle that there is nothing wrong with people bringing a special insight to a pension fund.
  9 pm
  It is possible to identify fairly readily the sort of situations where it would be useful to have a member of a scheme who had an interest and insight into the concerns of the retired members who are the beneficiaries of the fund. The most obvious example is when the immediate interests of both the active members—the current employees—and the employer coincide, but in a way that is to the detriment of the pensioner members of the scheme. A company running into financial difficulties will clearly be under pressure to accept a lower funding level for the scheme titan might otherwise apply.
  A base line is now in place as a result of the introduction of the minimum funding requirement. None the less—as we rehearsed many times in Committee—that level may well be significantly below that which a company would normally wish. It would be useful in those circumstances for pensioners to have a voice within the fund to say, "We understand and appreciate the difficulties, but other interests are involved."
  Self-investment is tightly prescribed within the Bill, but—as I recall—it is not ruled out. That is another example of where the immediate interests of the active members and the employer may coincide, when it might be healthy to have a third point of view, to question whether that is in the best interests of the scheme as a whole.
  When a company is restructured, there is a temptation—all hon. Members will have seen this in their constituencies—for various employers to use the surpluses in the fund to enhance the early retirement benefit for the active members. Again, that is an instance where it would be useful to have retired members questioning whether such an operation was really in the interests of all the beneficiaries of the scheme. In all circumstances, the management of a fund would benefit from having a pensioner-nominated member.
  230
  In opposing the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, South in Committee, the Minister deployed three arguments, one of which I have touched on. The Minister's red herring was that the amendment would create enormous difficulties for schemes, but I do not accept that argument. The schemes will be drawing up rules and procedures for consulting members and finding out how best to consult them on member-nominated trustees. The Minister also quoted the Goode committee report—which came out against the representation of sectional interests—but my views on that matter are very much in line with those of the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
  The Minister's third argument was a curious and democratic one. He seemed to argue that, in the type of schemes that the amendment addresses, where there is a majority of pensioner members, that majority would in principle be able to organise themselves in such a way as to make sure that their interests were adequately represented among the trustees. I am not sure that that approach is realistic, wise or healthy for the management of schemes that have a majority of pensioner members.
  At one end of the spectrum there is a difficulty in organising a dispersed group of pensioner members who may, by now, be living at different ends of the country, a long distance from the workplaces where they originally worked. In many companies, those workplaces may not now exist. Their ability to organise themselves to reflect their interests will be much weaker than that of active members who may well, in some big companies, still be in large workplaces, well organised by trade unions and able to have a clear, collective voice.
  From time to time I receive various ballot papers from building societies asking me to vote in building society elections. One reads the information and generally does not have a clue whom to vote for. I feel very much the same in some of the obscure regional elections of my trade union, when I receive CVs from apparently identical candidates. A dispersed electorate has difficulty in organising itself to get its views across.
  There is a danger that, although in principle, pensioner members could use the new procedures in the Bill to ensure that their interests are represented, that will not happen in many cases. When the rules are initially drawn up under which active members and pensioners are to be consulted on the selection of the member trustees, it will, in many cases, be difficult for the retired members to have a clear voice on whether those rules and procedures will enable them effectively to express their apparent majority. I do not think that they will be able to do so very often. The rules and procedures will presumably govern whether statements and manifestos can be circulated to all members. It would be essential for such items to reach retired members, so that they could be asked to vote for a specific person because he or she would be willing to act in the members' best interests.
  The current rules and procedures could easily result in some funds in which pensioners were not organised. Although there might be a majority of pensioner members, they could ultimately end up with very little representation on tile trust bodies. However, it is at least theoretically possible, perhaps in some of the large schemes where pensioners are extremely well organised and where there is a considerable majority—of two to one or three to one of pensioner members to active members—for pensioner members, as I understand it, to

  231
  use the rules and procedures to ensure that every member trustee of the scheme is a pensioner member or a pensioner-nominated member. I am not sure that that would be healthy for the management of pension funds.
  I doubt whether there would be many employers who would be happy for their active members of the scheme to be excluded from the scheme's management and for it to be dominated by pensioner interests. I am not sure whether many employees and active members would welcome that outcome. By advancing the democratic argument that if there is a majority of pensioners, they will be able to ensure that th y are adequately represented, the Minister is encouraging a dangerous and unstable position.
  It would be more prudent to define a clear role for pensioner-nominated members of the scheme. If that were done and made best practice and enforced as best practice in the way suggested by the amendment, pensioners would, by and large, accept it. They would see it as a means by which their interests would be clearly represented in future. Such a policy would also add to the stability of the management of the schemes.
  I believe that the Government have resisted the proposal more from their general desire not to prescribe regulations if they think that they can get away with it. In this case, they are doing so in a way that will leave many pensioner members feeling that they are poorly represented and unable to contribute to the security of their own pensions.
  Mr. Wolfson: I have, all along, been uneasy at the difficulty that the Government appear to have in accepting compelling arguments for pensioner representation on the trustee bodies. It seems that we are inevitably in a working world of much greater insecurity than existed in the past. New technology means that this is a continuous process; short-term contracts and rapid changes in the skills required for the job mean that, during their working lives, people feel less secure than they used to, whatever their employment. For pensioners, that sense of insecurity has become much stronger since the Maxwell fiasco.
  As the Bill was instigated as a result of the problems arising from the defrauding of the Maxwell funds, I find it odd that we are not focusing very strongly on giving future and existing pensioners a feeling of security that their funds will be properly guarded and secured through thick and thin. Pensioner fund members have an independent voice, which I believe could make a valuable contribution to the discussions of a trustee body.
  The chairman of any pension trustee body must weld its members into a coherent team that looks at all the problems rather than just arguing for the vested interest. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made clear, employers and employees will inevitably have vested interests in the scheme, but the beneficiaries of the scheme do not have an opportunity for any input. I believe strongly that we should move towards taking account of their views.
  Finally, it would be wise for the Conservative party to demonstrate a voter-friendly policy on the issue and perhaps this, of all days, is the day to do it. A great many natural Conservative voters who are members of pension
  232
  schemes look to us to safeguard their interests and they are rather surprised and bewildered that we appear not to be doing so. I hope that it is not too late to think again.
  Ms Church: I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) in the debate. He is absolutely right: thousands of pensioners up and down the country are watching the outcome of the debate tonight. They may not be natural Conservatives, but the hon. Gentleman is correct that the Government need to woo every voter they can at present.
  Pensioners have invested their livelihoods in retirement pension schemes and they are directly and immediately affected by the management of those schemes and by the action of the trustees. They have no right to participate directly in the running of a scheme, so they should have the right, in statute, to nominate a pensioner member.
  The arguments in favour of Opposition amendment No. 16 are absolutely clear and they have been put very well by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). There is a clear democratic argument: those who affected directly should have the right to participate in the running of a scheme. There is also a security argument. Pensioner beneficiaries of a scheme need to know that their interests are being safeguarded—as far as that is possible—so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, they will be less easy to nobble. We know that the operation of pension schemes cannot be safeguarded absolutely, but that would make it more secure for members.
  We could also argue for the amendment on the grounds of equity. As existing employees—those who have a deferred benefit from the scheme—participate in the running of the scheme, should not those who are benefiting currently have even more right to participate in the management of that scheme? Pensioner participation would also directly benefit schemes. It is likely that a former employee member of the scheme would, upon becoming a pensioner, be nominated as a pensioner member of that scheme. That person operated as a trustee of the scheme while in employment and would be likely to continue to contribute to the scheme's operation. Such people would bring to the scheme invaluable experience, knowledge of the scheme's history—which is often important to its operation—and a particular perspective as pensioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead emphasised the independence of pensioner members, who would not be so susceptible to employer pressure or fear of being sacked for speaking out—as was the case with members of the Maxwell scheme.
  9.15 pm
  The existence of pensioner members would increase trust and confidence among existing employees, who would know that if a whistle needed to be blown, it would be blown by someone who did not fear a direct financial penalty, which might be incurred by an employee trustee. Opposition Members and people throughout the country acknowledge those as straightforward arguments, so what are the Government's objections? My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen fully described them, so I shall not go over that ground again.
  The Government seem to believe that it is not right for someone who is a direct beneficiary to be represented on a scheme It is not a question of representation.

  233
  Employees have a direct if deferred interest. It is because a pensioner member would have a certain perspective that he or she should participate in the scheme's management. Not for the first time, the Government are standing logic on its head. A pensioner member could not outvote the others, and individuals prepared to be nominated and to stand—from my experience of working as a trade union official before I entered the House—are of high integrity, have sound principles and are deeply concerned for pensioners who will follow them, not just for existing pensioner members.
  I say to pensioners who are listening to or watching this debate—and they number thousands, as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks said—that they should listen carefully to Government Members. Listen to their vacuous excuses for refusing to accept the amendment. Listen to their denial of pensioners' interests in the operation of pension schemes. I have been a Member of Parliament for little more than a year, but time after time I have heard the Government talk about choice and protecting the interests of the individual. We hear that mantra time and again, but the truth is that the Government are denying choice to pensioners and failing to protect the interests of individual pension scheme members—be they existing employees, deferred pensioners or existing recipients.
  I hope that those thousands of people throughout the country are listening carefully to yet another example of the Government's failure to understand the needs of ordinary people who want extra protection, experience and knowledge brought to the operation of their pension schemes. As a result of scandals and mismanagement, the public have lost confidence in pension schemes. Tonight, the Government have a chance to restore in part that lost confidence, but they refuse to do so. If they persist, they should not be surprised if it leads to the loss of even more of what little confidence the public have in the Government, given their continued failure to protect people who need protection—most of all, our pensioners.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Select Committee on Social Security—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is its Chairman and I am a member of it—has taken many hours of evidence on pension schemes, starting with the Maxwell scheme. We received evidence from everyone who is significant in the pension scheme world, including actuaries.
  We arrived at the conclusion that a pensioner trustee or an independent trustee should be an essential member of a board of trustees of a pension fund. We did not pluck that conclusion out of the air. We arrived at it, having listened to everyone in pension schemes throughout the United Kingdom. I still have not been given a satisfactory explanation of the Government's view that employer-representative trustees and employee-representative trustees are acceptable and not regarded as biased—I accept that—while pensioner-representative trustees are not acceptable
  It has been said that pensioners are resentful about various things. A good example of their resentment is the Harland and Wolff pension fund. Harland and Wolff pensioners were in dispute about a pension fund surplus when the company was privatised. They felt that the surplus would not he used properly. The House will be glad to hear that I do not intend to go into detail.
  The pensioners formed a group and wished to enlarge it. They asked the trustees if they could have the names of other pensioners. That request was refused. They then
  234
  asked the trustees if they could have the addresses of other pensioners on the basis that the trustees would write to those pensioners. That request was refused. They tried everything to enlarge their membership. Each request was refused by the trustees and by the firm. The pensioners were disregarded. They had been members of the Harland and Wolff work force for many years but when they became pensioners they were ignored.
  After pressure was brought to bear by the Select Committee on Social Security, the Harland and Wolff trustees decided that they would appoint or have a pensioner trustee. They did not ask the pensioners who they would like as a trustee. As in all quango-type operations, the trustees decided to appoint a pensioner trustee themselves.
  I have no objection to the person who was appointed. My objection lies in the way in which he was appointed. The interests of the pensioners were disregarded. As I have said, I have no objection to the representative as a person. My complaint is that a dictatorial decision was made and the pensioners were ignored. Can the House really say that in those circumstances pensioners would not be resentful and would not find a pensioner trustee more acceptable? A pensioner trustee would be loyal to the fund for all the obvious reasons. I am not yet a pensioner, but on their behalf I resent the implication that because someone is a pensioner of a fund, they are not to be trusted to be a trustee.
  The Minister and others have said that perhaps pensioners would not have sufficient expertise, but the former chairman of the trustees is now a pensioner. I submit that nobody would be more fitted to be a pensioner trustee than the former chairman of the trustees. I make my few remarks in support of the amendments and I hope that the Minister will accept them.
  Mr. Miller: I shall be brief in dealing with the important amendmants under discussion.
  First, in respect of amendment No. 16, I was considering the number of companies that already have independent trustees. I would bring to the House's attention a list of companies for which Law Debenture acts as an independent trustee. They are an amazing cross-section of British industry and include the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Amersham International, BAA, Bull Information Systems, Chloride, Cory Towage, Freemans, Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance, ICI, John Holt, Logica, Mercantile and General Reinsurance, the Ocean Group, 3i and George Wimpey. There could hardly be a better cross-section of British industry.
  It is interesting that the pension trustees of those companies have deliberately chosen to introduce the principle of independence into their schemes. I am sure that none of those companies would be in the circumstances envisaged in amendmant No. 16, but the powers that it gives the authorities to appoint such a person as the list of companies I have read out already use are important and we should he prepared to accept them as a matter of principle.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) touched on the Hanson litigation. He was right to say that it was extremely expensive. The only winners were the Chancery Division of lawyers. I cast no aspersions on the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is a member of that profession and who looks

  235
  surprised, but I am sure that he would agree that that is the truth. It is a great pity that many issues of principle had to be dealt with in that way and not by a more rational means.
  Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend told me privately that I should have been referring to Imperial Tobacco and not British American Tobacco in my earlier intervention. He also said that if I were a smoker I would not have made that error. I am grateful to him for both points.
  Mr. Miller: Amendment No. 1 is about the basic issue of democracy. We have heard an awful lot in this place today about issues of democracy, but it is something that we cannot forget. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) made the wise suggestion that his party should examine carefully the interests of pensioners. If he says that with a majority of 19, 000, the hon. Member for Bristol North-West, with a majority of 45, needs seriously to consider those wise observations.
  The Confederation of Occupational Pensioners Associations—COPAS—sets the matter out in stark terms in a leaflet distributed to members of the Committee yesterday. Under the heading,
  "Discrimination of the very worst kind",
  the leaflet points out that
  "NO existing Act of Parliament permits the discrimination which the Pensions Bill contains. Discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation is unlawful.
  But discrimination against pensioners will be enshrined in law if the Pensions Bill goes unamended".
  9.30 pm
  COPAS has a sound point. Its leaflet sets out the case for pensioners in detail, but I shall not repeat it all because time is pressing and several hon. Members have made that case clear already. The association represents a significant number of pensioners, and its arguments are based on the simple principles which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) said, were touched on by the Goode inquiry but were not developed to their logical conclusion.
  The leaflet continues
  "Many good pension schemes include a pensioner Trustee. No evidence has ever been produced that pensioner Trustees do not act in the best interests of their schemes overall. But where there are pensioner Trustees, they are there by agreement, which can be withdrawn, not by right."
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that putting a pensioner trustee in by statute would give such trustees the independence that would mark them out as different from people who can be leaned on by employers.
  COPAS goes on to say:
  "The truth is that unscrupulous employers can ensure that management Trustees do their bidding or face the consequences. They can also influence employee Trustees or remove them by sacking them from the company.
  The one Trustee who is totally independent of the employer is the pensioner Trustee. The one Trustee who has the most time for his or her duties is the pensioner Trustee. The one Trustee with the longest—and, perhaps, the greatest—experience is the pensioner Trustee. The one Trustee with the biggest investment in the scheme—his or her life savings—is the pensioner Trustee.
  Why, then, is the Bill denying all schemes the advantage of one truly independent pensioner/trustee watchdog?"
  236
  The amendment is specific and deals with people in mature schemes—those with more than 850 members. It raises some organisational issues; the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West pointed out some of them and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) mentioned some others. But those can be addressed by good organisation and by ensuring that such schemes, with the enormous resources at their disposal, properly facilitate the trustees' carrying out of their functions, as has to be done for every other trustee. The exceptional circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West need dealing with, but that could all be encompassed within the spirit of the amendment. The amendment would do a service to democracy in this country by encouraging the development of pensioner organisations that could participate in such schemes, as many of the COPAS members already do.
  The points made during the debate are valid, and although there can be arguments about technical details, however one regards the specific amendments, the House should accept the principle and spirit underlying them. If the Government are serious about doing a service for the 7 million pensioners in this country, they should adopt the spirit of the amendments, which I urge the House to accept.
  Mr. Bayley: I mentioned earlier that I had received a letter from a group pensions manager of Nestle, in which he said:
  "The key to preventing any future Maxwell—is good governance in trustee boardrooms."
  I firmly believe that the key to good governance is to ensure that there is a strong voice for the beneficiaries of pension funds. There are, of course, three types of beneficiary for pension schemes: contributing members, deferred members, and pensioner members. I would have liked a situation in which the beneficiaries of the scheme, the people for whom the scheme was established in the first place, were a majority among the trustees, but sadly that is not to be the case, because the Government have stood in the way of that. Amendment No. 16 proposes that, in those circumstances, some redress could be achieved by allowing for the appointment of an independent trustee or trustees.
  Many pension schemes are well managed. The Nestle scheme has four managers, two pensioner members and six other members. It is an example of good governance. It is not just an academic or technical argument when I suggest that there are many cases of bad governance of pension schemes. Just recently, the pensions ombudsman published his latest report, which records 59 cases in which members' pension rights were violated by pension fund trustees. In the limited time that I have, I shall give two examples.
  First, an employer agreed to augment a pension but withdrew that agreement at the time of the pensioner's retirement. The trustees in that case backed the employer. The pensions ombudsman said that they backed the employer because the
  "alleged augmentation was made in ignorance of the true cost."
  I am pleased to say that the pensions ombudsman upheld the pensioner's complaint and increased the pension by £2, 890 and awarded compensation.
  Secondly, a member of a pension fund was refused a transfer payment when he moved to different employment. The trustees stated that the scheme

  237
  "did not have liquid funds available to make a payment."
  Again, the ombudsman, I am pleased to say, upheld the member's complaint and said that a transfer value of £108, 000 should be paid of behalf of the member, plus a sum of compensation.
  Many of the 59 cases are of trustees refusing to award the enhanced benefits that are stipulated under the schemes and promised to employees on redundancy. In many cases, the ombudsman upheld the complaint. In one case, he increased the member's pension by £8, 300.
  I firmly believe that if members of pension funds were better represented among the trustees of pension funds, such gross abuses would not take place, or certainly not so frequently. I really am concerned that the Government will not allow the House to give pension fund members the protection that they need with more adequate representation.
  Amendment No. 1 specifically looks at the failure of the Bill as it currently stands to guarantee representation for pensioner trustees. I have had dozens of letters from my constituents about various aspects of the Bill, but on that issue in particular I have had a full postbag. John Taylor from the York and district campaign for equal state pension ages says:
  "It should be mandatory that Pensioners Associations be allowed at least 2 nominated Trustees in their Pension Fund Scheme."
  Mr. Greaves from the Transport and General Workers Union, retired members association, makes a similar point, as does Mr. Webb from the York branch of the British Transport pensioners federation.
  The courts have said that pensions belong to pension fund members. They are deferred pay. The Government say that it is good practice to have pensioner trustees, so I hope that the Minister, if he insists on maintaining the Government's argument against the amendments, will explain why they are not backing amendments that will support what they say would be good practice.
  Mr. Hague: The amendments all deal with the issue of member-nominated trustees. The key provision is contained in clause 16, which gives effect to the Goode committee's recommendation that members of pension schemes should have the right to nominate a proportion of the trustees of those schemes. The main effect of that recommendation—which the Government fully endorse, and which is reflected in clause 16—is to give ordinary scheme members the power to require that trust boards include at least some people whose perspective differs from that of the scheme sponsor, who typically appoints the majority of, if not all, of the trustees.
  The underlying purpose of the provision is to reinforce the crucial feature of trust law: that trustees should be independent of the settlor or scheme sponsor, and should consider the interests of all the beneficiaries within the framework of the scheme trust deed and rules. Giving scheme members the power to nominate and select a proportion of trustees should significantly reduce any risk of trust boards' acting primarily in the interests of the scheme sponsor and compromising their responsibilities to scheme members.
  There is a range of positive reasons for encouraging the appointment as trustees of people nominated by scheme members. I need not go into them in detail; I think that they have the support of the House. As for the arrangements that would be made to select member-nominated trustees, we were anxious to do as the
  238
  Goode committee recommended—to avoid prescription, and to allow the wide variety of satisfactory arrangements currently in place to continue without unnecessary disturbance. That is why we have settled on a proposal that we consider flexible, which strikes an equitable balance between the interests of all parties.
  Clause 16 leaves schemes free to introduce or maintain arrangements for selecting member-nominated trustees that suit their particular circumstances and are acceptable to members; but—this is an important point—both pensioners and active members will be given the opportunity to influence nomination and selection arrangements through their participation in the statutory consultation procedure.
  I do not think that that point has been appreciated widely enough in the House or in the country as a whole. Much of our debate has been based on a misunderstanding. The Government do not oppose the appointment of pensioner trustees, but share the Goode committee's view that it should not be mandatory. We agree with all the positive points that have been made about the qualities of pensioner trustees. Our proposals for member-nominated trustees go further than those of the Goode committee in giving all scheme members—active and pensioner members, and deferred pensioners if trustees decide that it is desirable and practicable to include them—a say in the composition of the trust board through the statutory consultation procedure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) rightly reminded me that pensioners look to the Government to ensure that their interests are looked after. As a result of the Government's proposal, millions of pensioners will be consulted about the arrangements for selecting member-nominated trustees—arrangements that will be subject to the pensioners' right to object to them and vote on them if enough people object. We are doing a great deal to ensure the involvement of pensioners.
  Mr. Wolfson: It is clear that at this stage the Minister's arguments are not hitting home across the country. Many pensioners and their representatives feel that all is not as they would wish. We must change either the perception or the policy.
  Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it and he can guess which of those options I shall choose to take. It is important to change the perception. Perhaps in the new spirit of party unity we can set about that, and do so extremely effectively. I will expand on that point and on my argument.
  Mr. Frank Field: Is the Minister saying that pensioners will be consulted if they are unhappy that they are not directly represented, that they will have the vote and that through that vote they will be able to get representation on the board? That is what I took him to say before his hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) intervened.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Hague: I am saying that the proposals for the selection of member-nominated trustees will be subject to an approval process in which, by law, active and pensioner members must be involved. If a certain proportion of them object—the hon. Gentleman has signed an amendment

  239
  which argues for a proportion or a minimum number, which I shall come to—there must be a ballot or alternative arrangements must be put forward. Pensioners will therefore always have a voice. They will have an influence over these matters. I am not sure that that has been sufficiently widely appreciated.
  Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hague: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I should like to develop my argument.
  Mr. Miller: Does the Minister agree that, in the context of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friends, we are dealing with mature schemes in many—indeed most—of which there are more pensioners than active members? Does he not believe that in those circumstances the annoyance of pensioners is understandably about the basic issue of fairness and democracy? Does he not understand that that issue needs to be addressed?
  Mr. Hague: In those schemes, pensioners will have a huge influence over the selection arrangements. It will be a brave board of trustees that puts out proposals for consultation and for the approval of its members, if a majority of them are pensioners, which do not provide for pensioner involvement in the selection process. If it did so, many of the board members would regret it. That point is fully taken on board by the Government and reflected in our proposals.
  The requirement in the Bill is that members should have a right to nominate at least one third of their scheme's trustees; a proportion of one third would be a statutory minimum. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) touched on that point and compared it with the arguments for a 50 per cent. split. I should respond to that and I shall return to the point about pensioner representatives.
  Employers set up schemes voluntarily. In the Government's view, they should be able, if they want to, to retain the right to appoint a majority of the trustees. An occupational pension scheme and its associated fund is established by an employer to achieve a business objective and the employer retains a considerable business and financial interest in the fund's performance and the scheme's effectiveness. The fund is, of course, held in trust by the trustees to be distributed on the basis set out in the trust deed and rules, but in a defined benefit scheme the employer is bound to meet the pension promise and to make good any deficit in the fund.
  From a member's perspective, the fund offers a degree of security against the employer going insolvent, and it provides a vehicle for delivering their pension, but the pension that they receive is not dependent on the existence or performance of the fund. By contrast, the existence and performance of the fund is crucial to the sponsoring employer. It offers a tax-efficient way of providing an important part of the remuneration package, it smooths out
  240
  the cash flow problems that a pay-as-you-go pension scheme incurs, and its performance and any consequent need to increase pension contributions can have a dramatic effect on company cash flow.
  The employer is the one giving the guarantee. He must top up or make good the fund in the event of deficiency. He therefore has a major interest in the successful operation of the fund and it is only right that he should be in a position to ensure that the scheme will be administered sensibly.
  Mr. Frank Field rose—
  Mr. Hague: I shall give way one more time.
  Mr. Field: Does the Minister now accept that he has made the case for pensioner trustees? He is saying that employers will not abide by those schemes unless they can have a majority of their people on the scheme to represent their views, despite all his talk that trust law will govern those trustees. If it is good enough for the employer to want a majority of members to represent his interests, surely there is a case for ensuring that there is a pensioner representative of pensioners' views.
  Mr. Hague: There is a strong case for ensuring that there are member-nominated trustees—by which I mean, in that context, trustees nominated, not necessarily only by the active members, but by active and pensioner members. However, let me discuss in more detail the arguments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
  We recognise that there are many excellent schemes, more than one third of whose trustees are member-nominated trustees. We recognise that there are many schemes that have pensioner-nominated trustees, and that they can do a good job. The hon. Member for East Kilbride said that the Government had said that pensioners were not trusted or accepted by other members. That is a caricature of the argument made by my noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in another place. The Government are not arguing that pensioners make bad trustees—quite the reverse. We agree with all the positive arguments made by the Goode committee and by the hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks. Our worry is about the mandatory nature of the proposal.
  If pensioners are given a separate facility by statute to appoint a pensioner trustee, other members may well have reservations about the implications of that privileged position compared with the position of other members, and might fear that the pensioner trustee would be inclined to act in the interests of pensioners rather than of scheme members as a whole.
  Mr. Stern: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hague: I have to get on, but I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Stern: Now that my hon. Friend has mentioned that matter, I hope that he will answer the argument that I made earlier—that while employers and members have the opportunity of an out from the scheme, pensioners are the one group which is irretrievably locked in, and that is the very group to which he is denying representation.
  Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend makes a fair argument, but we must set it in the balance against the other arguments that I am about to make. As he clearly said in his speech, there may be no perfect solution and there are very different ways of considering those matters. We must balance some factors against others.

  241
  I believe, and the Government believe, that creating artificial distinctions between the members to whom, collectively, we are giving rights in the Bill may encourage members to believe that trustees are somehow representatives of the category of member to which they personally belong. Active members may come to regard a statutory pensioner trustee provided by the amendment as somehow called to represent the interests of pensioners.
  Arguments can be made, once one has accepted that there should be a mandatory provision for a pensioner trustee, for provision for deferred pensioner trustees or for specific rules to be laid down to say that there must be active member trustees. One can extend that argument to considerable lengths, and argue that widows should be represented in some way. Many different interests are involved, and venturing into the mandatory representation of specific interests creates many more anomalies and difficulties than it is likely to solve.
  That amendment would also not do justice—this is the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern)—to the wide variety of schemes which currently operate. The provisions in the Bill will allow schemes to develop their own arrangements for the selection of trustees, subject to the approval of the active and the pensioner members. Trustees will make those proposals to each active and pensioner member. Members' interests will be protected by a rigorous statutory consultation procedure, which includes consultation on all aspects of the selection process and the conditions necessary to become a member-nominated trustee.
  For example, a scheme might decide that its circumstances required a pensioner trustee, or perhaps an independent trustee; whatever the trustees' proposals, however, pensioner members as well as active members will have the opportunity to approve or reject them. It seems clear that, where scheme membership consists of a reasonable proportion of pensioners, those members will be in a strong position to influence the nomination and selection process.
  There is a third reason for rejecting amendment No. 1. It would upset the crucial balance between the interests of members and employers on the trust board. It would do that because it provides for a pensioner trustee in addition to whatever proportion of member-nominated trustees a scheme had determined. That would raise the minimum requirement for member-nominated trustees from at least one third to at least one half and, in many cases more than half, for all but the very largest trustee boards. Only if the board had exactly nine or more than 10 trustees could an employer be confident of being able to nominate a majority of them under that proposal. That would conflict with the point that I made earlier about the balance that we have struck.
  The amendment would create artificial distinctions between members and constrain the freedom of pension schemes to develop selection rules best suited to their circumstances. It would upset the balance of interests contained in the statutory minimum of at least one third member-nominated trustees.
  I emphasise that we have no objection whatever to pensioner trustees if that is what scheme members want. In the Bill we are giving millions of pensioners the right,
  242
  which they do not have and have never had in the past, to be consulted along with the active membership. It is all very well for Labour Members to shake their heads, but the fact that pensioners will be consulted is set out on the face of the Bill. It is clear that they will be consulted when we have passed the Bill into law.
  Amendment No. 16 seems to be designed to provide a back-door way of putting pressure on sponsoring employers to agree to have at least 50 per cent. member-nominated trustees. If they do not, the amendment would impose on them the cost, which could be substantial, of an independent trustee. There is no reason to believe that a scheme with under 50 per cent. of member-nominated trustees would necessarily benefit from the imposition of an independent trustee. It would be wrong to require the regulatory authority to consider applications made on that basis. Of course, if there are genuine concerns about the running of a scheme, however many member-nominated trustees it may have, the regulatory authority has the necessary powers under clause 7 to appoint an independent trustee.
  It is a pity that amendment No. 12 has not been referred to very much in the course of our discussions as it is one with which I have some sympathy. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead. I appreciate that in larger schemes 10 per cent. of members will be a considerable number.
  The practical details of the statutory consultation procedure are to be prescribed in regulations. That is still subject to consultation with those who have experience of the day-to-day operation of schemes. It is therefore not clear at this point that the amendment hits on the right number. The figure of 5, 000 might be too low or, as I suspect, it may be too high. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown and the hon. Member for Birkenhead that I will give the spirit of that amendment very careful consideration with a view to incorporating a provision on the same principle in secondary legislation.
  For the reasons that I have given, I think that it would be wrong to sympathise in the same way with the other amendments. The Bill will represent a major extension of the rights of members of pension funds whether they be active or pensioner members. It is important for us to make that clear and for it to be clearly communicated in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks has asked for. However, it would be wrong to elevate one group of members above the other groups of members, which is what these amendments would do.
  Mr. Ingram: We have had a useful and interesting debate. It is interesting that the Minister is the only hon. Member who has argued against amendment No. 1. Every other contribution has argued for the principle of pensioner trustees and refuted all the arguments that were advanced by the Minister in his response. He has justified employer-based trustees on a sectional basis but denies that right to other groups that have the right, in the case of large schemes, to seek equal representation.
  The case has been strongly argued. I do not intend to press amendment No. 16 to a Division. Given the weight of the arguments advanced in support of amendment No. 1, however, it is right that we should vote on that amendment in due course.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 16

  REQUIREMENT FOR MEMBER-NOMINATED TRUSTEES
  Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 9, line 39, at end insert—
  '6(A) The arrangements must provide that when a scheme has more than 850 members, and pensioner members comprise a majority, one additional trustee shall be nominated, who shall be a pensioner member of that scheme.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 282.

  Division No. 194]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

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

  Ainger, Nick

  Denham, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dixon, Don

  Ashton, Joe

  Dobson, Frank

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Battle, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Eastham, Ken

  Beggs, Roy

  Etherington, Bill

  Bell, Stuart

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Faulds, Andrew

  Berry, Roger

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Betts, Clive

  Flynn, Paul

  Blunkett, David

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fraser, John

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Galloway, George

  Burden, Richard

  Garrett, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Callaghan, Jirn

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Graham, Thomas

  Cann, Jamie

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chidgey, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gunnell, John

  Church, Judith

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Doug

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hodge, Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbett, Robin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Home Robertson, John

  Corston, Jean

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Hoyle, Doug

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hutton, John

  244

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jowell, Tessa

  Reid, Dr John

  Keen, Alan

  Rendel, David

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kilfovle, Peter

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rogers, Allan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lewis, Terry

  Rooney, Terry

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Litherland, Robert

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Salmond, Alex

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sedgemore, Brlan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAllion, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Short, Clare

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spellar, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  MacShane, Denis

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Stevenson, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Straw, Jack

  Marek, Dr John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Timms, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Tipping, Paddy

  Maxton, John

  Touhig, Don

  Meacher, Michael

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  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)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mudie, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Winnick, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Wise, Audrey

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Olner, Bill

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Pearson, Ian

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ancram, Michael

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Ashby, David

  Amess, David

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  245

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Forth, Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bates, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  French, Douglas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gale, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butcher, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butler, Peter

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heald, Oliver

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Hendry, Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clappison, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Horam, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

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

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'stn)

  Duncan, Alan

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Elletson, Harold

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luff, Peter

  Held, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  246

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Shepherd, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Soames, Nicholas

  Malone, Gerald

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spring, Richard

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Mates, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Stewart, Alan

  Mills, Iain

  Streeter, Gary

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Sykes, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Ce'r V)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Norris, Steve

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Page, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Trend, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pawsey, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Viggers, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Portilto, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rathbone, Tim

  Watts, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  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 (Macc'f'ld)

  Rumbold, Fit Hon Dame Angela

  Yeo, Tim

  Sackville, Tom

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after The o' clock, further cosideration of the bill stood adjoured.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.14 (Exempted business).
  That, at this day's sitting, the Pensions Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you are aware, as is the House, of the rather sorry background to the case of BMARC and arms to Iran. In particular, I refer to the fact that, in both written and oral parliamentary statements during that time, Ministers, as they have acknowledged, misled the House—inadvertently, no doubt—because of the non-availability of papers that were held by Government Departments.
  We are also aware that those papers have now surfaced, and there is no longer any doubt about their importance. We understand that some examination, several years belatedly, is being made of them. I am sure that you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, if information were to come out of those papers that had further implications for oral and written statements made to the House by Ministers, the House must be the first to know the contents of those papers.
  In particular, if any information which comes out of the BMARC papers has any implications for the position of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or any other Minister, the House must be the first to know about it. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to safeguard the House's interests in that respect.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Gentleman and the House will understand that that is not a matter over which the Chair has any jurisdiction. The hon. Gentleman must find other ways of pursuing the issue.

New clause 21

  EXTENSION OF PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS ACT 1943
  `(1) The Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 1 (appeals against rejection of war pension claims made in respect of members of armed forces)

  (a) in subsection (1), after "administered by the Minister" there is inserted "or under a scheme made under section 1 of the Polish Resettlement Act 1947", and

  (b) in subsections (3) and (3A), for "or Order of His Majesty" there is substituted ", Order of Her Majesty or scheme".

  (3) In section 7 (application of Act to past decisions and assessments)£

  (a) in subsection (2), at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subsection (2A) of this section, ", and

  (b) after that subsection, there is inserted£

  "(2A) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply in relation to any decision given by the Minister before the passing of this Act which corresponds, apart from any difference of the kind referred to in that subsection, with such a decision as is referred to in section 1 of this Act in respect of claims made under the scheme referred to in that section."
  (4) In section 10 (power to modify sections 1 to 4 by Order in Council), in subsections (1) and (2), for "or Order of His Majesty" there is substituted ", Order of Her Majesty or scheme".
  (5) In section 12 (interpretation), in the definition of "relevant service"—

  (a) for "or Order of His Majesty" there is substituted ", Order of Her Majesty or scheme", and

  (b) for "or Order" there is substituted ", Order or scheme".

  (6) In the Schedule (constitution, jurisdiction and procedure of Pensions Appeal Tribunals), in paragraph 3(2), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
  "(ba) if the claim was made under the scheme referred to in section 1 of this Act in respect of a person who is treated under the scheme as an officer, shall be a retired or demobilised officer of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces;
  248
  (bb) if the claim was made under the aforesaid scheme in respect of a person who is treated under the scheme as a soldier, shall be a discharged or demobilised member of any of the said forces who was not at the time of his discharge or demobilisation an officer;…[Sir Jim Spicer.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  10.15 pm
  Sir Jim Spicer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I count it as a privilege to move this new clause. I remember so well going across to Belgium in November 1944 with members of the 1st Polish armoured division just after four members of the provisional Polish Government, who were based in London, had flown to Lublin to have discussions with the new Government set up by the Soviet Union. Those four members disappeared and were never seen again. Those people, who served so gallantly in the Polish armed forces alongside us in the battle of Britain, in Italy and north-west Europe, deserve our gratitude for all they did to support us.
  This is a simple matter, which the House should pass on sidethe nod. The new clause introduces an extension of the war pension appeal provisions, and gives Polish service men who served under British command in world war two a statutory right of appeal to a war pensions appeal tribunal against a decision on a claim to a war pension or a war widow's pension. I need say no more. This is a simple issue, and something should have been done about it years ago.
  I am grateful that, in the year of the 50th anniversary of VE day, we are able to say to those who fought alongside us in the war that this is the very least we can do to recognise all they did for us so many years ago.
  Mr. Hague: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir. J. Spicer) on proposing the new clause in such an eloquent manner. Polish service men dissatisfied with a decision on a war pension claim are able to seek a review of that decision from the War Pensions Committee. But I understand their view that, as a matter of principle, they should have a statutory right of appeal on the same basis as British service men. I entirely agree that it is most fitting that this change should be introduced during this year of world war two anniversaries. The Government are happy to accept the new clause.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 11

  ONE THIRD RATE SERVICE WIDOWS' PENSION
  `Widows of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who retired or who died in service before 31st March 1973 shall, in all cases where a pension is payable under the terms of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, be entitled to receive a pension based on one half of their late husband's retired pay or pension.'.—[Mrs. Ewing.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 12—Post 1973 war widows—

  249
  `Notwithstanding any other enactment, a widow awarded a Forces Family Pension (Attributable) shall receive that pension for life.'.
  New clause 13—Post 1973 war widows (No. 2)—
  `Notwithstanding any other enactment, a widow in receipt of a Forces Family Pension (Attributable) shall receive that pension for life.'.
  New clause 14—Post-retirement marriage: service widow's pension—
  `Without prejudice to benefits already available under the terms of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme for widows of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces with service beyond 6th April 1978, no widow of a member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces shall be disqualified from receiving a full pension under that scheme in relation to her late husbands's membership of Her Majesty's Armed Forces by virtue of the fact that the marriage occurred after he had retired from Her Majesty's Armed Forces, provided that that marriage was before his 65th birthday and had lasted for at least three years.'.
  Government amendment No. 84.
  Mrs. Ewing: I feel greatly honoured to move the new clause, which is supported by hon. Members of all political persuasions. This year, we have seen the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the setting up of the UN. Those of us who are sharing a similar anniversary are only too well aware that our generation has grown up in a time of peace, and we owe a great debt to those who went before us. It is important that we pay tribute to the men and women who gave so much in previous wars to enable my generation and subsequent generations to have the feeling of peace within Europe.
  I wish to pay tribute to the Officers Pensions Society, which has done so much to ensure that hon. Members are aware of the difficulties faced by war widows—or victory widows as we prefer to call them. It has done so much to ensure that people are made well aware of the implications of new clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14. New clause 11 focuses on those widows, all of whom are now over 75 years of age, whose husbands retired or died in service before 31 March 1973 and who, as a result, receive only one third of their late husbands' service retired pay or pension.
  Hon. Members will have seen, either in the press or by reading their own mail, the case of Mrs. Wormack. They will have been as horrified as I was to find that the occupational pension earned for her by her husband after 23 years of service, including the whole of the second world war—service which saw him promoted to the rank of captain, involved him in risking his life in the service of the Crown and left him suffering until the day he died—is today worth, after tax, £140 a month. That lady is typical of hundreds of war widows who, in the evening of their own lives, look to us in this House today to take this opportunity to improve their position before it is too late.
  Several of those widows have said to me, and, I suspect, to other hon. Members, "I suppose that they are just waiting for us to die." Those widows are dying at the rate of 1, 300 a year. If we agree to help them, as the nation clearly wants us to, it will hardly be an open-ended commitment. I feel that a principle of social justice is at stake—the debt we owe those widows and their families.
  The Government contend that there are three main obstacles to improving the pensions. First, they say that it will cost £27 million each year. There are several points that we need to make. First, that is almost certainly an exaggerated figure. The Government said that 16, 500 widows would benefit from the amendment already
  250
  secured by Lord Freyberg in the other place. Some four months on, only 6, 500 have applied, thus reducing the estimate by almost two thirds.
  Secondly, many of the ladies are on some form of income support, which is vastly more expensive to apply than giving them the pensions to which their husbands contributed. The Government also say that it would not be right to pay older widows half-rate pensions, because their husbands did not buy into half-rate pensions as the younger service men did.
  The truth is that, despite the fact that the Government received constant warnings in 1973, when the half rate was introduced, that there would be problems of hardship in future, the Government refused to give older service men the opportunity to buy in—most would have taken that opportunity. If there is an inequity, it is that the Government denied older service men the opportunity to provide for their widows. That was the inequity in which the Government persisted.
  The subject of retrospection is often raised. That, in itself, is not worth considering; we all know of situations in which retrospection is ignored when it suits the Government. A detailed examination of 14 other comparable allied schemes reveals that the United Kingdom is the only state that persists in paying any service widows less than 50 per cent. Some states pay as much as 71 per cent. Meanwhile, we in the United Kingdom continue to pay our older widows 33 per cent.
  Thirdly, the most plausible obstacle raised by the Government is that, if the elderly service widows were to be given 50 per cent. of their late husbands' service retired pay or pension, it would have to be paid to all the public services. How many obligations have the Government ducked on the basis of precedent? We must answer the question today, and decide whether or not the armed forces are a special case. I speak not only as a Member of Parliament with clear defence interests—with two key RAF bases in my area—but as one who has grown up in a generation of peace. I believe that we have a responsibility to all such widows.
  Most people who write to me and to other hon. Members think that they are a special case. We tended to think so until the Whitehall ethic tried to subdue us all. I draw particular attention to the comments of the Prime Minister when he first entered Parliament—perhaps it is not a key thought in his mind this evening. In his first year as a Back Bencher, he made a memorable speech in a debate about service pensions, in which he said:
  "service men, by virtue of their profession, are in a special position and should be treated accordingly…I ask him to promise that the door is not closed on justice for these pensioners and their widows".—[Official Report, 2 May 1980; Vol. 983, c. 1846.]
  That plea is echoed by all those hon. Members who have remained in the Chamber this evening to ensure that justice is done. That view is echoed also by the 251 Members of Parliament who put their signatures to early-day motion 186, tabled by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), and by the 59 Front Benchers who have written to the Victory Widows Campaign assuring it of their support.
  In the first of the new clauses, we must decide to do what our constituents have asked us to do and what we feel is the right thing to do: bring the pensions of elderly service widows—our victory widows—up to the half-rate pensions which their younger colleagues receive, and

  251
  closer to the pensions paid to service widows by all the European and western nations that fought with and against us in the war.
  On the 50th anniversary of victory in Europe and victory in Japan, we would do well to remember that, from 1939 to 1945, those who were called upon to guarantee our continued freedom from fascism risked everything in so doing. We are talking about their widows this evening. I trust that the new clauses will be accepted as part of the Bill.
  Sir Jim Spicer: I shall address my remarks to new clause 12, the second clause with which we are dealing tonight, which refers to war widows who have been awarded attributable forces family pensions. It states that they should keep that pension for life, regardless of any subsequent change in their marital status.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) spoke about elderly war widows; I am talking about the younger generation of war widows, who I believe have been treated quite disgracefully over many years. I shall expand on that point. War widows are not treated as well as many other widows. Should they remarry, war widows lose all pension rights, whereas most widows keep their pensions for life. Now is not the occasion to talk about private pension schemes, but 84 per cent. of widows involved in private pension schemes keep their pensions for life, and 21 per cent. of all public pension schemes in the United Kingdom are retained for life.
  The lump sums on death awarded to widows of firemen or policemen are significantly more generous than those given to war widows. The widow of a policeman receives five times the annual salary. In the case of firemen and Royal Ulster Constabulary officers—whose situations are closest to those of soldiers and whose lives have been at risk over the years—their widows receive seven times the annual salary, whereas armed forces widows receive two times the basic salary.
  Whatever else the Government can or cannot do, I would like my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to give me an absolute commitment that the Government will re-examine the figure for war widows, and increase it sevenfold to match the sum received by widows of RUC officers and firemen. How can we possibly equate the situation of service men with that of firemen? How many times are firemen tragically killed on duty, compared with the number of service men killed on duty? I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that the Government intend to examine that situation.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point, and particularly the contrast that he makes with RUC members. One sympathises with and understands his point. Twice a squaddie's salary is a pittance compared with five times the salary of an RUC constable. That is not in any sense treating in a generous spirit the widows of those who have served in the nation's defence.
  10.30 pm
  Sir Jim Spicer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who reinforces my point. On the streets of Belfast or anywhere else in Northern Ireland, members of the RUC
  252
  and of the armed forces have served side by side. They have shared the same risks and stood the same chance of being killed, so it seems intolerable that we should allow them to be treated differently.
  The independent review team recommended that all service widows should receive a pension for life, regardless of any change in marital status. I should like an undertaking from the Government that that recommendation will be considered positively, and that action will be taken in the short term, not the long term.
  The argument against is for doing nothing at all. Civil servants—with my apology to all civil servants—come out of the woodwork and say, "But Minister, if you do this, you might open the door to other people." There are no other people in the same category. Members of our armed forces are a special category, and deserve special treatment.
  If I were a Minister and anyone said to me, "How can you say that these people are a special case? If you give a pension to them, you must give a pension to everyone else, " I would answer, "Go away. You don't understand what we have done and why we have done it." I beg Ministers not to be deluded by that totally wrong view, which would not be supported by the vast majority of the public. There would be no knock-on effect unless one allowed it.
  The widows of men who die in the service of their country are a special case. In my view, public opinion demands that they be treated as such. There is no question of an overspill or a concession to other groups, so please let us not have that offered as an excuse.
  There is no better year than this to deal with that problem. The husbands of a number of war widows—some of them are in the Public Gallery tonight—were killed on active service in the Gulf war. Those widows know that, if they remarry, they will put at risk their existing pension. It would be iniquitous to say to them, "You should not think about remarrying, or you should think three times about doing so, because if you remarry we shall take this pension away from you."
  We are looking at a pittance in cash terms. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take a sensible view, and I beg the Government—if they cannot accept new clause 11—seriously to consider a times seven award and the other aspect that I emphasised.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: If I were asked to suggest a poetic text to preface the debate on this group of amendments—all of which have my support—I would be tempted to choose Rudyard Kipling's poem "Tommy":
  "it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins, ' when the band begins to play"
  and
  "it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot."
  But when the war is over, then
  "it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' Tommy go away."
  The hurt that poem expresses about double standards well reflects the feelings of many war and service widows as they strive—happily now with the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House—to remove the heartless and mindless restrictions that demean both them and the memory of husbands who fought that we might live in freedom. All of them are the widows of husbands who fought in war, to whom we owe an undoubted debt of honour. But, to the shame of Whitehall and

  253
  Westminster alike, most of them now have to apply for some degree of income support even barely to make ends meet.
  New clause 14 would affect, by definition, widows most of whom are now over 75 years of age. They could thus hardly be more deserving. There are no widows as disadvantaged as they are in any of the European or allied nations' military pension schemes that were examined by the Officers Pensions Society. Their husbands served through most of the second world war and retired before April 1973. They contributed to an eventual widow's pension both by their service to the Crown and by effective financial contributions throughout their service, a point to which I shall return as I proceed. They made only one mistake: they married after retirement, and, for that reason, all their contributions were cancelled.
  One case which comes to mind is that of Lady Earle. Her first and second husbands gave between them 80 years of service in the Royal Air Force, yet she receives no pension from either of them. Officials call such widows post-retirement marriage widows, or PRM. In having no provision of a pension made for them, they are almost unique in the world. Our own pensions scheme provides pensions for all our widows whenever they marry. So, too, do the schemes of every other nation's armed forces. Even the UK scheme does so for the younger service widow, as do almost all commercial schemes and most public schemes as well. So why are the PRM widows so isolated?
  The main argument for so astonishingly neglecting those widows is precedent—that, if they were granted pensions, civil servants would have to be given the same. The Victory Widows Campaign does not seek to evade that argument by claiming, as it might, that the armed forces are a special case, although we all know that they are. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, the Prime Minister explicitly and strongly made that point in a speech in this place.
  No, the campaigners have faced the issue of precedent head on, by devising a scheme which provides a PRM pension only if the widows' husbands had been civil servants. They have imposed upon themselves the limitation that the marriage must have been entered into before the ex-service man reached the age of 65, the age up to which, in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, almost all civil servants worked. By contrast, the average age of retirement for the armed forces was nearer 45, and post-retirement marriage was a most unwelcome problem. One important factor in choosing the age of 65 is that service men had, and in fact still have, a liability to recall up to that age.
  Nor is it essentially a matter of cost. The Ministry of Defence insists that it cannot provide an accurate estimate of the cost, and this makes it uncertain ground upon which to argue. Experience shows, moreover, that most Government estimates in such matters are over-estimates. The Department of Social Security predicted that 16, 500 widows would apply for the enhancement secured by Lord Freyberg, to whom I again pay warm tribute today for his extremely important help in another place, when he amended the Bill.
  Hon. Members will be familiar with the case of Mrs. Charney, featured in the Victory Widows Campaign's advertisement. Her husband was a Spitfire pilot. His early days included defending Malta from air attack. He and his few brave colleagues displayed unparalleled courage, and it was no surprise when he was awarded his first
  254
  Distinguished Flying Cross. He flew with total disregard for his own safety in the battle of the Falaise Gap, for which he was awarded a second DFC. He married Mrs. Charney shortly after retiring from the RAF, on completion of 30 years as a fighter pilot. Simply because he married after retirement, his contributions were pocketed by the Treasury, and his widow gets not a penny. She has had a struggle to survive; she has sold his medals and his flying log book in order to raise cash.
  In this 50th anniversary year of victory in the second world war, is that not a total disgrace? Does anyone in any part of the House dare to defend the grossly shabby treatment meted out to this unmerited victim of the present system?
  I ask the House to see this as a matter of honour, a debt that must now be settled. I ask that elderly service widows like Mrs. Charney, on whose behalf I speak, be granted a pension comparable to that which they would have received had they married their husbands before they retired from HM armed forces. I so move, and, in moving, I must again make it clear that, if the battle still has to go on after tonight to achieve fairness for these widows, then go on it will.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: The hour is late and I want to touch on one brief, specific point on new clause 14. It is very similar to the point ably made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). It is an important point because it would right a particular unfairness well illustrated by a retired service couple living in my constituency.
  The husband paid his contributions throughout his service. He retired before 1978. His wife, who of course qualified for a widow's pension, alas, died. The husband then remarried the widow of another former service man. On remarriage, as the rules stand, his wife naturally lost her service widow's pension. If her present husband dies before her, as the rules stand she will not regain the pension earned by her first husband's contributions which she forfeited on remarriage. She will also be denied any pension earned on her second husband's contributions. That is clearly not right.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure me in his response that he will find a way of automatically restoring service widows' pensions to those who were once entitled to them but lost them on remarriage if they are widowed a second time, and especially if they are left without any equivalent occupational pension on their second husband's contributions.
  If he can so assure me, I shall admire my hon. Friend's humanity, I shall rely on his ingenuity, and I shall refrain from going into the Lobby in support of the new clause.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It is clear from the speeches already made, and from the new clauses of the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), and of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), that what we are trying to do has huge support in the House. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I add our voices to those of not just the six political parties represented in the new clauses, but all our colleagues who have expressly

  255
  requested the changes and the huge number of people who have written—I can certainly vouch for it from my postbag—in support of them.
  I do not want to repeat what has been said by colleagues, but I shall add a word or two about new clauses 12 and 13—they are alternatives, one better than the other—and then say something about new clause 14. As has been alluded to, if not expressly set out, the present position is that war widows of service men who died on active service after 1973 are entitled to both the Ministry of Defence and the war widow's pension. I understand that there are 2, 200 such widows. Both those entitlements cease on remarriage.
  Many people will testify to the fact that the consequence has been that many women do not remarry, in spite of their personal circumstances and wishes, because they know how that would prejudice their position. They are deprived of the opportunity of remarriage because it is not financially viable, and therefore have two alternatives—to carry on a relationship illicitly and risk running the gauntlet of the investigation services of the Department of Social Security and so on, or to be deprived of any stable second relationship. The War Widows Association of Great Britain claims that only one in every 100 war widows has remarried—far fewer than in any comparable group. Clearly, that statistic is a result of the present financial position.
  The cost to the Treasury would reportedly be extremely small. The MOD in-house pension review team report concluded that retaining such pensions for life would cost less than £1 million a year. Moreover, the War Widows Association of Great Britain and others argue that actually the net cost could be negative, because of the benefits being claimed otherwise. We would give out with one hand but recoup with another. A young widow who does not remarry costs the DSS a considerable sum—perhaps as much as £1 million over her whole lifetime.
  I ask the Minister to confirm that the change would not affect a huge number of people—indeed, that the number is small—and that it would not necessarily mean a net cost to the Treasury. But as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe made absolutely clear, even if it did mean a net cost, it is something that in all justice we should do.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) is not in his place now, but in 1989, when he was Secretary of State for Defence, he said in the House that the husbands had fully paid for the pensions for life. There is no argument about that; the contributions have been fully made.
  By way of comparison, 84 per cent. of all public and private pension schemes in this country now pay a pension which, once obtained on widowhood, is retained for the rest of one's life, irrespective of changes in one's status. We have heard that that is true of most other military pension schemes, too. We are the only country with a hard, immovable rule, which is not only unjust but has been unjust for far too long. It seems incompatible with everything that we said on the 50th anniversary of VE day, to continue that penny-pinching anomaly.
  Any widow of someone killed in an industrial or mining accident receives compensation that is not affected by subsequent remarriage. Policemen's and firemen's
  256
  attributable pensions, largely in the form of gratuities, and the occupational element, are in the same category, in the sense that they are restored on subsequent bereavement.
  I hope that the Minister will agree to the new clauses, or at least, as the hon. Member for Dorset, West requested, that he will say that before the end of this year the Government will agree to the changes for which we ask. Clearly, new clause 12 is more generous than new clause 13, because it would apply to all widows.
  New clause 14 deals with a small anomaly that it is mean for the Government not to correct in the way that it suggests. Post-retirement marriage pensions have been in existence for 17 years, but only service after that time counts towards a pension. Therefore, two categories suffer. Older widows receive nothing, as do widows of husbands who retire between 1978 and 2000, or, as I understand it, 2012 for officers' widows. Those categories receive only a variable fraction of the full war widow's pension.
  The point of principle has been made that the new clause would give fair treatment to service widows who married their husbands after they had left the service. There is a qualification in the new clause that the marriage must be before a 65th birthday and has to have lasted for three years. Those are perfectly reasonable preconditions for entitlement. An amendment was moved and the case well argued in another place, but unfortunately it is not something that the Government have conceded. The real unfairness of not doing so is that the majority of comparable schemes in other countries would give the entitlement.
  We as Members of Parliament—Ministers and Members alike—have voted that we have this entitlement, so marriage to a Member of Parliament subsequent to service, provided that it meets the preconditions, entitles somebody to the Member's pension. It is not acceptable that we vote for the entitlement for ourselves, while those who have served, and their dependants after their death, are not entitled to it. It is unacceptable that widows who are in the category before 1978 receive no pension.
  I hope that the Minister understands the strength of feeling. The issue will not go away, and it does not deserve to do so. Given that the Government may be feeling a little more relaxed and enthusiastic this evening, I hope that the Minister will start doing things that are not only right but vote-winning. I offer him this, as do my colleagues, as the first way in which to restore the Government's credibility. A victory in Committee Room 12 is one thing, but a victory on the Floor of the House is much more valuable and might do much more for the Prime Minister's image than the votes of his colleagues earlier this evening. It is a chance for the Minister to make another mark in his career. Who knows? He might be rewarded as early as tomorrow morning.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I support the new clauses. I shall concentrate my comments on pre-1973 war widows. After 50 years, it is too easy to forget that when they were young women, they watched their husbands go to war and never return. It is a matter of deep shame that the pensions that they receive are the worst in western Europe. Immediate steps should be taken to increase their pension from 33; per cent. to 50 per cent. of their husband's pension. Some 80 per cent. are over 70; the majority are between 75 and 85. Nearly all of them have financial problems, and it is appalling that so many have to apply for and receive income support. But for the sacrifices of their husbands, this debate would not be taking place.

  257
  The words that so many of us will have heard at meetings of Royal British Legion branches are appropriate in this debate:
  "When you go home, tell them of us and say For your tomorrow we gave our to-day."
  The present position is appalling. Those war widows deserve and must have a better deal now.
  Mr. Hague: I begin by assuring the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that we on the Conservative Benches are as relaxed and enthusiastic as ever this evening, and in the spirit of agreement across the House that we had in dealing with new clause 21, which was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), I deal first with Government amendment No. 84, to which no one has yet referred in the debate, but which is grouped with the new clauses.
  Government amendment No. 84 extends clause 165 to Northern Ireland. It deals with the effect of remarriage on war pensions for widows. As the armed forces of the Crown, including war pensions, are an accepted matter under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, it is appropriate for clause 165 to extend to Northern Ireland.
  The background to the other new clauses is the substantial change in war widows' pensions that is already part of the Bill. The DSS war widow's pension is awarded to the widow of a man whose death is due to any service in the armed forces; to most that is worth about £143 a week, and is tax free. As a pension for the maintenance of the widow, it is withdrawn on remarriage and currently there is no provision for it to be restored later. As a result of debates here and in the other place, however, it became clear that the current position was unacceptable, and we therefore decided to restore the pension in certain circumstances.
  That amendment is now part of the Bill. The Government amendment that I moved in Committee, which tidied up that provision, goes further than the Lords amendment: it includes, for instance, the widows of certain merchant seamen, civilians and Poles who served under British command during the last world war, and ensures that the war widow's pension is restored in the event of a second bereavement or failure of a second marriage—and, moreover, that it is restored in the event of any subsequent widowhood or divorce. That change is estimated to benefit about 16, 500 former war widows at an estimated cost of some £45 million a year.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) gave certain figures, but according to the latest estimate, some 8, 000 former war widows have now lodged claims, and the number is rising steadily week by week. The estimate of 16, 500 still stands, so the estimate of £45 million of additional expenditure per year also still stands.
  The new clauses seek further changes, not this time to the DSS war widow's pension but to the separate Ministry of Defence armed forces pension scheme—a public service pension scheme. They seek improved pensions or pension rights for the widows of ex-service men. We have serious problems with the new clauses on grounds of principle.
  The introduction of half-rate widows' pensions was one of a number of major improvements made to public service pension schemes in the 1970s. Each of those improvements was introduced from a fixed and current date, and none could have been afforded if they had been extended retrospectively to recognise all previous service.
  258
  New clause 11 seeks to make an exception for one group of public service pensioners—the widows of ex-service personnel—by backdating an improvement to the armed forces pension scheme that was made in 1973.
  We should be clear that the majority of widows who would benefit under new clause 11 are not "war widows" in the sense used in our debate about the DSS war widows scheme, or in the sense covered by new clause 12. In over 80 per cent. of cases, widows receiving pensions from the armed forces occupational scheme will have been married to service men who have died after retirement from causes unrelated to service. Those who are war widows in the proper sense will be receiving a tax-free war widow's pension from the DSS in addition to their pension from the armed forces pension scheme.
  We have estimated that there are some 53, 000 pre-1973 service widows whose pensions would have to be reviewed if the new clause were implemented. It is not possible, in advance of the review, to arrive at a clear estimate of the cost of full retrospection, but it is estimated that the cost to the armed forces pension scheme would be some £27 million per year. The final cost would be substantially higher if the same principle were extended to other public service pension groups to which the same rules apply.
  The widows of members of the forces who retired or died in service before 31 March 1973 and who are in receipt of an armed forces pension are therefore not a uniquely disadvantaged group. We recognise the debt that we owe to those who served their country in those difficult times, but we could never have afforded to introduce the improvements that we have made to public service schemes since then if we had extended them retrospectively to recognise all past service.
  It is for that reason that we must maintain the principle that improvements in public service occupational pension schemes are made on the basis that they benefit only those giving service on or after the qualifying date. I say to my hon. Friends that, if we are remotely serious about controlling public expenditure in coming years, we cannot enter into the sort of open-ended commitment that we are asked to enter into with proposals such as new clause 11.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to pick up one point that reflects a point made by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer). The group that the Minister described is not uniquely disadvantaged, but is a unique group for the reasons given: it is part of the family that gave military service to the country. Does the Minister accept that the issue should be considered, not on the basis that everyone who is in the same boat should have a change, but on the basis that that group should be considered on its own?
  11 pm
  Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman might find that a difficult argument to sustain with members of other public service occupational pension schemes. As I said, certain arguments have been advanced about war widows and attributable pensions. We are talking about a public service occupational pension scheme, the majority of the beneficiaries of which are not war widows in the sense that death was a result of service in the armed forces. Of course one can argue that military service is different from other things, but one can also argue that the fire service,

  259
  the police service and parts of the civil service are different from other things, so I am not sure that I can accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend has just made the point that one could argue that military service is different from other services such as the fire service. Does not that emphasise my point that the very least that one could do is to reconsider the amount that is paid in a gratuity when a debt occurs and to upgrade it substantially?
  Mr. Hague: I shall come to my hon. Friend's point in due course. He raised it earlier and I shall of course refer to it in my remarks.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: In the brief from which the Minister is reading, there is no mention at all of the point I made—that people who married after their service terminated had contributed year by year to an entitlement to widow's pension if they died and were survived by their wives. That is a very important point and supports the views of the Royal British Legion, the Officers Pensions Society and the War Widows Association in support of the amendment. In terms simply of equity, something that was paid for, in their view, ought to be delivered; but there is no mention of that in the reply that the Minister has been reading, which was prepared for him before the debate.
  Mr. Hague: I am just coming to the right hon. Gentleman's new clause. New clause 14 seeks to make an exception for one group of public service pensioners, the widows of ex-service personnel, by backdating an improvement to the armed forces pension scheme that was introduced with effect from 6 April 1978. Pensions for the widows of those who married after their husbands had left the scheme occupation was one of a number of major improvements to public service pension schemes in the 1970s, but, again, each of those improvements was introduced from a fixed and current date. None of them would have been afforded if they had been extended, retrospectively, to recognise all previous service. They were not made retrospective in the 1970s by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. That was an important factor for that Government then, and it is an important factor for this Government now and for all Governments in the future.
  Before the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, it was a normal and well-established principle of occupational schemes, including those in the public service, that to qualify for a pension, the widow of a pensioner had to be married to him at the time when he was engaged in the occupation covered by the scheme. In that aspect of its provision, the armed forces pension scheme, a public service scheme, was similar to others—for example, the civil service, education, health, police, fire and local government schemes.
  The new clause seeks to entitle any service widow of a post-retirement marriage to a widow's pension regardless of the introductory date applicable to other public service schemes. The Government of the day, when introducing that improvement, were well aware that, as usual, there would be people who fell just the wrong side of the implementation date and would therefore not benefit from
  260
  it. The improvement was given a phased introduction in so far as only service in the relevant occupation from April 1978 could count.
  We have no record of the number of post-retirement marriages contracted before 1978, so the full extent of the cost of giving full retrospective recognition to all past cases is difficult to determine, but we estimate that the total cost of the new clause might well be in the region of £60 million for the armed forces pension scheme. That figure would increase substantially if the same principle were extended to other public service pension groups to which the same rules apply.
  Mr. Dewar: Purely for clarification, the Minister said in Committee, at column 594 on 13 June 1995, that that £60 million was an estimated cost for the Ministry of Defence alone and did not take in anything else. It has been suggested to me that that £60 million is a cumulative cost over a run of years, and I wish to establish whether that is so.
  Mr. Hague: Yes; the hon. Gentleman is quite right. That is a total cost over the years of £60 million. The figure that I gave earlier for the previous new clause was a per year cost of £27 million, and the figure for the change in the DSS scheme is a per year cost of £45 million, but this one, as the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies, with his usual perspicacity, is a total cost.
  It is a fundamental principle that improvements to occupational pension schemes can benefit only those serving on or after a qualifying date. The rules in force at the time when an employee leaves the scheme occupation determine pension entitlement. It would be impossible on cost grounds alone to introduce major improvements to occupational schemes without imposing a fixed and current date for the award of additional benefits. The knock-on effects for other public service pension schemes if an amendment were to be introduced would be substantial.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hague: I shall give way once more to the hon. Gentleman before discussing the other new clause.
  Mr. Hughes: First, it is important that we obtain the figures. Does the Minister have before him—and if not, will he undertake to give it on another early occasion—the cost if one were seeking to provide only for those who were at retirement pre-1978, not those who have reduced entitlement because they fall in after 1978?
  Secondly, surely it would be possible, even if one did not backdate to 1978, to introduce the scheme from now, at considerably reduced cost.
  Mr. Hague: I do not have the more detailed numbers and I am not sure that it is easily possible to calculate what the hon. Gentleman asked for, but I shall consider that and write to him with those details.
  There may be alternative proposals that would cost differing amounts, but they are not the proposals that are before the House, and of course those that cost less would be of much less benefit to the people whom hon. Members have spoken about.
  I shall now discuss new clause 12. The rule that a widow's pension ceases on remarriage is common to all public service occupational pension schemes. That is on the basis that widows' pensions are intended to give financial support for as long as the state of widowhood

  261
  continues. The effect of new clause 12 would be to apply different rules to a minority of service widows, and to apply a rule change retrospectively.
  It is claimed that it would not cost very much to make an exception for that group. Although the cost to the armed forces scheme would be relatively small—although we believe that it would be a net cost of about £1 million per year—there are other groups to consider.
  I am aware that provision of a widow's pension for life is a feature of most private sector schemes, but against that background it would be difficult to argue, if those new clauses were accepted, that other service widows and the widows of other public service scheme members should not also have the right to retain on remarriage the pension to which, they will claim, their husband contributed.
  As in other public service occupational pension schemes—
  Mrs. Ewing: How many are we talking about?
  Mr. Hague: I wish to make another point before dealing with that.
  The tragic circumstances of the Chinook accident last year, in which police officers and civil servants died alongside service personnel, show how difficult it would be in practice to make a clear-cut distinction between members of the armed forces and other public servants in this respect. As in other public service occupational pension schemes, a forces family pension or attributable forces family pension ceases on remarriage. There is, however, discretion—this relates to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd)—to restore the original pension on the subsequent marriage coming to an end. More than 80 per cent. of such applications are successful.
  I am conscious, however, that the uncertainty as to the outcome of any restoration application, should the need arise, can be a source of great concern to a service widow contemplating remarriage. The current arrangements are discretionary, but the Government are prepared to undertake to make amendments to the rules of the armed forces scheme to provide for the automatic restoration of an attributable forces family pension, if the subsequent marriage should come to an end, on a similar basis to the arrangements now agreed for DSS war widows. Those amendments can be made without the need for primary legislation.
  I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West that the Government will be considering the report of Sir Michael Bett's independent review of the armed forces manpower career and remuneration structures. The report has recommended that all service widows should retain their pension on remarriage. It has also made recommendations about lump sum benefits payable on death in service—the issue to which my hon. Friend referred—and the need for a study of the rules for assessing whether incapacity is attributable. The Government will be giving all those recommendations very careful consideration.
  The principle of paying widows' pensions for life is an issue that affects all public service schemes.
  Mr. Bayley rose—
  Mr. Hague: We believe that it would be wrong to make changes to the rules at this time for one very small group in isolation. I therefore cannot recommend to the House that the new clauses be accepted.
  Mr. Dewar: I shall be brief. This is clearly an extremely important and sensitive aspect of policy. The arguments have been expressed tonight with a great deal of feeling by many right hon. and hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), for example, has an especially long and distinguished record in this sphere. He is a persistent man, and I have no doubt that he will continue to be persistent and put his case forcibly to a Labour Government after the next election. [Interruption.] Many others—including the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) who, with his "Ho, ho, ho", has just drawn attention to himself—have also presented strong arguments.
  I must in all honesty make it clear that I shall not be supporting the new clauses, and I want to explain why. A number of important questions of principle arise, which we can and no doubt should discuss in the future. I understand the strength of feeling, but there are difficulties with, for example, the principle of a widow's pension being paid for life, irrespective of status.
  Indeed, when that matter was debated in another place, my Front-Bench colleagues there did not support that particular amendment—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: If they had, it would have got through.
  Mr. Dewar: I am not hiding. Politics is not always about doing the popular thing; it is occasionally about considering the arguments and trying to do the right thing. That is a lesson that I accept.
  I shall try to say this as calmly as I can. There are problems with the principle of having a pension for life, irrespective of status. It clearly has implications for other schemes and other parts of the public sector. It was on that basis that, in another place, we carefully backed the amendment that got through—it is worth recording that it did so against the Government's advice—which allowed the reinstatement of a pension for someone who had seen a second marriage end for some reason.
  We have to be selective, although I understand the pressures. I understand that there are post-1973 widows who feel that the possible loss of a pension if they remarry is an inhibition and a barrier to marriage. I am not sure how strong that feeling is in all cases, but I recognise that it does exist. The principle has to be looked at rationally and sensibly in the wider context, and I am not satisfied that the Government or the House have done that so far.
  Similarly with the argument of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing): I see that it is very attractive to say that there is a group of pre-1973 widows who did not buy in on a half-pay basis. That they did not and were not given an opportunity to do so, I accept. But there is the difficulty which should not be ducked. There were also people who served beyond 1973 who bought half-pay basis for their previous service. Frankly, we must consider the imposition and equity of that as well, because they have paid and obtained.
  If we are to extend retrospectively without additional contribution—to raise from a third to a half—those people might well feel that they are due, for example, reimbursement. That is the kind of rather prosaic detail that we have to weigh in the balance before we go down that particular road.

  263
  I also find—of course—new clause 14 attractive. We are not talking about war widows in an emotive sense, but about service pensions, which is an important distinction. The Minister might think that I asked rather an unhelpful question about the £60 million cost. My understanding is that it is—and he confirmed—cumulative to 2035. In a sense, that undermines the financial argument against agreeing to the new clause, although it does, of course, have to be weighed in the balance.
  It is not right simply to dismiss totally the retrospective argument, or the fact that it is difficult to isolate and ring-fence service pensions as a general category in the way that has been suggested as against other public service pensions, often in areas of activity where there is danger and stress and where, too, there are casualties. One has to be a little careful about approaching the matter from a simple isolation argument, without considering it in a broader context.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I hear the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I understand it, but I do not agree with it. Can he justify treating ourselves and our dependent successors differently and better than the people of whom he is talking?
  Mr. Dewar: I can, although, again, it is not necessarily a popular argument. The parliamentary pension fund, which I think was introduced in 1965, is an occupational pension scheme giving rights ab initio. Therefore, the funding and the contributions were based on that principle. In other words, the fact that the pensions had to be paid was taken into the calculation, and the contribution was set on that basis. That is very different from changing the rules retrospectively when no accommodation has been made for such benefits. There is therefore a distinction to be made, although I understand why people throw that point at us, and why they feel so strongly about it.
  Although I have taken a decision which I have not enjoyed because of my situation and that of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I recognise the temptation to say yes, I recognise the strength of feeling over the matter and I was glad to hear—one of the more significant comments made—the Minister refer to the Bett review and its recommendations. Those recommendations are on the table, and it would be of some consolation to the House and the hon. Member for Dorset, West, if it was a clear understanding that they would be under active consideration in the wider context about which I have been talking.
  I do not think that we should proceed on a piecemeal basis, nibbling away, providing a little goodie here and a little goodie there, without putting them in some sort of rational context and ensuring that we have a defensible position against other claims which may be forthcoming and which we may want to distinguish or feel that we have to distinguish.
  It is not—I am afraid—an easy decision, and I understand why many hon. Members will disagree, going
  264
  into the Lobby. But after—genuinely—a good deal of agonising in the past day or two, my recommendation to my hon. Friends, on the Front Bench at least, is that we should not support the amendments.
  Mr. Bayley: I am sorry that the Minister did not give way when he was announcing his intention to extend the service widow's pension concession by restoring a pension to those who remarry, lose their pension because they have done so and subsequently are widowed again, because he will recall that, in Committee, I pressed him about the Government's concession in relation to the Department of Social Security war widow's pension.
  On behalf of some constituents who had raised the matter with me, I asked whether the Government would ensure that there was an automatic and simple procedure, with the minimum of difficulty, for those entitled to restart their war widows' pensions. I said that they should be able simply to notify the Department of Social Security and then have their pensions restarted.
  Now that the Minister has made the welcome concession that the same principle of restarting the widow's pension will apply not only to the social security war widow's pension but to the service widow's pension, will he consider having a single application process, so that a service widow who received both a service widow's pension and a war widow's pension, subsequently remarried and lost her right to both those pensions, and then was widowed again, could make one simple application and automatically have both pensions restarted?
  People in that position have told me of their concern that it could be a complicated process unless the Government take steps to make it as simple as possible. I hope that the Minister will respond briefly to that point.
  Mrs. Ewing: Like other hon. Members, I have listened carefully to the arguments propounded from both sides of the House. I am sure that everyone will agree that members of all the political parties showed a great deal of feeling and passion.
  I was interested to note that the Minister called in his defence the fact that Government amendment No. 84 met some of the arguments. It is worth reminding the House that the Government fought that amendment tooth and nail in another place. They have granted only a very grudging concession, but it is of great credit to those who worked so hard in the other place that we have even reached this stage.
  I had hoped that, having given that grudging concession, the Government would take a more realistic approach to some of the points made in the debate. The Minister seemed to have great difficulty in defining a war widow. I am sure that everyone would agree that a war widow is a war widow is a war widow. It is a simple definition.
  I referred earlier to the case of Mrs. Margaret Wormack. For the sake of those who have not received briefings or who follow our debates through the media, I shall read into the record exactly the sort of case that we believe merits a very small concession for a very small number of people.
  Private Wormack joined the Army in 1933. He served in the infantry in Burma throughout the war, and at one stage he was captured by the Japanese. While escaping, he received severe bayonet wounds to the face, stomach

  265
  and legs, and was left for dead. He and two companions struggled into the jungle, where they managed to stay together until one committed suicide.
  When they were eventually picked up by a British patrol, Sergeant Wormack, as he had become, weighed six stone. He was temporarily blind and his face had been disfigured by maggots feeding on his bayonet wounds. He seldom spoke of the war. Mrs. Wormack learned about his experiences only from having to listen to his repeated nightmares. He was commissioned in 1944, and, although still suffering from recurring malaria, dysentery, a perforated stomach and facial wounds necessitating extensive skin grafts, he served until 1956, retiring as a captain.
  Mr. and Mrs. Wormack were married for 49 years. Despite her husband's peerless service, Mrs. Wormack receives a one-third rate widow's pension, of just £140 a month after tax, or £1, 860 a year. Any of us who know of people in our families or, through our associates, of people who went through the horrors of what happened in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps, will know exactly how difficult it has been for them to express their feelings, because they do not want to horrify members of their families with the reality of their stories. Yet this woman, who had to cope with a husband who had suffered that indignity during the war, is given £140 a month by the state.
  We are asking for help for a small number of people. The Minister said that the figures have gone up from 6, 500 to 8, 000, but that is still less than 50 per cent. of those who are entitled to receive a half-rate pension, rather than the third-rate pension they receive at present.
  I have said that these people are dying at a rate of 1, 300 per annum, so it is hardly a substantial sum that is being asked for from the Treasury to support these people, who certainly deserve our support tonight. It is all very well to talk about the technicalities of a 1965 pension fund for Members of Parliament. Is it because we did not have such technicalities drawn up in 1939 that our war widows and our victory widows are now to be denied their basic fundamental rights? It seems that we are rejecting compassion and social justice in favour of technicalities, and, in the circumstances, I have no alternative but to press the matter to a vote.
  Dr. Marek: I am sorry to intervene, but my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) made a useful suggestion, and it would be nice if the Minister were to reply. The Minister, who is an honourable man, has a duty to reply, and I hope that he will be able to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. I support the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), and I shall be joining her in the Lobby if the matter is pressed to a vote.
  Mr. Hague: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) may not have been able to see my sign of communication with the hon. Member for York, in which I indicated—I think to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction—that I would write to him about the specific matter he raised after my main response to the debate. It is a difficult matter, because the hon. Gentleman was talking about both the DSS scheme and the Ministry of Defence scheme. I shall look at the points raised and will write to the hon. Member for York. I hope that that makes the hon. Member for Wrexham very happy.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided:Ayes 41, Noes 199.

  Division No. 195]

  [11.26 pm

  AYES

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Barnes, Harry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Bayley, Hugh

  Marek, Dr John

  Beggs, Roy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Chidgey, David

  Rendel, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Salmond, Alex

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Simpson, Alan

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Harvey, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wallace, James

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Winnick, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Duncan, Alan

  Amess, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Ancram, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Arbuthnot, James

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Elletson, Harold

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bates, Michael

  Faber, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Booth, Hartley

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Boswell, Tim

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  French, Douglas

  Bowis, John

  Gale, Roger

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gallie, Phil

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butler, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Hague, William

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Conway, Derek

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hendry, Charles

  Couchman, James

  Hicks, Robert

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Horam, John

  Day, Stephen

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

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  267

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rathbone, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Richards, Rod

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knox, Sir David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sackville, Tom

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Luff, Peter

  Sumberg, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sweeney, Walter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sykes, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Thomason, Roy

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mans, Keith

  Thurnham, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mates, Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Merchant Piers

  Viggers, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Waller, Gary

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Waterson, Nigel

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Watts, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Willetts, David

  Norris, Steve

  Wilshire, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wolfson, Mark

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 7

  CONSULTATION ON PENSIONS UPRATING (RESIDENCE OUTSIDE GREAT BRITAIN)
  `(1) The Secretary of State shall consult with representatives of other countries where persons are resident who are entitled to retirement pensions under Part II or Part III of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 but whose pensions have not been uprated as they would have been had they been resident in Great Britain ("affected pensioners").
  (2) Consultation under subsection (1) shall be for the purpose of ascertaining what problems are encountered by affected pensioners, and by what means such problems may be ameliorated.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the outcome of his consultations within one year of the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 9—Entitlement to pension uprating (residence outside Great Britain)—
  `—(1)The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 119 (Persons outside Great Britain), at the beginning there shall be inserted "Subject to section 119A".
  (3) After section 119, there shall be inserted —
  "Entitlement to pension uprating (residence outside Great Britain)
  9A. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment, no person who is entitled to a retirement pension under Part II or III of this Act shall be disqualified by reason of residence outside Great Britain from any benefit under this Act, or any uprating of any such benefit, if he would have been entitled to such benefit or such uprating if he had instead been resident in Great Britain.".'.
  New clause 10—Entitlement to pension uprating (residence outside Great Britain) (phased introduction) (No. 2)—
  —(1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 119 (Persons outside Great Britain), at the beginning there shall be inserted "Subject to section 119A".
  (3) After section 119, there shall be inserted —
  "Entitlement to pension uprating (residence outside Great Britain) (phased introduction)
  119A—(1) This section applies to any person who is entitled to a retirement pension under Part II or III of this Act and who is disqualified by reason of residence outside Great Britain from a retirement pension under this Act, or any uprating of any such pension (an 'affected pensioner').
  (2) There shall be paid to any affected pensioner any uprating of a retirement pension which is payable to any other pensioner under this Act at any date after the passing of the Pensions Act 1995.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for a scheme which shall ensure that, within the period of five years after the passing of the Pensions Act 1995, no affected pensioner shall receive a retirement pension of any lesser amount than he would have received if he had been resident in Great Britain throughout the period from which he first became eligible for a retirement pension.
  (4) So far as practicable, a scheme under subsection (3) above shall ensure that an affected pensioner's retirement pension is increased by an equal amount in each year of the five year period referred to in that subsection.".'.
  New clause 17—Pension uprating (Australia and Canada)—
  `—(1) So far as it applies to retirement pensions, Regulation 5 of the Social Security Benefits (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975 (or any regulation replacing that regulation) shall cease to apply to persons resident in Canada or Australia.
  (2) This section shall come into force two years after the passing of this Act.'.
  Mr. Morris: Whatever differences of view there may be about this group of new clauses, we must surely all agree that it does nothing for the reputation of this country that state pensions paid to our compatriots who today live in Australia, Canada and other Commonwealth countries are so low that they put those who receive them below the poverty line in the countries where they have gone to live.

  269
  The problem of frozen British pensions is a long-standing issue that ought now urgently to be settled and it is in the interests of all the countries involved—including the United Kingdom—to reach a solution very soon.
  The preferred solution of those of us who have taken part in drafting and proposing the amendments to the Bill—not least the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)—is for the UK to bring all pensions that it currently pays up to the level that would have been reached if those pensions had been indexed year on year, in line with past annual increases granted to British pensioners in the UK. That solution—sometimes referred to as full unfreezing and which certainly has my support—would be the most equitable possible. It would ensure that British pensioners in Australia, Canada and elsewhere receive the level of benefits to which they or their spouses contributed during their working years in the United Kingdom. What could be fairer?
  I realise that the cost of full unfreezing, estimated at £168 million in the first year for British pensioners in Australia and Canada alone, would be substantial. However, the Australian and Canadian Governments are wholly prepared to consider other options, the costs of which to the UK would be significantly less. With good will and co-operation, an option can be found that is acceptable to pensioners living abroad and patently affordable by the UK.
  One such option receiving serious consideration by the Australian and Canadian Governments is to forgo any cost of living increases granted prior to the entry into force of any unfreezing arrangement, but to pay all increases granted after such an arrangement comes into force. That approach, sometimes referred to as partial unfreezing, was the basis for the UK's unfreezing arrangement with the United States of America and other countries. Its first-year cost would be £26 million for British pensioners in Australia and Canada.
  There may be other options. The identification and analysis of viable options for unfreezing are complex tasks that will require co-operation between UK social security officials and their counterparts in the other Commonwealth countries. They could be sought within the framework of bilateral social security arrangements already in place.
  The core of what the Australian and Canadian Governments are proposing to end the current impasse is that the UK should agree to hold meaningful bilateral talks, at the official level, with each of the countries in which frozen pensions are paid to identify and analyse options for unfreezing, with the overall goal of finding an option that is acceptable to all the countries concerned. I believe there should be an agreed time frame for these talks, long enough to allow officials to do the work required of them and to seek guidance from Ministers, but not so long as to delay a reasonably early conclusion.
  I repeat, and with emphasis, that the preferred solution is full unfreezing, or one as near as possible to that aim. At the very least, we should agree in this debate to what new clause 7 proposes. That would demonstrate a commitment by the British Government, equal to that of other Governments, to finding a solution to the unfreezing problem. It would position any possible solution within the framework of the existing bilateral social security arrangements between the UK and other countries. It
  270
  would provide an opportunity for Australian Ministers to show the British Government that, among other wrong assumptions, indexation would not be
  "swallowed up by the Treasuries"
  because 92 per cent. of pensioners from Britain have been in Australia for over 10 years and deduction of UK pension from the rate of Australian pension ceases after 10 years. The new clause would also avert a total breakdown in intergovernmental talks while there is still time to find a mutually acceptable solution to a problem that stains this country's reputation and that will not go away if we fail to reach agreement tonight. Time is short if we are to resolve an issue that in the view of many of us is one that involves principle and honour. I implore the Minister not to miss the opportunity that the new clauses present to reach a just settlement.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Winston Churchill: The hour is late and I shall be brief.
  As we stand between the 50th anniversaries of VE and VJ days, the nation's thoughts are inevitably with the heroic generation who saved the world from Hitler. There would be no more fitting moment to rectify a clear injustice that affects 375,000 British expatriate pensioners who, unlike those who retired to an EU country or the United States, find that they receive no uprating to the pension to which they have contributed. These frozen pensioners live overwhelmingly in the old dominions of Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Many are facing severe hardship, especially those in South Africa where there is no social security net.
  Time permits me to cite but one example of a wartime Royal Navy commander, who two years ago wrote to me from Nordhoek in South Africa. I shall quote only a paragraph of his letter. It reads:
  "My wife and I have lived here since 1951. I am now 85 and she is 77. We receive £6.75 for self and £4.15 per week, frozen. In 1951, having received Admiralty permission to emigrate, I wrote to ask if I would get the pension. You will see the reply."
  The reply from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance dated 12 July 1963 I quote in part:
  "The Class Three contributions which you are paying maintain the title to retirement pension, death grant, widow's benefit and maternity benefit, all of which are payable abroad subject to territorial currency restrictions."
  Those were the only restrictions suggested.
  That gallant gentleman has indisputably been misled by a Government Department. In consequence, he finds himself deprived of more than £50 a week of the pension to which he contributed throughout his working life. The Government have never sought to dispute the injustice that is caused to expatriate British pensioners, but plead that the cost of £235 million cannot be afforded.
  We are talking of pensioners who contributed throughout their working lives to their national insurance pension. They find it hard to understand how a Government who have found it possible to increase social security expenditure in real terms since 1979 by a staggering £39, 800 million, providing billions of pounds of benefit to unmarried teenage mothers and others who have never contributed a penny to the national insurance scheme, cannot afford £235 million, barely one quarter of 1 per cent. of the social security budget, to rectify a fundamental injustice.

  271
  Both new clauses 9 and 10 would end the discrimination that I have outlined and remove any geographical limitation on the payment of the annual uprating to state retirement pensioners. New clause 9 would do so outright; new clause 10 would phase in the uprating over five years. I intend to press new clause 10, bearing in mind that it would reduce the first-year cost to £62 million. It would not increase the cost to the full £235 million until the next millennium.
  I am most grateful to my 250 colleagues from all parties who have signed my early-day motion 279 in support of the campaign. I look forward to them registering their support in the Lobby. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will signify their acceptance of a reasonable proposal.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I concur entirely with the sentiments expressed by hon. Members on this group of new clauses and I shall refrain from rehearsing the long-established arguments about the social justice and equity of the case. I want to put a proposition to the Government that is drawn from the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
  In recent conversations with representatives of the Canadian and Australian Governments, I was struck by the extent to which they are exasperated by the Government's refusal even to discuss the issues surrounding the problem. They believe that if officials were given a bona fide mandate to get round the table and discuss the principles involved, ways could be found, in the best diplomatic fashion, to accommodate the differences.
  As the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe rightly said, those representatives are looking for a full unfreezing, but they are prepared to settle for less and to try to establish a bona fide compromise, which they believe is achievable. It is causing great concern to them and to me. It should also concern the House because those two countries are faithful allies and stout friends of the United Kingdom in all other international forums and discussions and if they perceive the issue as an outstanding irritant, we should give it careful attention.
  If the Minister is looking for evidence, I am advised that, when the Canadian Prime Minister was in London to participate in the recent victory celebrations, he took the opportunity, in a short interview with the Prime Minister, to raise the issue. If the Prime Minister of Canada considers it important and if it is the only outstanding matter between Britain and Canada, the House of Commons is bound to pay attention to that fact alone, leaving aside the merits of the case.
  I have put my name to a new clause on the amendment paper this evening. If the Minister is prepared to tell the House in good faith that discussions will be entered into and that officials will be instructed to talk through this subject with the Australian and Canadian Governments to deal with the principle, I will accept that. However, it will not be enough for the Government to produce the same old tired and inadequate justifications about money.
  Full unfreezing would cost a significant amount. I am not arguing for that, but if the Government stick to the brief that we have heard on previous occasions and in previous debates, I fear that there will be a mood to divide the House and put the question to hon. Members in the
  272
  Division Lobby. This evening, the Minister need say only that talks will commence. That is all that would be necessary to satisfy me that some progress had been made on a very important issue.
  Dr. Marek: I rise briefly to support the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who moved new clause 7.
  New clause 7 does not involve the expenditure of any money whatsoever; it simply asks that the Government undertake investigations to identify the problems and find out whether anything can be done.
  My name also appears on new clauses 9 and 10, and I too believe that something should be done. I realise that the Government do not want to spend any money because they want to cut taxes in the Chancellor's November Budget. But even if they do not want to spend money on frozen pensions at this stage, I hope that, as all hon. Members who have spoken have urged, we can at least persuade them to investigate the problems and then to lay a report before Parliament.
  I do not want to rehearse all the well-known arguments, but I must emphasise the fact that pensioners have contributed to their pensions. They may have contributed not for 40 years of their working life but for only 20 years, but that would still mean that they had contributed enough for half the pension. It will be robbery by the Government and theft by Parliament if pensions continue to be frozen, because they lose their value with inflation.
  I know that the Minister is an honest person with integrity, and I appeal to him to read new clause 7. It does not commit the Government to spending a single penny, but simply tells them to investigate, to find out whether there is a problem and to come back with some answers, because the economy may be better in a year's time. I also hope that the official Opposition will support the new clause, because it does not entail the use of a single penny, and I look forward to receiving a bit of support from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
  Mr. Dewar: I hear that invitation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I recognise that there are strong feelings concerning this group of amendments, and widespread concern extending to hon. Members in all parties. I do not under-estimate that for a moment, although I sometimes think that signatures can be appended to early-day motions somewhat carelessly, so the level of commitment may not be as great as the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) would like it to be. But there we are; we live in a real world, and we shall see.
  The facts have been set out, and I congratulate the Select Committee on Social Security, whose Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is here, on the useful memorandum that it produced. It came to no conclusions, but set out extremely usefully all the facts and figures, and the history of this long-standing affair.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I too am a member of the Select Committee. We have come to no conclusions because we have not yet discussed the matter. We wanted to publish the memorandum so that the whole House, and everybody else, could understand the basis on which the curious calculation, whereby some pensioners get an uprating and many do not, is made. It seems grossly

  273
  unfair, and I hope that, when the Select Committee considers the matter, we shall recommend universal uprating of all the pensions, wherever the people happen to live, in line with the amendments tabled.
  Mr. Dewar: I would expect nothing else of my hon. Friend. There was no hint of criticism in what I said—indeed, there was the opposite. However, I did not realise that the Select Committee's work was the preliminary to a full investigation; I thought that it was an attempt to inform debate. That is not an ignoble objective of Select Committees—
  Mr. Corbyn: We do it all the time.
  Mr. Dewar: As a former Select Committee member, I am a great defender of the system. Among other things, Select Committees provide information that is not otherwise easily available to Members of Parliament, and certainly not to the public. A current Select Committee investigation is one of the most useful quarries for arguments and information, and I would never under-estimate or undervalue that aspect of their role.
  Like many other hon. Members, I have been lobbied with great courtesy by letter from almost every country that I can think of, including several that I had not thought of before. Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I have seen the high commissioners for Australia and Canada, who, good diplomats that they are, put their case with great skill.
  I have some sympathy with the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I can see that there is something to be said for talking to friends, even if it is not, in the view of the Minister, likely to be productive in the short term. Who knows, the Minister might get a surprise. It could reduce some of the irritation that might be building up, although I have to record that the high commissioners were far too diplomatic to indicate any irritation to me, although Liberal antennae may have discovered it.
  Mr. Kirkwood: There is nothing wrong with my political antennae.
  Mr. Dewar: That should not necessarily be taken as any sort of comment on the insect-like propensities of the Liberal party.
  There is a case for talking—this is where I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), and his request—but it would be rather odd to put it in the form of a new clause in the Bill. I do not think that future generations reading the Bill would find it a likely interpolation into statute, but it would be useful to try to get a positive response from Ministers on the need to talk.
  12 midnight
  Mr. David Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree—I am one who declined to sign the early-day motion last year because I appreciated the public expenditure consequences—that there is an anomaly here? I understand from written questions that my hon. Friend the Minister has answered that the previous Labour Government made agreements with Spain and Portugal, countries with which this country does not have any particular historic tradition, to uprate pensions, whereas pensioners in the old Commonwealth
  274
  countries—the British countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) puts it—do not have that benefit. Is there not an anomaly between what happens in foreign countries, where British pensioners have the uprating, and in British countries—Commonwealth countries—where they do not?
  Mr. Dewar: Spain is now in the European Union and so operates in a rather different context, and different considerations apply.
  There is a case for looking sympathetically at the uprating problem in the best of all possible worlds. The problem—I have explained it as honestly as I can in probably hundreds of letters—is that it is a matter of competing claims and priorities. The Government have to take decisions on that. Another Government would have to take those decisions when the time came. I have had to say to people, who have written to me with great courtesy, that I cannot give an undertaking that the matter would be a top priority when, as would happen with every other Government, there would almost certainly be only limited room for manoeuvre.
  People would have to compete for the £235 million, which is, I understand, full uprating but no payment of arrears. They would have to compete against pensioners who live in this country and their special needs, poor pensioners, pensioners with special difficulties, carers and the disabled—a range of others.
  The Labour party—and, no doubt, other parties—keeps its priorities under review and does not regard them as set in stone. I have not been able to promise that uprating would be a top priority for a Labour Government in an initial period in power. Given that inhibition, it would be inconsistent of me to vote for it on this occasion. I do not say that to belittle in any way the genuineness of feeling or the fact that there is a case to answer, but I am afraid that I have had to take a prudent line—the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has virtually accepted that it is a prudent line—and it must be followed through consistently on this occasion. I intend to do that tonight.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I acknowledge that many overseas pensioners feel a sense of injustice that their United Kingdom pensions have not been uprated, but I do not accept that, in the present circumstances, the Government are under an obligation to respond in the ways that have been suggested tonight. Our argument, which is well known, is that the full cost of unfreezing the pensions would be £235 million a year. There are options that cost less to start with but which nevertheless build up to that figure, or to lesser but still substantial sums. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) mentioned one such option.
  The point for the House to decide is simply this. If we could find nearly a quarter of a billion pounds extra for social security, is this what the House would want to spend it on? We are talking about people who have left this country knowing that their pensions would not be uprated. The policy is not new; it has been in place since 1955.
  Mr. Churchill: My hon. Friend cannot have been listening when I mentioned the case of the Royal Navy commander in South Africa. He was advised by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance that his pension rights would be unaffected—and that is by no

  275
  means the only such instance that I have encountered. Many other people have been given the same advice, and they were clearly lied to.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I have read the advice that was given. If I remember correctly—I think that I read it some six months ago—the advice was given in an entirely different context from that which is suggested.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Minister's argument is unsustainable. As the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said, advice has been given to a number of people who believed that their pensions would be uprated wherever they happened to live. The Minister also seems to be skating over the fact that the state pension is a contributory pension. Surely it is just for it to be paid regardless of where the recipient happens to live, irrespective of any other factor.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The United Kingdom national insurance scheme is financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. Pensions that are being paid today are financed by national insurance contributions today. It should be remembered that paying contributions gives no automatic entitlement to any particular benefits. The agreement between an individual and the state is that payment of contributions will give entitlement to benefits under certain conditions: for example, pensions are payable, but only when the recipient reaches the age of 65, in the case of men, or 60, in the case of women. Moreover, pensions are not generally uprated outside the United Kingdom. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, the conditions that apply to the benefits do not give rise to the rights that he suggests.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I will, but I had better get on with my speech after that.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: We are all aware that we shall not receive pensions until we are 65—or 60, in the case of women. As far as I know, however, no one has ever been told that they will not receive a pension if they leave the country. Earlier, in answer to some of our questions, the Government blamed the Canadians for not moving forward, but at the time they were discussing relations with the various provinces of Canada. I have raised the issue before, but I have a personal interest now: my sister migrated, and was not aware of the rule until she reached Australia.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman's sister was not aware of it. Advice is available from my Department, and has been given since 1955. A clear warning is given in a leaflet called "NI 38: Social Security Abroad". If there are individual cases in which the wrong advice has been given, I shall of course look into them.
  Mr. Churchill: I mentioned one.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend suggests that he is acquainted with one such case, and I should like to look into it, although I may have done so already.
  At home, we are having to take steps to contain the cost of social security expenditure, as with all public expenditure. There is no extra, or spare, £250 million to
  276
  meet the bill, so we would have to find the money from within the existing social security budget. Hon. Members who suggest that it would be easy to find it should suggest where we should cut at home to pay extra money to people abroad.
  New clause 7 requires the Secretary of State to consult representatives of countries where United Kingdom pensioners who do not receive annual upratings live to find out what their problems are and how they might be ameliorated. It also requires him to report to Parliament within no more than a year. More than 400,000 pensioners do not receive pension increases. They live in 150 countries worldwide. No doubt their problems are many and diverse, and amelioration of those problems would lie in many different directions outside the power of any Government.
  The circumstances of pensioners who do not receive upratings are extremely varied. They may have occupational pensions or other income. Many receive pensions from their country of residence, and not all would be better off if their UK pensions were uprated, because an increase in the UK pension could simply reduce their pension entitlement from the country in which they live.
  We have no reason to think that representatives of other countries would wish to enter consultations with the Secretary of State on the basis that the new clause envisages. I believe that the Australian Government have been canvassing an approach similar to that in the new clause, but it is not clear that the other 149 Governments involved would take the same view. After all, they may not know what problems, financial or otherwise, are experienced by the pensioners concerned, and they would need to carry out detailed personal inquiries.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will not the Minister tell the House that, in fact, most of these pensioners live in only a few countries? I am puzzled. Do the Government not want to undertake the inquiry because they think that they will learn nothing, or because they are fearful of what they might learn?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Neither. The point about undertaking talks is that there would be a commonality of objective and there is no such commonality of objective between the countries in which pensions are not uprated and the objectives of the British Government that relate particularly to the restraint of our social security expenditure.
  New clause 9 takes a different approach to the same issue. Its intention, which must be gleaned from it, is to require the Government to pay retirement pension increases that arise after the Bill comes into force. It does not seek to restore the effects of upratings that have already been forgone, but it could have a far wider effect. It requires that no person entitled to a retirement pension should be disqualified by reason of residence outside Great Britain from any benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It would overturn the law that prevents payment of benefits such as income support and attendance allowance outside Great Britain. It could therefore make available to UK pensioners anywhere in the world any benefit that they could receive if they were living in Great Britain. That would entail vast cost.
  Mr. Churchill: New clause 9 clearly refers specifically to retirement pensions. It refers to anyone

  277
  "entitled to a retirement pension under part II or III of the Act".
  Mr. Arbuthnot: That is right, but retirement pensioners would then be entitled to attendance allowance and to income support wherever they lived in the world, and that could entail vast cost. Let us assume, however, that the effect of the new clause were to require the payment only of retirement pension, as my hon. Friend suggests. The cost would still be great. It would be about £16 million in the first year, but that would increase steadily as people who retired or went to live outside Britain had their pensions fully uprated from the outset. The full unfreezing cost, which would be £235 million a year at 1994 rates of benefit, would be reached as people whose pensions were partially unfrozen were replaced by those whose pensions had never been frozen.
  My hon. Friend may say that that is spending in the future, but spending in the future is no less spending; it is simply spending that we would impose on our grandchildren rather than ourselves.
  12.15 am
  Dr. Marek: The Minister speaks of spending. It is not actually spending; we are talking of contributions that people have paid for part of their working lives. If the Government have the money, the Government can invest it and can pay the increased contributions out of the investment. It is not actually spending by Government.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: That is a delightful but, I suggest, misguided view of economics. National insurance contributions generate a right to pensions under certain conditions, which are set down in the rules that we have at the moment.
  New clause 10 would require the Government to pay future increases of retirement pension abroad and to make good, by instalments, upratings forgone in the past. The £235 million cost of fully unfreezing pensions would thus be reached over five years.
  New clause 17 is also technically defective. The Secretary of State already has the power to amend regulations in the way proposed, so primary legislation is not needed. However, the intention of new clause 17 is clear and rather eccentric. It would give United Kingdom pensioners in Australia and Canada the upratings that take effect from two years after the Bill becomes law. About 80 per cent. of pensioners who do not receive annual upratings live in Australia or Canada. Even if upratings arising only in the future were paid in those two countries, they would cost about £11 million in the first year, but that cost would increase steadily to £200 million.
  That is not the only factor. Many UK pensioners in Australia and Canada also qualify for pensions from those countries, so the UK pension is deducted, in whole or in part, from that pension. That means that, if the UK pensions were to be uprated in Australia, not all the additional expenditure would go to the pensioners. A proportion would go straight to the Australian exchequer.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is not true if they have been there for more than 10 years.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: It is not true for everyone. I do not know the precise percentage, but it is not true for
  278
  everyone. However, a proportion would go straight to the Australian exchequer.
  The point of principle on new clause 17 brings me to the reason that I suggested that it was rather eccentric. It is blatantly discriminatory. It seeks to extend the payment of increases to pensioners in Australia and Canada but not to pensioners in the other 148 countries involved. Quite what the pensioners of New Zealand and the eastern Caribbean states have done to irritate the Liberal Democrats is beyond me, but I do not believe that it would be right to pursue that change to the law.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend obviously seeks to argue a difficult case with a House that, overwhelmingly, is sympathetic to the propositions made in the new clauses. I believe that he is doing quite a good job, but I do not believe that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is unreasonable.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, would it not help the House if there were an inquiry? Even if it takes two years, it would be very helpful in advising the House of the precise way in which pensioners overseas are affected. Then, when the matter is debated again, the House might undertake the debate from a position of knowledge of the way in which our pensioners overseas are faring and whether they deserve the sympathy that I believe that the House seeks to give them tonight.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The problem is that the inquiry and the sort of meetings and negotiations that my hon. Friend is suggesting would be based on a false promise, because we do not feel that it would be right at this stage to reverse Government policy. Now is not the time to spend £235 million on this matter. We pay out more than £900 million a year to more than 700, 000 pensioners overseas. To increase that would be to fly in the face of the Government's commitment to contain the cost of social security now and in the future. I therefore urge the House to reject the new clause.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: If I may, I shall reply briefly. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said, but I still find it difficult to determine where he stands. He was critical of what new clause 7 says about the requirement to report within a year. Is he asking for a period of two years, or three years? He did not appear to argue in principle against the need for bilateral discussions and a report to the House, but said over and over again that the cost of the new clauses would be a quarter of a billion pounds.
  That is not fair to the high commissioners of Australia and Canada. They have made it very clear, as I did in my opening speech, that they are seriously prepared to consider other, less costly, options. Thus, simply to repeat over and over again the figure of a quarter of a billion pounds is less than fair to high commissioners whose reputations are most highly respected in all parts of the House.
  New clause 7 would not cost a penny and I see it as sheer obscurantism to say that we should not try to find out more. If countries do not want to consult, we would obviously not try to force them to consult, but there are countries that do want to consult. Therefore, I shall press the new clause.
  Mr. Corbyn: I want briefly to put on record the fact that, like many hon. Members, I have had many letters

  279
  from all over the world, often from desperate people. I think that the Minister's reply to the reasonable proposal is wholly inadequate.
  It cannot be right that the Government understand that there is a problem, having been forced to publish a document about it, but then say that they do not want to undertake an inquiry because they do not want to know the results of that inquiry or exactly what the problem was in the first place. Inadequately uprated as the current state pension is, surely the principle that has to be borne in mind is that it is a contributory scheme. It may be pay-as-you-go, but the principle is that one pays into the national insurance fund during one's working life in the reasonable expectation of getting a pension at the end of it.
  If one happens to go and live in another country for any number of reasons—family commitments, for example—one should not be penalised. The basic principle, which has been strongly supported by more than 280 Members of Parliament, should bend the Government a little further than was suggested by the Minister's obscure, waffling reply.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 179.

  Division No. 196]

  [12.22 am

  AYES

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Barnes, Harry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Beggs, Roy

  Marek, DrJohn

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Chidgey, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Cohen, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Pike, Peter L

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Rendel, David

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

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Denham, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Skinner, Dennis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wallace, James

  Graham, Thomas

  Welsh, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Wise, Audrey

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Paul Tyler.

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Michael

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Cash, William

  Bates, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clappison, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Colvin, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  280

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Couchman, James

  MacKay, Andrew

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

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Malone, Gerald

  Day, Stephen

  Mans, Keith

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Devlin, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Merchant, Piers

  Dover, Den

  Mills, Iain

  Duncan, Alan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Dunn, Bob

  Nelson, Anthony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Elletson, Harold

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Fabricant, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Paice, James

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Forman, Nigel

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Powell, William (Corby)

  French, Douglas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  Richards, Rod

  Garnier, Edward

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hague, William

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hayes, Jerry

  Spring, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Sproat, Iain

  Hendry, Charles

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Higgins Rt Hnn Sir Terence

  Stephen, Michael

  Higgins Rt, Hon Sir Terence

  Streeter, Gary

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Horam, John

  Sykes, John

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

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Jack, Michael

  Thomason, Roy

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Trend, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Watts, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Wells, Bowen

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Legg, Barry

  Whittingdale, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Lidington, David

  Willetts, David

  Lightbown, David

  Wilshire, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Lord, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Luff, Peter

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 10

  ENTITLEMENT TO PENSION UPRATING (RESIDENCE OUTSIDE GREAT BRITAIN) (PHASED INTRODUCTION) (No. 2)
  `.—(1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 119 (Persons outside Great Britain), at the beginning there shall be inserted "Subject to section 119A".
  (3) After section 119, there shall be inserted—
  "Entitlement to pension uprating (residence outside Great Britain) (phased introduction)
  119A—(1) This section applies to any person who is entitled to a retirement pension under Part II or III of this Act and who is disqualified by reason of residence outside Great Britain from a retirement pension under this Act, or any uprating of any such pension (an 'affected pensioner').
  (2) There shall be paid to any affected pensioner any uprating of a retirement pension which is payable to any other pensioner under this Act at any date after the passing of the Pensions Act 1995.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for a scheme which shall ensure that, within the period of five years after the passing of the Pensions Act 1995, no affected pensioner shall receive a retirement pension of any lesser amount than he would have received if he had been resident in Great Britain throughout the period from which he first became eligible for a retirement pension.
  (4) So far as practicable, a scheme under subsection (3) above shall ensure that an affected pensioner's retirement pension is increased by an equal amount in each year of the five year period referred to in that subsection.":.—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time—
  The House divided:Ayes 35, Noes 167.

  Division No. 197]

  [12.33 am

  AYES

  Barnes, Harry

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Beggs, Roy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Mills, Iain

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Parry, Robert

  Chidgey, David

  Rendel, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Cohen, Harry

  Salmond, Alex

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

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

  Tyler, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Graham, Thomas

  Wise, Audrey

  Hannam, Sir John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Jessel, Toby

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Dr. John Marek.

  kirkwood, Archy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Suney)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bates, Michael

  Amess, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Ancram, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Booth, Hartley

  282

  Boswell, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bowis, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Brazier, Julian

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Burns, Simon

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Burt, Alistair

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Cash, William

  Legg, Barry

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lidington, David

  Clappison, James

  Lightbown, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Luff, Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Couchman, James

  MacKay, Andrew

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

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Malone, Gerald

  Day, Stephen

  Mans, Keith

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Devlin, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Merchant, Piers

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Dover, Den

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Duncan, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Elletson, Harold

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Rathbone, Tim

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Richards, Rod

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Robathan, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Garnier, Edward

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hague, William

  Spring, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Sproat, Iain

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stephen, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Streeter, Gary

  Heald, Oliver

  Sweeney, Walter

  Hendry, Charles

  Sykes, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Thomason, Roy

  Horam, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

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

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Jack, Michael

  Trend, Michael

  283

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Whittingdale, John

  Waller, Gary

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Willetts, David

  Wilshire, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watts, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 19

  HOME RESPONSIBILITY PROTECTION
  'For any person attaining pensionable age on or after 6th April 1999, for the purposes of Schedule 3 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (contribution conditions for entitlement to benefit) and for the purpose only of calculation of retirement pensions, a person prevented from regular employment by responsibilities at home shall be treated as having paid primary Class I contributions during any period during which they were so prevented.'.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  12.45 am
  Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 20—SERPS disregard—
  'Subsection (4)(b) of section 45 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended to insert after the words "5th April 1978" the words "after disregarding any tax year from 2011 onwards where —

  (i) there is no surplus in the pensioner's earnings factor and

  (ii) the person was aged 60 or over".'.

  Amendment No. 21, in clause 133, page 90, line 40, at end insert—
  '( ) In paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 3 to that Act, for the table there is substituted—

  "Duration of Working Life

  Requisite Number of Years

  10 years or less

  The number of years of the working life, minus 2,

  20 years or less (but more than 10)

  The number of years of the working life, minus 4,

  30 years or less (but more than 20)

  The number of years of the working life, minus 6,

  40 years or less (but more than 30)

  The number of years of the working life, minus 8,

  More than 40 years

  The number of years of the working life, minus 10".'.

  Amendment No. 23, in schedule 4, page 147, line 33, leave out '2000' and insert '2010'.
  Amendment No. 24, in schedule 4, page 147, line 34, at end insert —
  `( ) In the case of a pensioner whose spouse died on or after 5th April 2000, and on or before 5th April 2010, sections 48A(4)(b) and 48B(2)(b) shall have effect with the omission of the words "half of and after the words "additional pension" the insertion of the words "reducing by 5 per cent. for each complete year after 5th April 2000 and before death".'.
  Amendment No. 25, in schedule 4, page 148, line 19, at end insert —
  '( ) In section 44(3)(b) of that Act (as amended by this paragraph) following the words "for the relevant years" there is inserted "or, if there are more than 39 such surpluses, of those 39 which are the largest".'.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I shall deal with the amendments relatively quickly and I certainly have no intention of
  284
  pushing them to a Division—if that helps any hon. Members who may wish to make dispositions in advance of the end of the debate.
  There has been very interesting and useful debate on the Report stage of the Bill so far this evening in addressing the situation of war widows and the position of divorcees. They are very important subjects and it is correct that we should examine the effect of the legislation on those groups. However, the changes will affect a relatively small number of women as a proportion of the general population.
  The Equal Opportunities Commission report estimates that, by 2023, two thirds of all retired women will have an income on the margins of poverty. This small clutch of amendments and new clauses seeks to reinforce in the Government's mind the importance of trying to deal with the situation that some women will face when they retire. Women are still disadvantaged in the workplace. They are disadvantaged in the expectations placed upon them for child care, in having to care for elderly and dependent relatives, and in the availability of non-state pensions for part-time, low-paid work—in which many are engaged—and of pensions for those whose working lives have been interrupted.
  I do not think that the Bill as it stands addresses adequately the fundamental disadvantages that women will face upon retirement. Before the Bill was drafted, the Government consulted about the equalisation of state pension age. We supported that consultation process and we concluded that we favoured a decade of retirement with a common retirement age of 65 years. The Social Security Advisory Committee and the Equal Opportunities Commission recommended that any money clawed back by the Exchequer from the equalisation of state pension age at 65 should be targeted at vulnerable groups.
  We have placed the amendments before the House in order to draw attention to the fact that women who are engaged in part-time, low-paid work have poor prospects for a decent income in retirement. Some 88 per cent. of those who earn less than the lower earnings limit—which is currently £59 per week—are women; 73 per cent. of all those who claim income support in retirement are single women; and, on average, women are employed for 57 per cent. of their working lives compared with 97 per cent. for men. Therefore, we can state unequivocally that the vulnerable group comprises primarily women.
  I recently tabled a number of questions which the Minister was kind enough to answer. Although that was a very useful exchange and I understand that it would take a lot of money to address the ideas in the amendments adequately and fully, the purpose of the amendments is not to ask that that money be paid forthwith; their purpose is simply to probe the Government's intentions. If the Government do not intend to address the matter in the Bill, how will they make adequate provision in the near future for women such as those who work intermittently throughout their careers in part-time, relatively low-paid jobs in the textile industry in my constituency? Many women will retire and fall into inadequate financial circumstances which will affect them and their families in an unconscionable manner. The matter must be addressed urgently.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: All the amendments seek to reduce the effects of our state pension reforms, which have been designed to achieve equality of treatment between men and women and to ensure the continued affordability of SERPS. We have taken care to ensure that women's ability to secure a basic state pension will not be affected by those changes and that the position of people in vulnerable groups is protected by our proposals. We have protected the position of older women and ensured that those who are affected have been given plenty of time to change their pension plans. The amendments would make inroads into the steps that we have taken to put long-term state pension provision on to a more sustainable basis. They would increase expenditure in a poorly targeted way that cannot be supported. I urge hon. Members to reject them.
  Question, That the clause be read a Second time, put and negatived.
  Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  Ordered,
  That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall apply to the Updated Code of Audit Practice for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales as if it were a draft statutory instrument; and that the said Updated Code be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Burns.]

  Black People (Deaths in Custody)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  12.50 am
  Mr. Harry Cohen: There have been nearly 70 deaths of black people in custody since 1987, which the Institute of Race Relations and the organisation Inquest describe as giving some cause for concern. I will read the names into the record: Akhtar Moghul, Clinton McCurbin, Ahmed Katangole, Rai Jasbir Singh, Nenneh Jalloh, Mohammed Parkit, Anachu Anozie Osita, Tunay Hassan, Terence Brown, Anthony Mahony, Mark Ventour, Joseph Palombella, Samuel Carew, Femi Adelaja, Armando Belonia, Bahader Singh, Oakley Ramsey, Kelroy Briscoe, Joseph Watts, Sajjan Singh Atwal, Derek Stephen Buchanan, Martin Richmond, Wayne Tobison, David 'Duke' Daley, Nicholas Bramble, Vincent Graham, Jamie Stewart, Edwin Carr, Mr. Romany, Siho Iyugiven, Germain Alexander, Kimpua Nsimba, Oliver Pryce, Aslam Khan, Edwin Robinson, Delroy McKnight, Vandana Patel, Ian Gordon, Arthur Allison, Leon Patterson, Sohan Sanghera, Joy Gardner, Kwanele Eldah Siziba, Mark Harris, Joseph Nnalue, Oluwashiji Shiji Lapite, Tyrone Wilson, David Ewin, John Ryan, Kwaku Andrew Ohene, Omasase Lumumba, Melita Crawford, Errol Commock, James Segawa, Ian Francis, Donna Awadat, Nadeem Younus, Warren Jones, Adejare Paul Akinbiyi, Turan Pekoz, Carl Owens, Oluwafeyisola Akinbobola, Norman Washington Manning, Anthony Lloyd Powell, Orville Blackwood, Mark Fletcher, Munir Usef Mojothi, Jerome Scott and Rupert Marshall.
  Those names are given in the Institute of Race Relations publication "Deadly silence—black deaths in custody" and in a letter from the institute dated 19 April. That is a roll call of shame for the British state and for Home Office Ministers, who have shown no concern about those deaths. The Minister should do the decent thing after this debate and write to me, put a paper in the Library or write to the families of every one of those individuals with an explanation for their deaths.
  Fifteen years ago, the Home Affairs Select Committee published a report on the deaths of people in police custody because, in the 10 years up to 1987, 274 people died while in the custody of the police. There were allegations that 26 of those deaths were the result of police action, but no one was prosecuted. Compare that figure with the deaths of all the individuals that I have named.
  The Police Complaints Authority has said that police custody deaths are running at about one a week. A disturbingly high number of them involve people from the black and ethnic minority communities. Although there have been several verdicts of unlawful killing, only one has resulted in an official admission of responsibility and payment of compensation. There have been deaths in police cells, prisons and psychiatric hospitals of immigrants and asylum seekers. The brutality that has brought about those deaths includes tape over the mouth, neck-holds, the new police baton, forced medication and beatings up.
  There has been a wall of silence and secrecy in response to those deaths. Peter Moorhouse, the deputy chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, is quoted in The Guardian as saying:
  288
  "Officers facing disciplinary hearings are ambushing cases by holding back information and intimidating witnesses with considerable success."
  Inquest, in its newsletter this summer, states:
  "We have absolutely no confidence in current mechanisms for investigating deaths in police custody where the police are called in to investigate themselves. These investigations remain biased, inherently secret and are never made public and yet they form the basis on which the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police Complaints Authority decide where charges are to be brought and strongly influence the shape of the inquest. Prosecutions rarely happen. This means the police remain unaccountable to the public for their actions and are seen by many as being above the law."
  In its annual report last year, Inquest referred to deaths in prison. It stated:
  "The issue of accountability of the Prison Service remains an area of great concern. Despite numerous recommendations from Coroners, Prison Service internal inquiries and vast amounts of evidence presented at inquests it appears nothing is learnt from the lessons of the past. Without scrutiny of these institutions in the public domain the Prison Service can choose to ignore or implement recommended changes at will."
  The report deals with psychiatric deaths as follows:
  "Specific cases during the year have highlighted, yet again, the dangers of anti-psychotic medication, the most famous (or notorious) of which is largactil, sometimes known as the liquid cosh … An increasing number of cases referred to INQUEST involve death after administration of these drugs and strongly point to a causative link."
  The report refers to deaths in police custody, which it describes as "The Invisible Deaths". It continues:
  "Many of these deaths could have been prevented by proper medical attention instead of incarceration in a police cell."
  As for unlawful killing, the report states:
  "Unlawful killing verdicts reached at inquests are ignored despite the fact that the jury is sure that a criminal act has been committed. They are not dealt with at a criminal trial or public enquiry. This is particularly important where it is agents of the state who are suspected either of carrying out the killing or of seeking to conceal the truth."
  The killing of Shiji Lapite, the 32-year-old Nigerian is a case in point. I went to his funeral on 24 June. He was killed on 16 December 1994. His voice box was crushed and he was asphyxiated due to pressure on his neck. The priest, a white man, called the killers thugs. Everyone in the church knew that he was referring to the police officers responsible. The priest said that the blood of Shiji Lapite cried out for justice.
  Six months after Shiji's death his family know as little about it officially as they did last Christmas. The family's lawyer talks of exceptional delays and lack of co-operation. The family's pathologist has been denied access to information, including photographs of the body which showed much bruising to the head and face, and the toxicology, histology and fixed brain reports. Shiji's family, like all the others, have no right to information about the Police Complaints Authority process, the Crown Prosecution Service process or the coroner's process. There is no legal aid for the families at inquests and no disclosure of information in advance. Legal aid should be available for the families in proceedings before a coroner. That was recommended in the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1980. It is disgraceful that successive Lord Chancellors have ignored the recommendation.
  The cost of that legal aid provision would not be that much. It would be between £2 million and £3 million, just 0.3 per cent. of the legal aid budget. The taxpayer pays

  289
  the state's bill—in this instance the killers' bill. Surely the taxpayer should pay the legal aid bill to enable the victim's family to be properly represented.
  Omasese Lumumba was killed in Pentonville prison on 8 October 1991. His inquest said that he had been unlawfully killed by prison officers using excessive force and improper methods during the course of control and restraint. Ever since then, there has been a huge cover-up. No information has been supplied to the House or to Members of Parliament.
  I have had protracted correspondence with Home Office Ministers, the Lord Chancellor and the Prison Service. To get Ministers off the hook, I have been told to contact the coroner, because he can release information to a properly interested party. I now have a letter from the coroner saying that I am not a properly interested party, even though I am trying to get to the truth of the matter. The letter concludes:
  "I have no power to disclose documents which were provided by other agencies purely to assist the coroner in inquiry and for his eyes only, as these documents would be subject to public interest immunity."
  We have come across that before in the Matrix Churchill cover-up. It seems to be used to allow injustices to occur.
  The coroner did not mention that, apparently, there was a private Prison Service inquiry, or whether he was aware of it. It is a disgrace that suspected killers can talk to a private inquiry in order to avoid justice. The findings of a private inquiry do not go to a coroner, an inquest or the family. Any killer would talk to such an inquiry as he would have carte blanche to lie while resting assured that he would never appear before any system of public justice. That is unacceptable and I call on the Minister to publish a report of the Prison Service inquiry into the unlawful killing by excessive force of Omasese Lumumba.
  Other cases deserve full and open information. Norman Washington Manning was killed in a racial murder by other prisoners without the Prison Service fulfilling its duty of care to protect him. Derek Lewis of the Prison Service wrote to me saying:
  "I am unable to say whether or not further inquiries may be necessary, nor in these circumstances can I comment on the motive for the killing."
  What answer is that to such a murder?
  Brian Douglas died of a fractured skull in May after being beaten by police with a new police baton. That warrants a full public inquiry before more people die in the same way. Leon Patterson was detained on remand at Stockport police station in November 1992. After six days he was transferred to Denton police station, where he died a few hours later. Covered in bruises, he received no proper medical treatment despite suffering diarrhoea and vomiting for several days. He was heavily dosed with Mogadon. The inquest said that he was unlawfully killed and that a failure of duty contributed to or caused his death; yet no one was prosecuted.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for obtaining the debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the case of Leon Patterson is disgraceful. Despite all the inquiries pressed for by the family, myself and others, nobody from the appropriate police authority admitted responsibility. Eventually, a successful application was made to the High Court to set that inquest verdict aside
  290
  and we are now back in limbo without even an inquest date so that we can discover who the true killers of Leon Patterson are.
  Mr. Cohen: That is a good point. It is one of the cases that the Minister should answer, as is that of Orville Blackwood, who was killed in Broadmoor in August 1991 after being injected with more than three times the recommended dose of tranquilisers.
  Oliver Pryce was killed by a police special operations team. Again, the inquest recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. In 1992, the Director of Public Prosecutions announced that there was insufficient evidence to bring further prosecutions and the Police Complaints Authority announced that no officer was to face disciplinary charges. In April 1995, Cleveland constabulary admitted liability for that death and the family were awarded considerable damages; yet no apology was ever given to the family and no officer ever faced charges or disciplinary action.
  Those deaths are a disgrace, and many of them were caused by neck-holds and strangleholds which are still prevalent now.
  The Independent newspaper on Monday mentioned several deaths, including those of Oliver Pryce, Clinton McCurbin and James Davey. Winston Rose and Nicholas Ofusu—both mentally ill black men—John Lamaletie and others, probably including Shiji Lapite, died of neck-holds and strangleholds which should be banned.
  Justice is needed for the families of the deceased. There must be an end to the prevailing secrecy and cover-up procedures that I have described. There should be a ban on neck-holds and strangleholds, and an inquiry into medical care arrangements in prisons, police stations and psychiatric institutions. As was recognised by the 1980 Select Committee report, legal aid should be available to the families of the dead so that they can be represented at inquests. There should be a full, open and independent public inquiry into those shameful deaths, to which the families would all have full access. We want some answers from the Minister about the state's role in those deaths.
  1.5 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I have listened to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) with care, and there is one point—although probably only the one—on which I can agree wholeheartedly with him. When a member of the public dies while in the hands of an agent of the state who is charged with his care, that must be treated as a most serious matter.
  Indeed, deaths in custody are treated as a very serious matter. It is a requirement for all police forces to report any death in custody to the coroner without delay, and to the Home Office within 48 hours, giving details of the circumstances leading to the death.
  For such purposes, the term "custody" is extremely broadly defined, and includes any death in a police station, whether or not the person had been arrested, and also the deaths of witnesses who had been attending a police station voluntarily. The definition includes deaths that occur in hospital if the deceased had been taken there from a police station. It also includes any death that takes place in the street after a person has been arrested by a police officer,

  291
  and any other case in which the person was in the hands of the police at the time of death—for example, in a police vehicle—or in police custody at a court. Finally, it includes any death that results from an injury caused by a police officer in the execution of his duty.
  The full definition is set out in the Home Office consolidated circular of 1986. It is deliberately couched in wide terms to avoid any suspicion that a death of which the police were culpable could somehow fall outside its terms of reference. In my view, it probably errs on the side of being too wide, and I have been re-examining it to see whether it should focus more clearly on circumstances in which there is some possibility, however small, of police culpability.
  Far from our hushing up such matters, the full details of all deaths in police custody are published each year in a Home Office bulletin of police complaints and discipline statistics. The bulletin gives details of the date when and the place in which each death took place, the age and the gender of the victim, and the verdict of the coroner. It also gives a brief account of the circumstances of each death.
  We provide that information because we recognise that it is crucial to preserving trust between the police and the public that there should be as much openness as possible about deaths that occur in police custody. For the same reason, it has now become standard practice for police forces to call in the Police Complaints Authority whenever a death occurs in custody, so that the authority can decide whether to look further into the matter.
  Deaths of prisoners in Prison Service custody also have to be reported immediately to the coroner and to Prison Service headquarters. Where there are suspicious circumstances, the police will also be brought in. Rule 19 of the prison rules requires the spouse or next of kin to be informed at once, as well as any other close associates of the deceased. They may also visit the establishment in which the death occurred.
  Like the police and the Prison Service, the immigration service has clear rules on the procedures for reporting deaths in immigration custody, in which the coroner would be informed at once and the police asked to investigate any suspicious circumstances. There has been only one death in immigration custody in recent years, and that was a tragic case in which two men set fire to their own cell, killing one and seriously injuring the other.
  It is important to put into context the number of deaths in police custody. In the past five years, it has ranged between 36 and 61 per year, and more than 1.5 million people are arrested by the police each year. Given the number of people who pass through police hands each year, it is an actuarial inevitability that some will die while they are in police custody. Indeed, a number of deaths occur each year as a result of heart attacks suffered by people who have been arrested.
  A large proportion of deaths are associated with drug or alcohol abuse. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes have strict requirements about the treatment of drunks. They must be roused and spoken to every half hour, to ensure that they do not lapse into a coma. If the condition of any detainee gives grounds for concern, a doctor must be called. But people who abuse drugs or alcohol put their lives at risk and, despite the best efforts of the police, some of them die while in police custody.
  292
  The hon. Gentleman asked about neck-holds. The Police Complaints Authority, in its annual report for 1993, stated that, following a number of high-profile cases, it had compiled a substantial body of expert opinion on the effect of neck-holds and certain arm locks, which it had passed to the relevant committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The expert opinion was that a neck-hold that exerts any pressure on the carotid artery—the artery in the neck that carries oxygenated blood and nutrients to the head—or any hold that compresses the airway, involves, except in extreme circumstances, an unacceptably high element of risk. The authority expressed the view that that advice must be emphasised in police training to avoid the risk of deaths resulting from that type of restraint.
  The use of training and self-defence techniques is an operational matter for the chief officer of each force. Guidance on those matters is issued by ACPO through its standing sub-committee on self-defence, arrest and restraint. I understand that the sub-committee is in the process of reviewing its guidance and is looking at, among other things, the use of neck-holds in restraining assailants.
  I shall now say a few words about lay visiting in police stations. Lay visiting plays a valuable role in police-community relations and in providing independent oversight of police treatment of detainees in police stations, and the conditions in which people are held. Following the success of pilot schemes set up in 1983, the Home Office recommended the setting up of lay visiting schemes in all force areas. Updating guidance was issued in 1991 in respect of the Metropolitan police district, and in 1992 for the rest of the country. All areas now have lay visiting schemes in operation. The responsibility for the setting up of lay visiting arrangements lies with the police authority. In London, it lies with the Home Office, now the Metropolitan Police Committee, in consultation with the chief constable.
  From the earliest days, it was recognised that schemes needed to evolve to suit local circumstances. There is accordingly a wide variation in schemes and panel membership, ranging from those comprising visitors recruited from the public at large to those that consist of police authority members who make visits as part of their normal duties. The purpose of lay visiting is to enable members of the local community to observe, comment and report on the conditions under which persons are detained at police stations, and the operation and practice of the statutory and other rules governing their welfare, with a view to securing greater public understanding and confidence in those matters. Those arrangements also provide an independent check on the way in which police officers carry out their duties with regard to detained persons.
  The police are required to give direct and immediate access to lay visitors, who arrive unannounced at police stations at any time of the day or night. Lay visitors may inspect empty cells, talk to all detainees if the detainees consent and examine custody records—again, if the detainees consent. Any areas of concern, or complaints, are immediately drawn to the attention of the custody officer. Reports on each visit are made to the police authority.
  The police service accords the highest priority to good relations with all members of the community that it serves, irrespective of racial background or other factors.

  293
  Since 1993, the service has been collecting information for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on the ethnic origin of those stopped and searched under the relevant powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The 1993–94 figures were made available nationally, and chief officers are beginning to make available locally their forces' figures for the most recent financial year. Additional ethnic monitoring of police activity will begin from 1 April next year.
  All that will help chief officers to assess whether their officers are delivering an equitable service to all sectors of the public. It also shows that our police service is prepared to look at how it operates, and to make changes to its policies and practices if necessary.
  The recruitment and retention of members of ethnic minorities to the police service is a high priority. The Government are keen for the service to represent the communities it serves.
  Mr. Cohen: What the Minister has been saying does not really address the seriousness of the concern expressed in my speech, and the feelings of the families of those who have died. What lessons have the Minister and the police learnt from those 70 deaths, and what changes will be made to prevent another 70 in the future?
  Mr. Maclean: As I tried to make clear at the beginning of my speech, the vast majority of those people died while suffering from the results of alcohol or drug abuse, or from heart attacks, or in other circumstances in which no blame can be attributed to the police. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there are 70 deaths a year, and that the police are somehow guilty because people happen to die while they have been visiting a police station, giving evidence at a police station or sitting in a police cell. Moreover, while the police service is happy to look into neck-holds, I am concerned that the service should have sufficient restraint methods to deal with some of the raving maniacs whom it must hold at times.
  294
  Let me also tell the hon. Gentleman that, when there is any evidence whatever of police culpability in the use of excessive violence, or any other action that results in the death of someone in police custody, a proper investigation takes place. If there are lessons to be learned, they will be learned and put into practice. As I intimated in connection with neck-holds, the police are investigating what additional training may be necessary so that they can safely grab some violent raving maniac by whatever part of his body is available, but hold him in a way that will not result in his untimely death.
  It is all very well for us to sit in the plush comfort of the House of Commons and talk about police officers who should show tremendous care for some of the people they must arrest. It is quite another matter to be patrolling the streets on Friday and Saturday nights and to have to deal with the people out there who are assaulting the police time and again, knifing and murdering them. Of course the police must behave within the rule of law; when they do not do so, they are held to account and dealt with very severely.
  I was also trying to demonstrate to the hon. Gentleman that, in order to prove to the communities they guard that the police can be trusted to behave properly and favourably to all sections of those communities, the police are engaged in ethnic monitoring of the people whom they arrest and with whom they deal, and of those whom they recruit for the police service. They are keen to ensure that, throughout England and Wales, serving police officers properly represent those in the community with whose policing they are charged.
  For the past few years, we have actively encouraged police forces in their attempts to secure more black and Asian recruits, but we recognise that there is more work to be done in increasing the representation of ethnic minority groups in the police force.
  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 twenty minutes past One o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32215]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on 26 June,Official Report, column 462, if he will make a national breakdown as between the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office of the staff employed in the planning inspectorate, effective on 1 April (a) 1994 and (b) 1995. [32444]

  Mr. Horam
  The planning inspectorate is an executive agency jointly funded by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. The national breakdown of full-time equivalent staff employed by the planning inspectorate was:

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1995

  England

  580

  563

  Wales

  25

  21

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32170]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department spent £7,162,000 in 1993–94 and £6,991,000 in 1994–95 on travel and subsistence, both figures at 1993–94 prices. The cost of travel claims alone and the type of transport used could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  96

  Magistrates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the numbers of magistrates appointed from each ward in Newport, Gwent, in each of the past five years; and what are their perceived political loyalties. [32102]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of magistrates appointed from each ward in Newport in each of the last five years and their stated political affiliation is as follows:

  Year

  Ward

  Number

  Politics

  1990

  Caerleon

  1

  Labour

  Rogerstone

  1

  Labour

  The Graig

  1

  Conservative

  Outside borough

  1

  Labour

  1991

  Alt-yr-yn

  1

  Labour

  1992

  Alt-yr-yn

  1

  Labour

  The Graig

  1

  Liberal Democrat

  1993

  Alt-yr-yn

  2

  Labour

  Llanwern

  1

  Labour

  Outside borough

  1

  Labour

  1994

  Caerleon

  1

  Labour

  1

  Conservative

  Langstone

  1

  Labour

  Ringland

  1

  Labour

  Rogerstone

  2

  Labour

  The Graig

  1

  Liberal Democrat

  Outside borough

  1

  Uncomitted

  Small Claims Court
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if there will be a full period of public consultation before the small claims court limit is increased; and if he will make a statement. [32526]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Lord Woolf consulted widely in the preparation of his interim report. In view of this, the Lord Chancellor does not intend to undertake further public consultation on the question whether he should implement Lord Woolf's recommendation that the limit for small claims, other than those for personal injury, should be raised to £3,000. The power to make the necessary amendments rests with the county court rule committee which, as part of its consideration of the matter, consults interested parties.

  Libel Law (Printers)
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the libel law to provide printers with the defence of innocent dissemination. [32390]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have already decided that the defence of innocent dissemination should be available to printers, and will introduce legislation as soon as there is a suitable opportunity.
  97

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30992]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July 1995. [30993]

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

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the adoption of a single currency outside the rules of the European Union by countries wishing to do so. [32369]

  The Prime Minister
  The EC treaty now provides the institutional framework for the adoption of a single currency. It would not be legally permissible for any member states to adopt a single currency otherwise than in accordance with this framework if that prevented or fettered the discharge by the Community institutions of their functions in accordance with the treaty.

  The United Kingdom's protocol, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by its Government and Parliament.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement on the EU Cannes summit of 28 June, (1) when he plans to bring forward legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention. [32155]

  (2) on what grounds he signed a statement calling for the chemical weapons convention to enter into force without delay. [32156]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government remain fully committed to the chemical weapons conventions. Primary legislation is required to implement the convention in the UK and to enable UK ratification. Work is going ahead on the preparation of the necessary legislation. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the coming weeks to publish a bill in draft for consultation with a view to introducing it as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will state the rules governing the making of announcements relating to party business in, or using the facilities of No. 10 Downing Street. [31987]
  98
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 June 1995]: Ministers under this and previous Administrations have been allowed—at their own or party expense—to make use of No. 10 Downing street for party business, except for certain purposes during general elections.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32168]

  Mr. Howard
  The Department's computerised travel claims payment systems do not record information according to the categories requested. The cost of deriving this information from manual records would be disproportionate.

  Former Foreign Heads of State
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list all former heads of state of foreign countries who currently have permission to reside in the United Kingdom; and what privileges and status are accorded to each; [32518]

  (2) how many former heads of state of foreign countries or members of their family are currently awaiting decisions on their domiciliary status in the United Kingdom. [32521]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In any event, it is not our normal practice to disclose information about the immigration status of individuals.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current status of ex-King Constantine of Greece in the United Kingdom; and what privileges and precedence are accorded to him and his family. [32519]

  Mr. Baker
  It is not our normal practice to disclose information about an individual's immigration status.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women aged from 18 to 21 years were serving a prison sentence of 10 years or more on 19 June. [31704]

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

  Letter from Brian Landers to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) men and (b) women aged from 18 to 21 years were serving a prison sentence of 10 years or more on 19 June.

  99
  The latest available information is for 31 May when there were 130 men and 7 women aged from 18 to 21 years in Prison Service custody, who were serving sentences of 10 years or more.
  Information on the prison population is published in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics England and Wales". The latest edition, containing figures for 1993, is available in the Library.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were classified as category A prisoners in prisons in England and Wales on 19 June. [31277]

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

  Letter from Brian Landers to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of women classified as category A prisoners in prisons in England and Wales.
  On 19 June there were seven female category A prisoners held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of places in special secure units in prisons in England and Wales and the number of inmates being held in such units as of 19 June. [31278]

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

  Letter from Brian Landers to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of places in Special Secure Units in prisons in England and Wales and the number of prisoners in such units.
  There are currently twenty three places in Special Secure Units in prisons in England and Wales. Fourteen of them are at Whitemoor prison, where the Special Secure Unit was re-opened on 14 June 1995 and nine at Full Sutton prison. On 19 June there were six prisoners held in these units.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 92, if he will give a breakdown of the ethnic backgrounds of prisoners transferred to hospitals under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last 10 years. [31218]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Brian Landers to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking for a breakdown of the ethnic backgrounds of prisoners transferred to hospitals under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last ten years.
  Ethnic information is only available for final discharge from prison to hospital since 1993. This covers all reasons for transfer; including those transferred under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act for whom a separate ethnic breakdown is not available. It is shown in the attached table separately for males and females for the years 1993 and 1994.
  100

  Final discharges from prison to hospital

  1993

  1994

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  White

  607

  44

  550

  58

  Black total

  214

  8

  236

  23

  African

  50

  2

  41

  6

  Caribbean

  143

  3

  142

  12

  Other

  21

  3

  53

  5

  South Asian total

  24

  1

  20

  1

  Bangladeshi

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Indian

  14

  1

  7

  1

  Pakistani

  8

  0

  11

  0

  Total Chinese and other Asian

  9

  1

  17

  1

  Chinese

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Other Asian

  9

  1

  16

  1

  Not recorded/unknown/other

  20

  3

  17

  0

  Total

  874

  57

  840

  83

  Film Censorship
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the certification by the British Board of Film Classification of the recent video showing deaths by execution; and if he will make a statement. [31725]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received two letters from members of the public concerned that the video "Executions" has received a certificate from the British Board of Film Classification.

  The Government are aware of the public concern about this film. However, the British Board of Film Classification is an independent body and the Government have no powers to influence its classification decisions. Before awarding a classification certificate, the BBFC is required to take into account any harm which a video work might cause through the manner in which the work deals with, among other things, violent or horrific behaviour or incidents. I understand that this particular work was viewed by the full board of the BBFC, who concluded that it was appropriate to grant it an "18" certificate.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31308]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In 1993–94 the Home Office paid grants to approximately 900 voluntary organisations and entered into contracts with seven. In 1994–95, grants were paid to approximately 200 organisations and contracts entered into with six. The fall in the number of organisations receiving grants directly from the Home Office reflects changes in the methods for paying certain grants between 1993–94 and 1994–95.
  101
  The Home Office paid £64.4 million to the voluntary sector in 1993–94 and £68.8 million in 1994–95. These figures include Home Office money given out as grants by the Commission for Racial Equality and, in 1994–95, by local probation services.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Hotels
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what is his estimate of the number of properties regularly operating as hotels in England with fewer than six bed spaces; [32028]

  (2) how many hotels in England have more than six bed spaces. [32029]

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no figures on the number of bed spaces in hotels and similar establishments. However, the database of all serviced accommodation stock known to the English tourist board shows a total of 15,000 establishments with six bedrooms or less, and a further 14,250 with more than six bedrooms.

  Radios
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from the Association of Independent Radio Contractors about the concentrations of radio ownership in major urban areas. [31945]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I met representatives of the AIRC on 28 June and discussed a number of issues. The issue of ownership in urban areas was specifically raised by AIRC at a meeting with Lord Astor on 16 March.

  Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the Government's policy on the revised television without frontiers directive. [31954]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Commission's proposal for a new directive to amend the television without frontiers dDirective (89/552/EEC) was communicated to the Council on 14 June and is under consideration in a Council working group of officials. My Department will shortly be seeking the views of the UK industry on the proposals; and on explanatory memorandum will be provided in the usual way.

  I have made it clear on a number of occasions that, while the Government welcome many of the changes to the 1989 directive proposed by the Commission, we are strongly opposed to the proposed changes to the quota regime on programme content. And so are most of our partners.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the change in the level of ITV's spending on programming over the last five years in real terms. [31918]
  102
  Mr. Dorrell
  For ITV networked programmes the ITV network centre spending budgets for each of the years 1993–95, expressed in real terms at 1995 prices, deflated by HM Treasury GDP market prices deflator of 27 June 1995, were:

  1993: £539.8 million

  1994: £544.2 million

  1995: £552 million (provisional)

  Comparable figures for 1991 and 1992 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

HEALTH

  District Auditor Reports
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in how many cases the district auditor has prepared a section 20(3) report in respect of the health service; and in each case what is the name of the body concerned, the reason a report was prepared and the date on which she received it; [28240]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 24 May Official Report, column 591, if she will place in the Library the section 20(3) report on the City and East London family health services authority which she received from the district auditor on 2 February. [28241]

  Mr. Malone
  Reports issued under section 20(3) of the 1990 Act are not definitive analyses and are not intended for publication. Examination of such reports is required to establish the legal position in each case and any necessary disclosure is achieved by notation of the appropriate statutory accounts.

  Pay Review Bodies
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what criteria are used for selecting new members of the pay review body; [30429]

  (2) what are the criteria for selection of the chair of the pay review body; and what plans she has to change them. [30430]

  Mr. Malone
  Both chairman and members of the two review bodies covering national health service staff are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the advice of Ministers.

  In making the appointments, Ministers look for relevant background experience, for the ability to analyse the issues coming before the review body, and for the capacity to form independent judgments on those issues.

  The procedures may need to be reviewed in the light of the Government's decisions on the Nolan committee's recommendations.

  Counselling
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has carried out into counselling versus antidepressants in primary care; with what findings; and if she will make a statement. [31505]
  103
  Mr. Malone
  There is no research currently being undertaken by the Department's policy research programme—formerly the centrally commissioned programme.

  The national health service research and development programme includes two current projects in its health technology assessment programme, which has identified counselling in primary care as a priority area. One compares the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of counselling, cognitive behavioural therapy, and usual treatment by the general practitioner for patients with depression and mixed anxiety and depression. The second is to establish the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of counselling in primary care for patients with chronic depression and anxiety.

  Pregnancies
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of(a) pregnancies among teenage girls, (b) births to unmarried mothers and (c) abortions performed in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England in each year since 1979. [31602]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of conceptions to women aged under 20 and the total number of live births outside marriage are shown in the table. The data are given for each year from 1979 to the most recent year for which information is available—1991 for conceptions and 1993 for births. Conception statistics by county and county district are not readily available before 1989, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of abortions by regional health authority of termination are published in the OPCS Series AB 6–19 and in the OPCS Monitor AB95/1 for 1993; copies of which are available in the Library. For reasons of confidentiality, abortion data by area of termination are published only down to RHA level.

  Area of residence at time of birth or abortion

  Year

  England

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  York county district

  a) Conceptions to women under 201

  1979

  113,574

  12,991

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  110,326

  12,541

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  108,202

  12,073

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  106,865

  12,229

  n/a

  n/a

  1983

  105,374

  11,959

  n/a

  n/a

  1984

  110,966

  12,646

  n/a

  n/a

  1985

  111,991

  13,143

  n/a

  n/a

  1986

  111,446

  13,364

  n/a

  n/a

  1987

  115,671

  13,679

  n/a

  n/a

  1988

  113,345

  13,488

  n/a

  n/a

  1989

  110,409

  13,370

  1,173

  241

  1990

  108,037

  13,022

  1,193

  240

  1991

  96,843

  11,907

  1,072

  201

  b) All live births outside marriage

  1979

  66,056

  7,087

  575

  163

  1980

  73,413

  8,067

  635

  195

  1981

  76,916

  8,434

  640

  183

  1982

  85,188

  9,396

  747

  209

  1983

  94,022

  10,491

  840

  240

  1984

  104,404

  11,694

  939

  255

  1985

  119,235

  13,350

  1,103

  302

  1986

  133,477

  15,141

  1,180

  324

  104

  Area of residence at time of birth or abortion

  Year

  England

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  York county district

  1987

  149,556

  16,691

  1,353

  384

  1988

  167,179

  18,593

  1,575

  421

  1989

  175,027

  19,357

  1,682

  453

  1990

  188,548

  21,098

  1,816

  507

  1991

  198,938

  22,014

  1,880

  485

  1992

  202,425

  22,587

  1,990

  482

  1993

  203,581

  22,238

  1,992

  475

  1 Includes pregnancies which resulted in either a maternity at which one or more live or stillbirths occurred or a termination of pregnancy by abortion under the 1967 Act. Pregnancies which led to spontaneous abortion are not included.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many voluntary sector organisations her Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31309]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department makes a large number of grants to voluntary organisations, the main channel being the section 64 general scheme. For details of grants given in 1993–94 and 1994–95 I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) on 20 June at column 205.

  The Department does not normally enter into contractual arrangements for services with voluntary organisations.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what further plans she has to reschedule temazepam; and if she will make a statement; [31382]

  (2) what are the criteria which she applies to reschedule drug substances under the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; how temazepam relates to these criteria; and if she will make a statement. [31394]

  Mr. Bowis
  No rescheduling may occur under the 1991 Act except after consultation with, or on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; and the council is required to have regard to misused drugs which are having, or appear to them capable of having, harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem. The council has recommended that temazepam should be controlled under schedule 3 of the relevant regulations rather than schedule 4. The Government's careful consideration of this recommendation is continuing.

  My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council announced on 10 May at column 756 that the Department is engaged in consultations with a view to banning national health service prescribing by general practitioners of the soft gelatin gel-filled temazepam capsules and the Home Department is taking steps to impose safe custody requirements on manufacturers and wholesalers.
  105

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the economic impact on the independent nursing sector of referrals by North Yorkshire county council to nursing homes owned by that council; [31674]

  (2) what percentage of referrals by North Yorkshire county council are to council-owned nursing homes; [31676]

  (3) what representations she has received from the independent nursing sector on referrals by North Yorkshire county council to homes owned by that council. [31666]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities may own residential care homes but not nursing homes. I have received representations from my hon. Friend about this matter.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the number of nursing homes providing specialist care in North Yorkshire owned(a) privately and (b) by the county council. [31673]

  Mr. Bowis
  Centrally held data on nursing home provision relates to health authority and not local authority areas. In 1993–94 there were 138 registered homes within the North Yorkshire health district. The table gives number of beds by specialisation.

  Number

  Mental illness

  453

  People with learning disabilities

  —

  Maternity

  —

  Physically disabled

  360

  Alcohol and drug misuse

  7

  Other

  3,850

  Total number of beds

  4,670

  Local authorities do not own nursing homes.

  Bridge Consultancy Report
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place a copy of the Bridge consultancy report in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [31700]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a report commissioned by Gloucestershire social services. I understand that it is not a public document, but my hon. Friend may wish to approach the director of social services for Gloucestershire.

  Private Health Care Facilities
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to monitor further expenditure on private health care facilities by NHS hospital trusts. [31841]

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure on health care purchased by national health service trusts from non-NHS providers is already monitored through financial returns.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued on the use of private health care and facilities by NHS hospital trusts. [31840]
  106
  Mr. Sackville
  National health service trusts are free to buy in services from other providers, whether in the public or private sector, where they can benefit their patients by doing so.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the costs incurred by local authorities in referring people to local authority-owned homes. [31675]

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is of gross expenditure by local authorities on residential accommodation for elderly or mentally ill people in local authority run establishments, which in 1993–94 is provisionally estimated to have amounted to £894 million.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the annual report and accounts of the Medicines Control Agency. [32851]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.

  National Blood Service
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total number of(a) scientific and (b) administrative staff employed by the National Blood Service for each month during the last year. [32025]

  (2) what was the total number of (a) scientific and (b) administrative staff employed at (i) Plymouth blood transfusion centre, (ii) Lancaster blood transfusion centre, (iii) Liverpool blood transfusion centre, (iv) Brentwood blood transfusion centre and (v) Oxford blood transfusion centre for each month during the last year. [32026]

  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for the National Blood Authority.

  Cancer Screening
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she offers to purchasers on breast and cervical screening services for women over 45 years. [32024]

  Mr. Sackville
  The breast screening programme invites all women aged between 50 and 64 for three-yearly screening. Women aged 65 and over can ask to be screened every three years. Women aged under 50 who do not have breast symptoms cannot at present have routine breast screening by mammography.

  The cervical screening programme invites all women between the ages of 20 to 64 for cervical cancer screening at least every five years. Women aged 65 and over who have not had clear smears within the previous 10 years should be invited for cervical cancer screening.

  A substantial amount of quality guidance is issued by the Department and the NHS national screening co-ordinating team on a number of issues. These include the age range of women to be included in each screening

  107
  programme, management of the process and quality standards to be achieved. These are reviewed constantly.

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in her Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32181]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested. The amount of claims for travel within the United Kingdom in the Department is shown in the table at constant prices. The Department does not provide bicycle allowances.

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Rail and air travel

  1,925,861

  1,596,171

  Other public transport (including car mileage)

  1,581,820

  1,572,110

  Notes:

  1. All costs are shown at 1994–95 prices.

  2. Costs are for departmental administration only. The Department's agencies do not break down data for travel claims.

  Consultants (Suspension)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between her Department and the Southampton University Hospitals Trust regarding the suspension of consultants on full pay. [32336]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Suspension is a matter between employer and employee.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance she has given to hospital trusts on the procedures and time to be taken for the reinstatement of consultants suspended on full pay following the completion of successful appeals against suspension for alleged medical malpractice or misconduct; [32339]

  (2) what guidance she has given to hospital trusts on the minimum time which should be taken to complete inquiries in cases where consultants are suspended for alleged medical malpractice or misconduct. [32337]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance on suspension procedures was issued in circular HSG(94)49 to national health service trusts on 31 October 1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The guidance stipulates no minimum period during which inquiries are to be completed. While decisions on the procedures to be followed for reinstatement rest with the employing authority, the guidance contains an indicative timetable which is strongly recommended to NHS employers for incorporation into any local procedures that they may draw up in consultation with their staff. The guidelines state that every attempt should be made to conclude the investigation and, where appropriate, the subsequent disciplinary process as speedily as possible.
  108
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the total cost of salaries paid to consultants suspended on full pay in each of the past five years. [32338]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Asthma
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost in real terms to the NHS of the prescriptions for drugs to alleviate the symptoms of asthma in the year since 1990–91. [32216]

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

  The net ingredient cost in actual and real terms of drugs used in the treatment of asthma, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94

  England

  Period

  Net ingredient cost (£ millions)

  Net ingredient cost at 1991–92 prices using the GDP deflator (£ millions)

  1991–92

  270.6

  270.6

  1992–93

  312.5

  300.5

  1993–94

  357.6

  333.7

  1. Drugs as defined by the British National Formulary section 3.1 (bronchodilators), 3.2 (corticosteroids) and 3.3 (cromoglycate and related therapy). Some of these drugs may have been prescribed for conditions other than asthma.

  2. The information was obtained from the prescription cost analysis system which is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in England by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. It excludes items dispensed by hospital pharmacies.

  3. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees.

  4. The Treasury GDP deflator has been used.

  5. Statistically comparative data for 1990–91 are not held. Data for 1994–95 are not yet available.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance.

  Mr. Newton
  The amounts claimed in the Privy Council Office, at current prices, were as follows:

  (a) 1993–94 £

  (b) 1994–95 £

  (i) Public transport

  824

  1,156

  (ii) Car mileage

  nil

  11,104

  (iii) Bicycle

  nil

  nil

  1 Reflects claims arising from staff using cars during industrial action on the railways.

  These figures include claims by the staff of the central drugs co-ordination unit, created within the Privy Council Office in January 1994.
  109

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Albania
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the help given from the United Kingdom know-how fund to Albania: in each of the last three years. [31368]

  Mr. Baldry
  The know-how fund has financed projects in the following sectors in Albania; agriculture, finance, health, local government, education and the fire service. New activities this year include assistance to the mass privatisation programme and to small and medium-sized enterprises. Expenditure has been:

  1992–93: £38,000

  1993–94: £360,000

  1994–95: £720,000

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31310]

  Mr. Baldry
  The ODA allocated £158,449,755 to 220 UK non-governmental organisations in 1993–94. The figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Development Co-operation Policy
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the existing disparities between the European Community's development co-operation policy(a) in general and (b) in respect of evaluation of projects and programmes and those of the United Kingdom; and whether the working group has published comparisons between policies and priorities of all member states and those of the community. [31596]

  Mr. Baldry
  The aims for Community development cooperation set out in the Maastricht treaty are consistent with those of the UK.

  Since Maastricht, further measures have been taken to enhance policy and operational coordination between the EC and member states. Joint guidelines have been agreed for a number of sectors—family planning, health, AIDS, education, food security—and a pilot exercise launched in selected countries to enhance operational coordination

  The evaluation methodology employed by the European Commission addresses the same issues as the UK's. The main difference is the greater emphasis in UK evaluation studies on examining the cost-effectiveness and on rating the success of projects and the programmes. For further details on this issue I refer the hon. Member to the Foreign Affairs Committee's First Report Session 1994–95 on Monitoring of the European Community Aid Programme and the Government's response to this, Cm2870.
  110
  No comprehensive comparison of Community and all member state development cooperation policies has been published. However the policies of all member states who are members of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD are regularly reviewed by that committee.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department intends to contribute to the fund established by the makers of the film "The Dying Rooms" for the support of children abandoned in Chinese state orphanages. [32017]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have made no contribution to this fund.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on implications of the recent information obtained on the treatment of abandoned children in China for his Department's funding of the IPPF and UNIFA. [32080]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: The United Nations Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation will be asked about the implications of recent information obtained on the treatment of abandoned children in China.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will undertake research into the links between Chinese population control policy and the situation of abandoned children in China; [32081]

  (2) if he will make an assessment of the links between the Chinese population control policy and the imbalance of the sexes in China. [32082]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answers 3 July 1995]: We shall continue to seek information on China's population policies and the consequences of their implementation.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the use of repeated visits by population control officials and volunteers to Chinese women with illegal pregnancies or separation of them from their families to exert psychological pressure on them to accept abortion. [32083]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: We continue to receive reports alleging abuses of reproductive rights in China.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has regarding the Chinese Family Planning Association and IPPF involvement in house visits and family planning courses in China; [32084]

  (2) what information he has regarding UNFPA involvement in funding, training for or participation in house visits and family planning courses in China. [32085]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answers 3 July 1995]: We understand from the International Planned Parenthood Federation that members of the China Family Planning Association do make home visits. These visits are designed to inform people of the choices of family planning methods available and provide information on how they can better access reproductive health care services. The CFPA also undertakes training courses to

  111
  enable people to make informed choices about childbearing. The IPPF has provided vehicles and audio-visual equipment to the CFPA.

  The United Nations Population Fund does not fund or provide training for home visits. Its training programmes focus on contraceptive choice, interpersonal counselling and informed consent.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have occurred in(a) domestic investments, (b) foreign investments, (c) exports, (d) imports, (e) child mortality, (f) participation in education, (g) interest rates and (h) wage

  Year

  Year

  Year

  1991

  1994 (estimate)

  US$ million

  US$ million

  Exports

  1,786

  1,870

  Imports

  1,700

  1,630

  1991

  1994

  Percentage GDP

  Percentage GDP

  Gross domestic investment of which private sector

  25

  23

  20

  18

  1991

  1994

  US$ million

  US$ million

  Foreign investment (approvals by Zimbabwe investment centre)

  250

  660

  1990

  1991

  1995

  Interest rate (90-day money market rate)

  15 per cent.

  35 per cent.

  32 per cent.

  1989

  1992

  Z$

  Z$

  Wages (average annual earnings)

  average excluding agriculture

  6,700

  11,107

  agriculture

  1,809

  2,063

  1980–85

  1989–92

  Education—gross enrolment ration1 (Percentage of school age population) Primary

  135

  117

  Secondary

  42

  48

  1980–85

  1987–92

  Child mortality (per 1,000 live births)

  80

  47

  1 Includes those attending above the relevant school age.

  European Development Fund
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much in £ sterling terms Britain will contribute to the eighth European development fund; over which financial years those contributions will be made; and what will be Britain's percentage share of the total contributions made to the European development fund. [32612]

  Mr. Baldry
  Our commitment to the eighth European development fund will be for 1.63 becu, equivalent to approximately £1.36 billion at current exchange rates. Funds will be drawn down over the period 1999–2000 to 2003–4. We shall be the third largest contributor to EDF VIII, providing 12.7 per cent. of member state contributions.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much in £ sterling terms Britain will contribute to the seventh 112
  levels since the introduction of the Zimbabwe structural adjustment programme; and if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's policy towards the next structural adjustment programme. [31846]

  Mr. Baldry
  We shall continue to support Zimbabwe's economic reform programme as an essential means to economic recovery, providing good progress is maintained. In concert with the World bank and International Monetary Fund we recognise the importance of helping to protect vulnerable groups during this transition; we therefore give priority to protecting the social sectors in our aid programme.

  The latest available figures from World Bank/IMF sources are as follows:

  European development fund; over which financial years those contributions will be made; and what Britain's percentage share will be of the total contributions made to the European development fund. [32611]

  Mr. Baldry
  Our commitment to the seventh European development fund is for 1.79 becu. The cost in sterling terms will depend on the timing of draw down. At the present exchange rate it is equivalent to approximately £1.5 billion. Funds will be drawn down over the period 1994–95 to 1998–99. We are the third largest contributor to EDF VII, providing 16.37 per cent. of member state contributions.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, column 16, regarding the national overview of land resources in Indonesia, if any

  113
  of the project staff trained under the project were (a) stationed in East Timor or (b) responsible for reviewing the land resources and land use of East Timor. [31876]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 30 June 1995]: The Indonesian project staff were attached to the department of transmigration in Jakarta. None were stationed in East Timor. Project staff, working with the UK consultants, reviewed the land resources and land use of the whole archipelago, including East Timor.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, columns 16–17, regarding the regional physical planning, map improvement and training project in Indonesia, if the project covered East Timor; and if officials who attended the training (a) in Indonesia and (b) in the United Kingdom included officials employed by the authorities in East Timor. [31877]

  Public transport1

  Car mileage allowance2

  Bicycle allowance3

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Crown Prosecution Service

  930,295

  1,031,401

  2,033,162

  2,090,518

  —

  —

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  23,177

  22,719

  —

  5,441

  0

  0

  Government Property Lawyers

  37,075

  41,138

  6,742

  3,033

  0

  0

  Serious Fraud Office4

  216,356

  259,150

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  39,434

  19,576

  —

  540

  0

  0

  1 All qualifying forms of transport other than private vehicles.

  2 Payment for 1993–94 in TSD and LSLO, and for 1993–94 and 1994–95 in SFO, included in "public transport" figures.

  3 Any payments in the CPS included in "public transport" figures.

  4 1994–95 amount provisional.

TREASURY

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32178]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested at constant 1993–94 prices is as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Public transport

  868,988

  723,320

  Car mileage allowance and bicycle allowance1

  69,161

  56,662

  Total

  938,149

  788,982

  1 Records of bicycle allowance payments are not maintained separately.

  Central Gilts Office
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 37, if he will review the custody controls in relation to the Central Gilts Office accounts in order to reduce the risk of misappropriation or misdescription of gilt edge securities registered at the Bank of England. [31524]
  114
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 30 June 1995]: The project included East Timor and local training courses were carried out for officials from Government Departments there. Officials employed by Government Departments in East Timor were not among the people trained in the UK.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994– 95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32169]

  The Attorney-General
  The amount of travel claims made by staff in my Departments in 1994–95 prices is given in the table.

  Mr. Nelson
  HM Government have no plans to ask the Bank of England to review its controls in relation to Central Gilts Office accounts. Placing the Bank under the duty of inquiring about the propriety of stock transactions would reduce the speed and efficiency of the settlement service and would therefore add to the costs of government funding. I remain of the view that the measures taken in the Pensions Bill provide effective safeguards for the security of scheme assets.

  Inland Revenue (Software)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the Inland Revenue of paying for software on which licensing agreements cannot be traced; and if he will make a statement. [31647]

  Sir George Young
  The Inland Revenue identified a small number of cases of equipment, due to be transferred to EDS, where there was insufficient documentary evidence to confirm that copies of software held have been fully licensed. The Department has agreed with the supplier a fee of less than £150,000, including VAT, to cover licenses for this software.

  To prevent recurrence improved procedures have been implemented in line with the requirement of the Inland Revenue IT security standards.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 June,Official Report,

  115
  column 147–48, if the liability of the companies named in the answer has now ceased; how much money has been recovered to offset the total cost to the Treasury; and what companies remain to pursue; and if he will make a statement. [31728]

  Mr. Nelson
  A substantial sum, including interest and costs was recovered in settlement of these proceedings to help offset the total cost of the ex gratia payment scheme, and consequently these actions have now been discontinued.

  A number of other companies and individuals remain parties to other proceedings commenced by the Government. It is not the Government's policy to comment on the detail of legal proceedings or settlements relating to the Barlow Clowes litigation, so as not to prejudice the outcome of continuing actions.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he now expects to publish the SIB/DSS report on the sale of appropriate personal pensions to those on low incomes; [32049]

  (2) if he will publish the terms of reference of the SIB/DSS inquiry into the sale of appropriate personal pensions to those on low incomes. [32050]

  Mr. Nelson
  The publication of this report is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Staff
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons why hon. Members are currently restricted to three employee passes;

  (2) if he will issue a questionnaire to hon. Members to ascertain their views on the adequacy of three passes to allow employees access to their offices in order to carry out their duties;
  116
  (3) if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that passes are issued only to legitimate employees of hon. Members;

  (4) what proposals he has to ensure that hon. Members who wish to employ more than three people to assist them to fulfil all their parliamentary duties may do so and not be prevented by current restrictions on the number of passes;

  (5) if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that hon. Members can employ the numbers of properly employed staff that they consider appropriate.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  On 30 January 1989 the House approved the Second Report of Session 1987–88 from the then Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), "Access to the Precincts of the House", which recommended that the number of Members' staff who may hold photo-passes be limited to three. It was not proposed that there should be a limit on the number of staff employed by an hon. Member.

  The decision to limit to three the number of photo-passes available to Members' staff was made in the light of pressure on all the House facilities; at that time, the figures showed that only 66 out of 650 Members held passes for more than the proposed limit.

  As the pressure on House facilities has not decreased in subsequent years, I do not propose to recommend any changes to the existing regulations.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is his policy on the use of combined heat and power in the House of Commons.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Wherever appropriate, the opportunity is always taken to incorporate energy efficiency measures into new works and maintenance projects on the parliamentary estate. A combined heat and power plant will be installed in the Norman Shaw buildings later this year at a cost of some £90,000. Projected annual savings worth £18,500 will give a payback period of less than five years. Studies are under way with a view to undertaking a similar scheme in the Palace of Westminster in 1997–98.
  117

TRANSPORT

  Chairmen of British Rail and Railtrack
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what objectives he has set for the chairmen of British Rail and Railtrack for 1995–96. [32849]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have written to the chairmen, separately, setting their objectives. Copies of the letters have been placed in the Library.

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32177]

  Mr. Norris
  This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Euro-freight Terminal
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had in relation to the impact of the privatisation proposals for British Rail freight division on the decision-making timetable for a Euro-freight terminal in south Wales. [32394]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is in regular contact concerning proposals for rail freight terminals in south Wales.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which police forces(a) took part and (b) did not take part in the survey on injury accidents involving vehicles fitted with bull bars; and what is the total population that each group covers. [32396]

  Mr. Norris
  The police forces which have taken part in the study are as follows:Avon and Somerset

  Personal Injury Road Accidents: 1994

  All Police Forces in Great Britain

  All Police Forces Reporting Bull Bar Accidents

  Accident distribution

  All accidents

  All accidents

  All accidents involving a vehicle fitted with a bull bar

  All pedestrian accidents involving a vehicle fitted with a bull bar

  Fatal

  3,326

  1,936

  22

  6

  Serious

  39,286

  21,551

  219

  34

  Slight

  191,489

  97,180

  815

  49

  All accidents

  234,101

  120,667

  1,056

  89

  (Table revised 3/7/95 to include Hertfordshire).

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that heavy goods vehicles entering the United Kingdom from the European mainland meet the necessary safety of noxious emissions standards. [32443]
  118

  Cambridgeshire

  Cumbria

  Cheshire

  Derbyshire

  Essex

  Greater Manchester

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  North Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Northamptonshire

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Sussex

  West Midlands

  West Mercia

  Wiltshire

  South Wales

  Central

  Fife

  Grampian

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  The total population covered by those forces is approximately 29 million.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the total number of deaths and serious injuries involving bull bars in 1994, based on the evidence provided by certain police authorities. [32397]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures for accidents involving bull bars during 1994, based on the injury accident reports forms compiled by certain police authorities are as follows:

  Mr. Norris
  All vehicles, whether of UK or external origin, are the subject of roadside spot checks to ensure that they comply with emissions requirements. From 1 January 1996, in-service emissions requirements for heavy diesel engined vehicles in all member states will have to comply with the minimum standards laid down in directive 92/55/EEC. An increasing number of vehicles
  119
  from member states are now being built to the more stringent requirements of directive 91/542/EEC, which came into effect on 1 October 1993.

  Highway Code Booklet
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many revisions have been made to the highway code booklet since 1965; and in which years. [32273]

  Mr. Norris
  The highway code has undergone four major revisions since 1965: in 1969, 1978, 1987 and 1993. Minor amendments have also been made from time to time throughout this period.

  Network SouthCentral
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what claims have been made against Railtrack by Network SouthCentral in respect of damage to train sets and loss of passenger revenue in April and May as a result of the failure to maintain the track properly. [31867]

  Mr. Watts
  A claim has been received and is being considered by Railtrack.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost to Network SouthCentral in April and May of the additional wear to wheels and loss of passenger revenue as a result of the failure to maintain the track properly. [31865]

  Mr. Watts
  None. This is a commercial matter for the railway industry.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many train services in the Network SouthCentral region were delayed by more than five minutes in April and May as a result of the failure to maintain the track properly. [31866]

  Mr. Watts
  British Rail's performance statistics do not specify reasons for delays. However, I understand from BR that recent track maintenance problems had no noticeable effects on the punctuality of Network SouthCentral services during April and May.

  Chief Executive Pay
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list from the date of each agency's creation, by agency, the annual salary including performance pay and bonus payments of the chief executive. [31827]

  Mr. Norris
  There are eight agencies in the Department of Transport as follows:

  Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency

  Mr. R. J. Oliver was appointed chief executive on creation of the agency on 1 August 1988 and was reappointed in 1991 and 1994. His salary on appointment was £30,644. Subsequent salary changes were:

  Salary £

  1 October 1988

  32,784

  6 January 1989

  33,819

  1 April 1989

  35,415

  1 August 1989

  38,254

  1 October 1989

  39,746

  1 August 1990

  43,307

  120

  Salary £

  1 October 1990

  44,996

  1 August 1991

  47,921

  1 August 1992

  49,790

  1 August 1993

  52,286

  1 August 1994

  54,815

  For the period 1 August 1988 to 31 March 1991, Mr. Oliver received a non-consolidated performance bonus of £5,000. For the year 1 March 1991 to 31 March 1992 he received a £2,400 bonus; for 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 a £2,400 bonus and for 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 a £2,800 bonus.

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Mr. D. W. Harvey became chief executive on creation of the agency on 2 April 1990 and was reappointed in 1993 and 1994. His salary on appointment was £33,991. This was subsequently changed as follows:

  Salary £

  1 August 1990

  36,997

  1 August 1991

  39,402

  1 April 1992

  41,120

  1 August 1992

  42,724

  1 August 1993

  43,836

  1 August 1994

  45,789

  For the year 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993. Mr. Harvey received a non-consolidated performance bonus of £2,600. For the year 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 he received a bonus of £2,450.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Mr. S. R. Curtis was chief executive from 2 April 1990—on its creation—to 2 January 1995. His salary on appointment was £43,350. Subsequent changes have been as follows:

  Salary £

  1 January 1991

  43,800

  1 April 1991

  47,090

  1 December 1991

  48,00

  1 April 1992

  49,920

  1 April 1993

  51,360

  1 April 1994

  54,118

  1 April 1995

  55,471

  For the year 2 April 1990 to 31 March 1991, Mr. Curtis received a non-consolidated performance bonus of £750. For the year 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992, he received a bonus of £2,250; for 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 a bonus of £5,782 and for 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 a bonus of £6,762.

  Dr. S. J. Ford was appointed chief executive on 3 January 1995 at a salary of £52,704 which was increased to £55,000 on 1 April 1995.

  Transport Research Laboratory

  Mr. H. J. Wootton was appointed chief executive on creation of the agency on 1 April 1992—ACE designate

  121
  from 11 November 1991—at a salary of £65,520. Subsequent changes are as follows:

  Salary £

  1 April 1993

  66,503

  1 April 1994

  68,332

  1 April 1995

  70,040

  For the part year 11 November 1991 to 31 March 1992, Mr. Wooton received a non-consolidated bonus of £3,150; for 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993 a bonus of £5,897; for 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 a bonus of £6,650.

  Driving Standards Agency

  Dr. CM. Woodman was chief executive of DSA from its creation on 2 April 1990 to 31 August 1993. His salary on appointment was £36,818. Subsequent changes were:

  £

  1 August 1990

  40,116

  1 August 1991

  42,724

  1 August 1992

  45,256

  1 August 1993

  46,924

  For the year 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, Dr. Woodman received a non-consolidated bonus of £1,250.

  Dr. S. J. Ford, grade 5, was chief executive from 1 September 1993 to 2 January 1995. His initial salary was £47,900. This increased to £48,858 on 1 August 1994. For the year 1 September 1993 to 31 March 1994, he received a non-consolidated bonus of £2,934.

  On 1 April 1995 Mr. B. L. Herdan, grade 5, was appointed chief executive on a salary of £58,000.

  Highways Agency

  Mr. L. J. Haynes was appointed chief executive on 1 April 1994 at a salary of £100,000. On 1 April 1995 his salary was increased to £102,500.

  The Coastguard Agency

  Mr. C. J. Harris, grade 4 was appointed chief executive on 1 April 1994 at a salary of £47,994. On 1 August 1994, his salary was increased to £50,268. This increase was performance related. He received no other payments.

  Marine Safety Agency

  Mr. R. M. Bradley, grade 4 was appointed chief executive on 1 April 1994—he was ACE designate from 14 December 1992—at a salary of £45,675. On 1 August 1994, his salary was increased to £46,588.

  Driving Tests
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of non-UK nationals undertaking the driving test in the United Kingdom over the last two years. [31833]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available.

  Roll-on Roll-off Ferries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has carried out 122
  the levels of water that can be contained on the decks of roll-on roll-off ferries without hindering the use of the lifeboats; and at what levels of water the use of lifeboats is impeded. [31437]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Susan J. Rooke to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about research into roll-on roll-off passenger ferries' survivability and evacuation.
  Substantial research into the effect of water on the car deck on the stability of roll-on roll-off passenger ships, and their evacuation, has been conducted in the UK since the HERALD OF FREE ENTERPRISE and ESTONIA disasters. The International Maritime Organisation's Panel of Experts took account of this research in its study of ferry safety, and it has made proposals which would reduce the risk of rapid capsize. The Government supports these proposals, and we will continue to press for their adoption.

  Night Flights
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether restrictions relating to night flights to and from(a) civil airports, (b) private airstrips, (c) military airfields and (d) heliports apply to police helicopters. [32395]

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for certain noise mitigation measures, which include night flying restrictions, at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports only. At these airports, police helicopters are exempt from current restrictions on night movements. At all other airports, including heliports and private airstrips, the responsibility for noise mitigation lies with individual owners or operators. Restrictions on night flights may form part of any planning approval. These arrangements apply to civilian aerodromes; at military airfields the responsibility lies with the Ministry of Defence.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United Arab Emirates
  Sir David Steel
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates on a memorandum of understanding; and what assessment he has made of the effect on these of the imposition of an entry visa requirement upon United Arab Emirate citizens seeking to visit the United Kingdom. [32201]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates on a memorandum of understanding are making good progress. There is no connection with the EU Commission's proposal for a list of third countries, including the UAE, whose nationals would require a visa to enter any EU state.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations
  123
  he has received from Britons resident in the United Arab Emirates about the possible termination by the United Kingdom of the agreement of the waiving of visa requirements for entry to the United Kingdom by nationals of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar; and if he will make a statement on the effect such termination will have on relations between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates. [32206]

  Mr Baldry
  The chairman of the British Business Group Dubai and Northern Emirates wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 17 June about press reports regarding possible EU regulations affecting UAE nationals visiting Britain.

  Under article 100c of the treaty of Rome, the European Commission proposed in December 1993 a draft regulation establishing a list of 126 countries, including the UAE, Bahrain and Qatar, whose nationals would require a visa to enter any EU member state. The United Kingdom has registered its concern at the length of the proposed list. Discussions with the other member states and the Commission are continuing; the United Kingdom's aim is to ensure that the list takes account of current UK visa practice as far as possible.

  We have close and excellent relationships with the UAE. We do not anticipate that these would be unduly affected, should the UAE be placed on an EU common visa list.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are known to be living in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar. [32204]

  Mr. Baldry
  The estimated numbers of British citizens living in the countries in question are as follows:

  United Arab Emirates: 18,500

  Bahrain: 6,330

  Qatar: 3,500

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what considerations make it impossible to continue into 1996 the reciprocal agreement between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar on abolition of entry visa requirements. [32205]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier.

  Iran
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who represented the European Union at the recent trial of the alleged killers of the Reverend Tateos Michaelian and the Reverend Medi Dibaj in Iran; what were their observations on the proceedings; and when the trial is scheduled to continue. [32059]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The French Presidency represented the European Union at the second session of the trial on 18 June. The proceedings remain at an early 124
  stage and it would not therefore be appropriate to disclose the Presidency's observations. The trial has been adjourned sine die.

  Sudan
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to put pressure on the Government of Sudan to stop human rights violations and to come to a peaceful settlement of the civil war. [32060]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We regularly press the Sudanese Government to improve their human rights record and persevere with the peace initiative launched last year by the Inter-Governmental Authority for Drought and Development. I raised both issues in a meeting with the Sudanese Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 22 May.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Government on arrangements for the possible withdrawal of UN forces from the former Yugoslavia. [32035]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have had regular discussions both bilaterally and in NATO with the United States Government on this subject. We and Washington agree that UNPROFOR should remain in Bosnia as long as it can continue to perform a useful task at an acceptable level of risk, but that it is sensible to have contingency plans in place for a possible withdrawal.

  European Union (Perception of UK)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts as to the perception of the United Kingdom by other EU countries. [32034]

  Mr. David Davis
  I meet my European Union counterparts on a regular basis. They recognise Britain's determination to work for an open, competitive European Union which is sensitive to the concerns of its member states.

  Drugs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking with the drug-producing countries to enable their farmers to switch production to other produce. [32036]

  Mr. Baldry
  Government support for alternative development and crop substitution projects is channelled via the United Nations drugs control programme to which the UK is currently the second biggest donor. Since 1985 the ODA has committed £7 million to promote crop substitution in the opium-growing areas of the Dir valley in Pakistan and since 1988 £4.5 million to a water and sanitation project in the Chapare in Bolivia, an important area for coca cultivation. Both projects are administered by UNDCP. We have recently contributed £100,000 to enable UNDCP to prepare a strategy to reduce illicit poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. In addition, as I
  125
  explained in my reply on 8 February 1995, to the hon. Member for Carrick, (Mr. Foulkes) Official Report, columns 278–79, ODA has carried out research into alternative crops in Peru and north Morocco and has funded desk studies covering the main coca growing areas of Asia.

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32167]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO—diplomatic wing and ODA—processed more than 20,000 travel and subsistence claims in each of the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95. These do not include claims processed by posts abroad. Information on total payments broken down by public transport, car mileage allowance and bicycle allowances is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Former Foreign Heads of State
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what countries have lodged protests or made representations to Her Majesty's Government regarding the presence in this country of their former heads of state. [32520]

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many former heads of state of foreign countries are in receipt of payments of any kind from United Kingdom public funds. [32522]

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in 1995–96, and, if he will make a statement. [32853]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate has submitted his proposals to me and I have agreed that the VMD should be set the following performance targets for 1995–96.full cost recovery for the three business activities of licensing, policy work and residues monitoring;
  77 per cent. of new applications for marketing authorisations to be issued within 120 clock days; 95 per cent. within 200 days;
  an overall efficiency gain of 2 per cent.

  These are challenging targets which will build on the improvements already made in the efficiency and quality of service provided by the directorate since its establishment as a next steps agency, and for which I commend the chief executive and his staff. In addition, I have agreed the VMD's corporate plan for 1995–96 to 1997–98, and copies are being placed in the Library of the House and the Public Information Office.
  126

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his consideration of the advice he has received from the Veterinary Products Committee on the report from the Institute of Occupational Health into possible chronic neuropsychological effects of occupational exposure to organophosphate sheep dips; and if he will make a statement. [32854]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. In the light of the assessment of the Institute of Occupational Health report by its Medical and Scientific Panel, the chairman of the Veterinary Products Committee, Professor Sir James Armour, has advised me that whilst the report contributed to the body of information now available, and its publication was to be welcomed, it was not in itself a definitive study. The committee found that the study did not provide sufficient scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that chronic health effects are associated with long-term, low level exposure to OP sheep dips. The conclusions reached by the IOH in the associated article in the Lancet did not appear to be adequately supported by the data in the full report. The committee therefore reaffirmed its previous advice that, on the basis of current scientific evidence, the marketing of OP dips should continue.

  Among other recommendations, the committee urged that the award of contracts for the epidemiological research be pursued as a matter of urgency, and the need for farmers to follow the guidance in the "Sheep dipping" booklet was re-emphasised. A copy of the chairman's letter, and the full findings and advice of the committee are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Having consulted the other Agriculture and Health Ministers who form the licensing authority, I can confirm that the Government has accepted the VPC's advice in full. In doing so, we are mindful of the continuing reports of outbreaks of sheep scab, and the importance of OP dips to animal welfare. Nevertheless, it is essential that users consider what treatment is best, take the steps necessary under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations to assess the risks and decide what precautions are needed in the use of OP dips, and recognise the importance of following the available guidance and instructions on the label to ensure safe use of the product. This is just as important for non OP dips, where the same precautions are recommended as for OP dips.

  We also welcome the IOH report as providing a valuable contribution to the continuing debate on the possible long term effects of exposure to organophosphates. It forms a basis for the further epidemiological research for which we are currently assessing proposals. Following the recent advertisement we have received a total of 12 proposals, and these are being urgently considered. I hope to make a further announcement about progress with this before the end of the month.

  Electro-ejaculation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number
  127
  of rams who are electro-stimulated each year to obtain semen; and what is the limit on the number of times each ram can receive these electrical charges in a given period. [31125]

  Mrs. Browning
  Electro-ejaculation of rams is used only rarely and may be carried out only by a veterinary surgeon. The technique is used for diagnostic or research purposes—for example, to diagnose infertility or for the assessment of fertility prior to the breeding season. It is not used for the routine collection of semen.

  Slaughterhouses
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many slaughterhouses have failed to reach the required standards of hygiene and animal welfare in the last year. [31129]

  (2) how many slaughterhouses have been closed down on hygiene and welfare grounds in the last year. [31130]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 13 June 1995 to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)Official Report, column 512.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are made on the standards of hygiene and animal welfare in slaughterhouses abroad to which animals are sent; and how many slaughterhouses have been closed following such checks in the last year. [31131]

  Mrs. Browning
  The European Commission carries out inspections of slaughterhouses in member states primarily to check on hygiene standards. Inspections are not confined to slaughterhouses to which British animals are sent. Reports are not published but, following the visits, the inspectors notify the central authorities in the country concerned of any deficiencies found. Those authorities are responsible for ensuring that the necessary corrective action is taken.

  EC Directive 93/119/EC, on the protection of animals at slaughter, which came into force on 1 January 1995, makes provision for the Commission inspectors to check establishments to ensure uniform application of the welfare standards laid down. The Government look to the Commission to monitor the enforcement of all Community farm animal welfare legislation. In addition we follow up with the Commission and other member states, as appropriate, specific allegations of breaches of Community welfare directives.

  Sheep
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate for the proportion of ewes in the national flock that produce(a) single lambs, (b) twin lambs, (c) triplet lambs, (d) quadruplets or (e) larger numbers. [31127]

  Mrs. Browning
  ADAS has estimated that 85–90 per cent. of litters consist of single or twin lambs. Triplet lambs in the lowland flock account for an estimated 10 per cent. of births and 1 per cent. in the hill flock. Larger litter sizes are extremely rare, accounting for less than 1 per cent. of births.
  128
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep carcasses were rejected for human consumption at the time of slaughter for reasons of disease or damage caused by bruising or injection site injuries in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of sheep offal and other parts of sheep carcasses were similarly rejected. [31124]

  Mrs. Browning
  Until the establishment of the meat hygiene service on 1 April 1995, meat inspection was the responsibility of local authorities. The information requested is not available centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate for the proportion of the annual lamb crop born before 1 March. [31126]

  Mrs. Browning
  ADAS has estimated that 10–15 per cent. of the total national flock lamb before 1 March.

  Hormones
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many anti—hormone units his Ministry has set up to detect excessive hormones in(a) beef, (b) sheep and (c) other livestock production; and if he will make a statement. [31212]

  Mrs Browning
  Surveillance for the use of hormonal growth promoters is carried out under the statutory national surveillance scheme for residues in meat. During 1994, 3,941 samples were taken from cattle, 357 from sheep and 390 from other livestock and tested for the presence of hormones. For the third consecutive year, no evidence was found of the use of stilbenes or thyrostatic substances, which are banned under Community legislation. Eleven samples of cattle serum taken on farm were found to have elevated levels of the natural hormone testosterone present, but subsequent investigation established that no illegal use had taken place.

  The results of sampling carried out under the national surveillance scheme and other non-statutory surveillance programmes for veterinary residues are published quarterly in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, VMD, MAVIS newsletter and summarised in the VMD, annual report and accounts. Copies of both publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Infant formula (Labelling)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to enforce labelling relating to gastroenteritis rates on infant formula feeds [31292]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is no requirement in the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995, or in EC Directives 91/321 or 95/52 which these implement, on labelling relating to gastroenteritis rates on infant formula feeds. There are no plans to introduce one.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the expected date of publication of draft regulations further to directives 91/321/EEC and 92/52/EEC relating to infant formula feeds. [31294]
  129
  Mrs. Browning
  The Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995 (S.I.1995 No.77), implementing Directives 91/321/EEC and 92/52/EEC, were published in February 1995 and came into force on 1 March 1995. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent on research into bovine tuberculosis in each of the last five years. [31743]

  Mrs. Browning
  The amount spent on research into bovine tuberculosis in the current financial year and in each of the last four years is set out in the following table:

  1991–92: £1,076,000

  1992–93: £922,200

  1993–94: £1,071,544

  1994–95: £1,288,642

  1995–96: £1,467,368

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individual reactors to the cattle tuberculosis skin test in each English county or region have been slaughtered in each of the last five years; and how many of those had visible lesions post mortem. [31739]

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of confirmed reactors to the cattle tuberculosis skin test in each English county which have been slaughtered in each of the last five years are given in the table. The figures in brackets give the number of reactors slaughtered which had visible lesions at post mortem.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Northern region

  Cumbria

  62(61)

  2(2)

  12(8)

  1(1)

  —

  Durnham/Tyne and Wear/Clevedon/ Northumberland

  2(2)

  —

  3(2)

  1(1)

  7(7)

  North Yorkshire

  —

  1(1)

  4(0)

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  1(1)

  —

  —

  Midlands and west

  Cheshire

  2(2)

  —

  —

  —

  1(1)

  Nott and Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1(1)

  Hereford and Worcester

  1(0)

  —

  2(2)

  12(10)

  83(68)

  Lancashire

  2(1)

  —

  2(1)

  1(0)

  1(0)

  Leicester

  —

  —

  2(0)

  1(0)

  1(1)

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  3(2)

  2(0)

  —

  South west

  Cornwall

  92(90)

  137(129)

  126(119)

  277(261)

  351(348)

  Devon

  62(58)

  42(26)

  100(99)

  99(89)

  189(167)

  Glos and Avon

  62(52)

  57(48)

  120(106)

  175(161)

  214(188)

  Dorset

  4(3)

  12(12)

  5(5)

  21(19)

  19(13)

  Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  65(57)

  15(13)

  Wilts

  4(3)

  45(41)

  60(59)

  89(83)

  60(59)

  South east

  Oxford

  1(0)

  —

  —

  3(2)

  2(1)

  Hants/IOW

  —

  2(1)

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  14(11)

  6(6)

  2(2)

  —

  3(3)

  130

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Eastern

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  —

  1(0)

  —

  Huntingdon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, of what alternative methods to the present skin test for identifying tuberculosis in cattle his Department is aware. [31741]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department is involved in work in the central veterinary laboratory and also monitors work elsewhere on the development and assessment of alternative forms of testing for tuberculosis in cattle. None of the alternative serological test being explored, including the gamma interferon test recently trialled in Northern Ireland, is yet sufficiently developed to provide a realistic alternative to the intradermal skin test. However, the Department is currently evaluating the potential use of these tests in conjunction with the interdermal skin test in the field.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many herds in each English county or region have tested positively for tuberculosis in each of the last five years. [31737]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of herds in which cattle tested positive for bovine tuberculosis in each of the Department's administrative areas in each of the last five years were:

  Year(s) in which cases occurred

  Number of herds

  Berkshire/Buckinghamshire/Oxon

  1990

  1

  1993

  2

  1994

  2

  Cheshire

  1990

  1

  1994

  1

  Cornwall

  1990

  38

  1991

  51

  1992

  49

  1993

  82

  1994

  106

  Cumbria

  1990

  9

  1991

  1

  1992

  3

  1993

  1

  Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire

  1994

  1

  Devon

  1990

  26

  1991

  12

  1992

  20

  1993

  46

  1994

  75

  Dorset

  1990

  4

  1991

  4

  1992

  3

  1993

  8

  1994

  2

  131

  Year(s) in which cases occurred

  Number of herds

  Durham/Tyne and Weir/Cleveland/Northumbria

  1990

  2

  1992

  2

  1993

  1

  1994

  2

  Gloucestershire and Avon

  1990

  34

  1991

  17

  1992

  37

  1993

  64

  1994

  63

  Hampshire

  1991

  1

  Hereford/Worcester

  1992

  1

  1993

  4

  1994

  12

  Humberside

  1992

  1

  Kent and East Sussex

  1990

  8

  1991

  3

  1994

  1

  Lancashire/Merseyside

  1990

  1

  1992

  1

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  Leicestershire

  1992

  2

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1993

  1

  Northamptonshire

  1990

  1

  Somerset

  1993

  14

  1994

  7

  Sussex West

  1991

  1

  Warwickshire and West Midlands

  1992

  2

  1993

  1

  Wiltshire

  1990

  2

  1991

  7

  1992

  9

  1993

  18

  1994

  21

  Yorkshire North

  1991

  1

  1992

  4

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has paid out in compensation for cattle slaughtered as positive reactors or dangerous contacts in each English county or region in each of the last five years. [31742]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the amount of compensation paid for cattle slaughtered as positive reactors and dangerous contacts in England in each of the last five years was:

  1990: £812,221

  1991: £526,259

  1992: £683,830

  132

  1993: £1,361,728

  1994: £1,670,664

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest figures for the number of cattle infected with tuberculosis shown by his Department's administrative areas for each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [30244]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: Bovine tuberculosis is confirmed in cattle on the basis of culture or the discovery of visible lesions. The number of cattle with confirmed bovine tuberculosis in each of the Department's administrative areas in England for each year since 1990 and for the first three months of 1995 were:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Northern Region

  Cumbria

  62

  3

  12

  1

  —

  —

  Durham/Tyne and Wear

  2

  —

  3

  1

  7

  3

  Clevedon/Northumberland North Yorkshire

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Midlands and West

  Cheshire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  —

  2

  12

  83

  23

  Lancashire

  2

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Leicester

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  South West

  Cornwall

  92

  137

  133

  277

  351

  178

  Devon

  62

  42

  100

  99

  189

  60

  Gloucestershire and Avon

  62

  57

  120

  175

  214

  130

  Dorset

  4

  12

  5

  21

  19

  1

  Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  65

  15

  19

  Wiltshire

  4

  45

  60

  89

  60

  14

  South East

  Oxford

  1

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  Hampshire/IOW

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  14

  6

  2

  —

  3

  14

  Eastern

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Huntingdon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  The increasing incidence of bovine tuberculosis in the south-west of England is a matter of concern both for the Department and for the farmers involved. It is hoped the five-year trial of a badger control strategy based on the use of a live test for tuberculosis in badgers, which started last winter, will alleviate the problem. Work is also under way to develop alternative solutions for the longer term, including the development of a vaccine for badgers.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the total 1995 EU CAP budget, in ecus, will be spent on(a) export refunds, (b) intervention buying/storage etc., (c) arable area payment schemes, (d) production aids and (e) removing produce from the market. [31910]
  133
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The relevant provisions in the 1995 CAP budget are:

  mecu

  (a) export refunds

  7,246.5

  (b) intervention buying/storage

  1,290.7

  (c) arable area payments

  13,133.0

  (d) production aids

  8,234.0

  (e) withdrawals and similar operations for removing produce from the market (other than intervention buying and export refunds)

  683.0

  Arable Area Payment Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the largest payment made in England(a) under the arable area payment scheme and (b) for set-aside, in each year for which the arable area payments scheme has been in operation. [31911]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As we have given an undertaking to claimants under the arable area payments scheme that all information regarding their claim is held in confidence, specific information on single claims cannot be published.

  Live Exports
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has received from the European Commission on their view taken on the legal opinion obtained by the RSPCA from Mr. Gerald Barling QC, on banning the export of live veal calves using article 36 of the treaty of Rome. [31850]

  Mrs. Browning
  Commissioner Fischler confirmed to the European Parliament on 14 June that, taking account of the legal opinion obtained by the RSPCA and others, the view of the Commission remained that no member state could have resort to article 36 in order to ban the transport of calves to another member state in which the minimum requirements of directive 91/629 were being observed.

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32214]

  Mr. Jack
  The amount spent by the Department during each of the last two years on public transport and car mileage allowance, at prices and rates current in the relevant year, is:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  (i) public transport

  2,285,933

  2,148,659

  (ii) car mileage allowance

  3,770,826

  3,714,600

  134
  Expenditure on bicycle allowance is not recorded separately but is contained in the public transport figures, which also include some other associated travel costs.

  The figure for 1993–94 include the pesticides safety and veterinary medicines directorates.

  Responsibility for such matters within ADAS, the central science laboratory, the central veterinary laboratory and the pesticides safety and the veterinary medicines directorates has been delegated to the agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply to you direct.

  Meat and Livestock Commission Levy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the Meat and Livestock Commission levy rate in each year since 1990. [32327]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: The Meat and Livestock Commission levy rates expressed in pence per head for the years 1990–1995 are:

  General levy

  Pigs

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Calves

  1990–91

  37

  126

  25

  8

  1991–92

  36

  140

  26

  8

  1992–93

  37

  154

  26

  8

  1993–94

  37

  154

  26

  8

  1994–95

  38

  160

  27

  8

  1995

  39

  180

  30

  8

  Species promotion levy

  Pigs

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Calves

  1990–91

  30

  140

  20

  —

  1991–92

  30

  160

  24

  —

  1992–93

  30

  174

  26

  —

  1993–94

  34

  174

  26

  —

  1994–95

  50

  174

  26

  —

  1995

  54

  205

  30

  —

  The levies are subject to VAT.

  European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by each objective and by each other community initiative, including RECHAR and INTERREG the value of assistance received under the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund both nationally and for each standard region of the United Kingdom for each year since 1989. [31361]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 29 June 1995]: A table containing details of receipts under the EAGGF guidance section is set out in the table. All expenditure was under objective 5a of the structural funds—promoting rural development by speeding up the adjustment of agricultural structures in the framework of the reform of the common agricultural policy. The EAGGF guidance section has not provided funding for Community initiatives other than INTERREG and LEADER.
  135
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a breakdown by standard region as EC receipts are

  Total UK receipts under the EAGGF guidance section

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Non-objective 1

  England—total receipts of which—

  18.94

  20.33

  20.73

  21.02

  19.18

  6.70

  LEADER

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.04

  0.08

  0.07

  Scotland—total receipts of which—

  15.86

  20.70

  26.39

  21.03

  23.88

  9.06

  LEADER2

  Wales—total receipts of which—

  9.12

  9.84

  10.64

  9.54

  8.87

  7.51

  LEADER

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.26

  0.30

  0.08

  Total non-objective 1

  43.92

  50.87

  57.76

  51.59

  51.93

  23.27

  Of which LEADER2

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.30

  0.38

  0.15

  Objective 1

  Northern Ireland—total receipts of which—

  9.44

  9.85

  28.95

  20.24

  26.62

  25.96

  LEADER

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.27

  0.00

  0.30

  INTERREG

  0.00

  0.00

  0.72

  0.00

  2.76

  0.00

  Scotland—total receipts

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  3.10

  Total Objective 1

  9.44

  9.85

  28.95

  20.24

  26.62

  29.05

  Total UK

  53.36

  60.72

  86.71

  71.83

  78.55

  52.32

  1. Up to and including 1993–94, an element of EAGGF Guidance Section funding related to fisheries.

  2. There were no receipts in respect of Objective 1 expenditure in England in 1994–95.

  1 Provisional.

  2 No breakdown by financial year is available for Scotland under LEADER. The total amount received to date is £0.68 million.

  Folic Acid
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to make it his policy compulsorily to fortify flour with folic acid to reduce the instance of spina bifida and other neural tube defects. [31332]

  Mrs. Browning
  The issue of fortification of foods is currently being considered by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy.

  Currently manufacturers may voluntarily fortify flour and other foods with folic acid.

SCOTLAND

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland aged over 64 years live in(a) private residential homes, (b) private nursing homes, (c) local authority residential homes and (d) national health service nursing homes; and, of these, how many have the cost of their care paid wholly or partly by (i) their local authority, (ii) their health board and (iii) the Department of Social Security; and how many pay for their care wholly from private resources. [25973]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 June 1995, c. 366–67]: The available information is:

  Estimated number of people aged 65+ in residential care homes in Scotland at 31 March 1994

  Residential Care Homes

  Number

  Local Authority Homes

  7,800

  Private Homes

  4,050

  Voluntary Homes

  4,260

  136
  accounted for by the agricultural departments, rather than on a regional basis.

  Financial support to long-stay residents aged 65+ in private and voluntary residential care homes at 31 March 1994

  Means of support

  Private homes

  Voluntary homes

  Wholly by private means

  1,065 (38 per cent.)

  1,071 (31 per cent.)

  Wholly by health board

  43 (2 per cent.)

  24 (1 per cent.)

  DSS preserved rights1 and private means

  1,282 (46 per cent.)

  1,696 (50 per cent.)

  DSS preserved rights1 and local authority top-up

  148 (5 per cent.)

  264 (8 per cent.)

  Local authority2

  259 (9 per cent.)

  326 (10 per cent.)

  Total number where means of support known

  2,797 (100 per cent.)

  3,381 (100 per cent.)

  1 Pre 1 April 1993 higher rates of income support.2 Post April 1993 arrangements. Local Authorities have financial responsibility for placements. Residents are supported by the local authority and through ordinary income support and residential allowance from DSS.

  The financial support of short-stay residents is not collected. The financial support of the remaining residents was unknown due to non-return of forms or missing data on individual residents.

  All residents of local authority homes will have their care wholly or partly funded by local authority. At May 1994, 1,000 residents of local authority homes also received income support at the part III rate—equivalent to the state retirement pension.

  Nursing Homes

  Information on nursing homes is not collected on the same basis.

  Estimated number of residents, all ages, at 31 March 1994 is 15,700.

  Number of residents aged 65+ at May 1994 receiving pre 1993 higher rates of income support is 8,000.

  Other residents will be supported by local authorities, health boards or through private means.
  137

  Gaelic
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consultations his Department has held with groups aiming to increase the use of Gaelic in Scotland in the years(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) 1994; and if he will make a statement. [29620]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office has frequent discussions, both formal and informal, with Gaelic organisations and others involved in the support and development of the language and culture. No central record of all such discussions is held, but over the last 12 months, for example, officials have had formal meetings with Comunn na Gaidhlig, An Comunn Gaidhealach, Sabhal Mor Ostaig, the National Gaelic Arts Project, the Scottish Committee of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, Feisean nan Gaidheal, Comann an Luchd-Ionnsachaidh, Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich and Comann nam Parant. In addition, they met a delegation of students from Edinburgh university with a petition about Gaelic education and have had discussions on various aspects of Gaelic development with the Scottish Arts Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and a number of regional councils. Similar meetings took place in the earlier years.

  Over the period 1991 to 1994, Ministers have attended a Royal National Mod, the opening of the Gaelic Television Committee's office in Stornoway and the opening of the new extension to Sabhal Mor Ostaig, the Gaelic college on Skye. In addition, Ministers have held one formal meeting with representatives of the Gaelic Television Committee and met representatives of the Gaelic parliamentary group last year to discuss issues relating to Gaelic education.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to allow all community-based housing association tenants the right to buy; and if he will make a statement. [31077]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are presently developing with Scottish Homes a scheme to enable housing association tenants to buy their homes on a voluntary basis. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations will be consulted in due course.

  M74
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has made into the possibility of the completion of the M74 motorway between Fullarton and the Kingston bridge, Glasgow, by means of a tunnel; and if he will make a statement. [30956]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  This proposed section of motorway is the responsibility of Strathclyde regional council. The Scottish Office has undertaken no studies as to how this new route might be constructed.

  M8
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to widen part, or all, of the M8 motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement. [30955]
  138
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's highest priority for the Glasgow-Edinburgh road is to provide motorway conditions over the whole length. The link between Newbridge and the Edinburgh city bypass is presently under construction and tenders are now to be sought for the first phase of the construction of motorway between Newhouse and Baillieston.

  The existing section of motorway is now reaching the end of its structural life and requires refurbishment. Plans for work on the first section to be repaired, between Newhouse and Shotts, include widening to dual-three lanes, in line with the standards approved for the construction of the new section of motorway immediately to the west. Preparatory studies will be initiated this year to examine whether reconstruction work between Shotts and Newhouse should involve widening.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of civil servants in each department of the Scottish Office for(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993, (d) 1994 and (e) 1995. [31291]

  Mr. Lang
  The number of civil servants in each department of the Scottish Office is shown in the following table. The figures relate to 1 April in the years from 1991 to 1995.

  Staff in post in the Scottish Office and Executive Agencies (full time equivalent) at 1 April

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Agriculture and Fisheries Department

  1,230.0

  1,033.5

  1,070.5

  1,079.5

  1,038.1

  Environment Department

  670.0

  475.0

  486.0

  488.5

  437.5

  Education Department

  544.0

  439.5

  468.5

  479.0

  319.2

  Industry Department

  383.0

  544.5

  533.0

  535.5

  490.2

  Home and Health Department

  893.5

  936.0

  663.0

  672.0

  615.0

  Central Services

  1,754.5

  1,719.0

  1,702.0

  1,580.5

  1,317.3

  Total Scottish Office core

  5,475.0

  5,147.5

  4.923.0

  4,835.0

  4,217.3

  Historic Scotland

  610.5

  630.5

  642.0

  636.0

  633.6

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  196.5

  215.5

  226.5

  250.0

  237.5

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  0.0

  138.5

  142.0

  138.0

  142.2

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  0.0

  0.0

  164.5

  175.5

  161.4

  Student Awards Agency for

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  135.0

  Scotland Executive Agencies (excluding SPS)

  807.0

  984.5

  1,175.0

  1,199.5

  1,309.7

  Total (excluding SPS)

  6,282.0

  6,132.0

  6,098.0

  6,034.5

  5,527.0

  Scottish Prison Service

  4,004.0

  4,228.5

  4,625.0

  4,512.5

  4,232.7

  Residential Care
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has made to the document relating to the development of a co-operative sub-sector of the independent sector passed to his Department by the hon. Member for Paisley, South on 14 June; and if he will make a statement. [31379]
  139
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In my letter of 29 June to the hon. Member, I thanked him for providing a copy of the report. I said:"It is very encouraging to see such an initiative which seeks to broaden the range of provision of residential care and which identifies quality and costs as the key elements to achieving success. I shall watch this and similar developments with interest".

  Flood Damage
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet a delegation representing the Paisley south end flood committee; and if he will make a statement. [31399]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I know that the Paisley south end flood committee is providing local assistance to those persons still unable to return to their homes following the flooding in December 1994. Their fund-raising efforts are to be commended. The Government have made substantial assistance available to individuals and local authorities, as detailed in my reply to the hon. Member on 21 April 1995; the committee should continue to seek support from the Strathclyde regional council hardship fund and the Renfrew district council's provost fund.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has reached on the causes of the flooding during December 1994 in(a) the south end of Paisley, (b) Park avenue, Paisley, (c) Collier street, Johnstone and (d) other locations within the Paisley, South constituency; what information he has sought and obtained from local and statutory authorities in relation to this flooding; what further plans he has to encourage and facilitate flood prevention measures in these areas; and if he will make a statement. [31389]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The exceptional rainfall to the south of Paisley over the weekend 9 to 11 December is estimated by the Clyde river purification board to have a statistical return period of over 500 years. Some natural channels and culverts could not cope with the resulting run-off. In some cases, this was exacerbated by blockages to culvert screens. Strathclyde regional council, presently the body with flood prevention powers, has recorded details of notified flood incidents across its area and will make this information available to unitary councils, which inherit these powers in April 1996. The Government have offered to assist with further studies but the council has not yet made any proposals. Renfrew district council, however, as a riparian owner, has given high priority to improving culverts at Stockholm crescent.

  Details of damage to housing and other property have been provided by Renfrew district council. In setting the housing revenue account allocation for council housing investment in 1995–96 the Government met in full the council's request for additional funds. Government grant at the rate of 50 per cent. is available for flood prevention schemes should Strathclyde, or the new councils, decide to take further action.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department has had in respect of arranging a visit by Her Majesty the Queen to 140
  flood victims in (a) the south end of Paisley and the town of Johnstone and (b) the Ferguslie park area; and if he will make a statement. [31484]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Her Majesty the Queen had already accepted an invitation to visit Ferguslie park to open the Tannahill centre before the flooding took place across south-west Scotland in December. In the light of the flooding, it was decided that a short visit to the Candren road area of Ferguslie park would be appropriate. It unfortunately was not possible, given the very full programme to which she was already committed that day, to include a visit by the Queen to the other areas affected by the flooding. The Ferguslie Partnership has been responsible for the arrangements for the royal visit and the Scottish Office staff, through their participation in the partnership, have been involved in these arrangements.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce measures to indemnify the(a) landlords, including local authorities and housing associations, and (b) residents, occupiers and tenants of properties which have experienced flooding against the risk of future damage to buildings, property and contents from further floods until such times as adequate flood prevention measures have been put in place; and if he will make a statement. [31388]

  Mr. Kynoch
  It is the responsibility of the landlord to consider insuring the structure of any house or building which they own and the tenant is responsible for insuring the contents of their home. Most public sector landlords have some form of building insurance cover and this is also the case for housing associations.

  As far as privately owned stock is concerned, it is for owner-occupiers themselves to make their own arrangements for insuring both the structure of their property and its contents.

  Protection of property from flooding is primarily the responsibility of the owner. It is for the riparian owners of water courses, culverts and ditches to maintain these properly. Strathclyde regional council has powers to carry out works to prevent or mitigate flooding, but it has decided not to carry out any flood prevention work in its remaining months of existence.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions will be placed upon elected members and officers of unitary local authorities travelling abroad on economic development missions to encourage inward investment; how these will differ from the restrictions imposed on the current regional and district authorities; and if he will make a statement. [31397]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Section 171A (5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which was inserted into that Act by the provisions of section 171 of the Local Governmental etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, requires councils to submit to the Secretary of State for approval their proposals for engaging in economic development activities overseas. Subsection 171A (6) allows the Secretary of State to make his approval subject to conditions. These provisions effectively replicate the terms of section 154A of the 1973 Act which related to local authorities' industrial promotion powers and which
  141
  has bene repealed by the 1994 Act. Under the new local government structure, the Secretary of State will, as now, consider all proposals for overseas economic development activity that are submitted to him for approval on their own merits and decide upon them accordingly.

  Anti-Social Behaviour
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce new measures to deal with(a) anti-social tenants in the public sector, (b) anti-social tenants in the private sector and (c) anti-social neighbours in the owner-occupied sector of housing in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [31385]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of anti-social behaviour by tenants and owner-occupiers is presently being addressed by the Scottish Office in a number of ways. In March, we issued a consultation paper on the effectiveness of controls over neighbour noise, while in May a consultation paper on the possible introduction of probationary tenancies as one means to assist public sector landlords in tackling anti-social behaviour was circulated for comment. The latter was accompanied by a short note to local housing authorities reminding them of the existing range of statutory powers to deal with anti-social behaviour.

  Last February, we issued a housing good practice note on tenancy management to all public sector landlords, which included a section on handling neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour. My Department has also funded the Chartered Institute of Housing to undertake a study of current practice amongst public sector landlords in dealing with anti-social behaviour with a view to identifying effective strategies which may be adopted more widely.

  I welcome the announcement by the Scottish Affairs Committee that it proposes to inquire into the subject of housing and anti-social behaviour. I await the Committee's deliberations with interest.

  Privatisation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further measures he plans for privatisation in areas of policy for which he is responsible, and if he will make a statement. [31380]

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are committed to continuous exploration of opportunities to improve the conduct of activities currently carried out within the public sector through increased involvement of the private sector, including privatisation where appropriate. We are at present engaged in the privatisation of parts of Scottish Nuclear Ltd. My Department is also reviewing the scope for greater private sector involvement, including the possibility of privatisation, in the activities of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.

  Community Care
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policy changes are planned in relation to the future of(a) Dykebar hospital, (b) Merchiston hospital and (c) Elderslie hospital which are likely to affect constituents of Paisley, South who are currently temporarily or permanently resident there. [31396]
  142
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No policy changes are planned. The Government's commitment to providing more appropriate and better facilities in the community remains.

  Argyll and Clyde health board and its partners in local government will be issuing a draft joint community care plan for consultation on 4 July. I understand that may make proposals affecting health board residents in the Renfrewshire area.

  Summary Cause Actions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many summary cause actions for recovery of possession of heritable property were raised in Scotland in each year since 1988 based upon notices of proceedings for recovery of possession served in accordance with section 47 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, seeking recovery of possession of properties let under secure tenancies in terms of grounds 2, 7 and 8 of schedule 3 to the said Act and based upon notices of proceedings served upon secure tenants within 12 months of the commencement of the secure tenancy. [31533]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 June 1995]: The information requested is not available in the detail sought. The total numbers of disposals of all summary cause actions for the recovery of possession of heritable property where decree was granted to the pursuer for each of the years in question are shown in the table.

  1988: 12,285

  1989: 13,722

  1990: 13,793

  1991: 12,613

  1992: 10,647

  1993: 11,754

  1994: 19,813

  1Provisional figure.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances he encourages, condones or permits his Department, or agencies, bodies, organisations or partnerships financially supported by it, to award contracts which have not been subject to competitive tender; and if he will make a statement. [31384]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department, executive agencies and associated bodies follow the general principles of the Government's pubic purchasing policy as set out in Government accounting. These are based on securing best value for money through procuring by competition unless there are valid reasons to the contrary. Competitive tendering is encouraged to maintain or improve standards and quality and to promote greater innovation.

  There is no requirement within my Department to competitively tender for purchases which are less than £500 in value because the cost of the tendering exercise would be likely to outweigh any saving but even in these cases, buyers are encouraged to shop around for the best prices.
  143

  Scottish Ambulance Service
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for the future of the Scottish ambulance service; and if he will make a statement. [31398]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since gaining NHS Trust status on 1 April 1995, the Scottish ambulance service has continued to work towards its objectives of providing the highest possible standards of pre-hospital care for patients and an efficient transport service for non-emergency patients.

  Notwithstanding the high standard of service that is consistently being delivered, officials of the trust and of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department are considering whether there are any steps that could be taken further to improve the service to those patients who are most in need.

  Health Care International
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the 12 members of the Scottish Development Advisory Board in 1988 and the six who attended when the decision was made to back the HCI hospital; and if he will give their qualifications and occupation. [31357]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board is established under section 10 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of his functions in relation to selective financial assistance under section 7 and 8 of that Act. The Act stipulates that "The members of the Board shall include persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industry, banking, accounting and finance."

  An application for assistance made by Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd. was considered at the board's meeting on 12 April 1988. The board's then membership was:

  Member's name and professional qualifications

  Occupational background

  Mr. Yaqub Ali

  Wholesale distribution

  Mr. Keith Fox

  Textile industry

  Mr. Thomas Johnston

  Precision engineering

  Mr. Barrie F. Lawson

  Electrical and electronic engineering

  Mr. John M. Little, CA ACMA

  Mining equipment industry

  Mr. Duncan J. MacLeod, CA

  Accountancy and finance

  Mr. Austin Merrills

  Metal industry

  Mr. David Paterson

  Banking, Insurance and Finance Trade Union

  Professor John C. Shaw, FRSE CA FCMA MBCS

  Accounting and finance

  Mr. Alan K. Smith, F Eng FI Mech E F Weld I

  Engineering

  Sir Robert Smith, CA (Chairman)

  Accounting, finance and investment

  Mr. Robert Thomson

  General, Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union

  Of these Mr. Ali, Mr. Little Mr. MacLeod, Mr. Paterson, Sir Robert Smith and Mr. Thomson attended the meeting on 12 April 1988, although Mr. MacLeod
  144
  withdrew when the Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd. application was discussed since his firm was acting as an adviser to the company.

  Kelvin Central Bus Co.
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had concerning the closure of the Kelvin central bus co. garages at Milton road, Kirkintilloch, and Stepps; and if he will make a statement. [28585]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: No such representations have been received.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Offshore Oil and Gas Licensing
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the award of licences for oil and gas exploration for the North sea and west of Britain under the 16th round of offshore licensing.

  Mr. Page
  I informed the House on 18 May that I was awarding licences for each of the 26 blocks in the west of Shetland area for which applications were received in the 16th offshore licensing round, and fast tracked these awards so that companies have been able to start work this summer.

  Other areas around include the North sea and the west and south of Britain and I am offering licences for 53 of the 56 blocks applied for. In all, I have been able to offer licences for 79 blocks of the 82 blocks applies for in the 16th round, a reflection of the very high standard of applications received and which will help to ensure that the current high level of exploration continues.

  Today's awards will result in the shooting of over 3,500 sq. km. of 3D seismic surveys and over 4,000 line kilometres of 2D seismic surveys. Companies have also committed themselves to drill 13 wells in the next two years and a further nine during the rest of the six-year phase of the licences. This level of commitment means that new wells will be drilled in all of the areas offered in the round. In the whole round 7,500 sq. km. of 3D seismic surveys will be carried out and 50 new wells drilled.

  Companies applied for blocks in all of the areas offered in the 16th round. As well as the west of Shetland, there was an encouraging level of interest in the west of Cardigan bay where five blocks have been licensed for the first time. There are also a number of blocks in the east Irish sea and English channel that have not been previously licensed. Many blocks in this part of the round received competing applications of extremely high quality, although as expected, competition was generally less than for the west of Shetland.

  I have taken fully into account that a number of the areas offered for licensing in this part of the Round are environmentally sensitive, especially those areas close to the coast. For this reason, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy announced an initiative last year involving the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the UK Offshore Operators Association to produce a series of regional coastal reports which provide

  145
  valuable data on the coastal and environmental resources in the area concerned.

  When examining applications for blocks in these areas, we made sure that applicant companies took account of the environmental resources identified in the reports when planning their work programmes and that they demonstrated how they planned to avoid or minimise any risks to those resources from oil and gas exploration. All companies awarded licences have shown a strong commitment to environmental protection and to the appropriate conditions which are contained in their licences.

  These awards—and those announced earlier for blocks in the west of Shetland—have shown the continuing high level of commitment by the oil and gas companies to the United Kingdom continental shelf. The widespread interest in exploration in an increasing number of areas in the UKCS will help to secure the UK's position as an oil and gas producer well into the next century.

  Inward Investment
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's performance in attracting internationally mobile investment projects in 1994–95.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department's Investment in Britain Bureau announced in its annual review, published today, that 1994–95 was another very successful year for attracting inward investment into the United Kingdom.

  A total of 434 direct investment projects were recorded by the IBB for the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995. This is an increase of 30 projects over the previous year, the highest figure ever recorded, and demonstrates quite clearly just how attractive the UK continues to be to

  Ministerial Gifts—Financial Year 1994–95

  Total number of gifts

  Retained personal use

  Retained office use

  Surrendered to the Department

  Purchased

  Mr. Heseltine

  39

  2

  1

  36

  0

  Mr. Eggar

  76

  55

  18

  2

  1

  Mr. Needham

  50

  21

  2

  26

  1

  Lord Ferrers

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Lord Strathclyde

  6

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Mr. Sainsbury

  13

  9

  0

  4

  0

  Mr. Evans

  9

  5

  4

  0

  0

  Mr. Hamilton

  3

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Mr. McLoughlin

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Mr. Page

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mr. Taylor

  4

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Mr. Wardle

  29

  9

  7

  13

  0

  Total

  237

  119

  34

  82

  2

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32176]

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department's records of travel expenditure do not distinguish between the categories in
  146
  overseas investors. It is also worth nothing that based on information supplied at the time of the announcements, 36,876 new jobs are expected to be created—an increase of 8,149 over last year's new jobs total.

  Those results provide strong evidence that, despite ever increasing competition from elsewhere in the European Union, the UK has retained its No. 1 place in Europe for attracting inward investment. This success reflects the attractiveness of the competitive business environment which exists today, in the UK.

  The results are also an indication of the successful partnership between the IBB and the many public and private sector bodies involved in the promotion of inward investment at home and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in existing and emerging markets abroad.

  I am arranging for a copy of the review to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Gifts to Ministers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those gifts received by Ministers in their official capacities and reported to the permanent secretary in each of the last five years. [23784]

  Mr. Heseltine
  A total of 237 gifts were accepted by DTI Ministers between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1995. 119 of these were retained by the Ministers and 118 became the property of the Department. Seven of these gifts were valued by the Department at more than £125. Of these seven, five became the property of the Department and two were purchased by the Minister, in accordance with the provisions of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", by payment of the difference between the Department's retail valuation and £125 limit. A breakdown for each Minister is shown in the table.

  Figures for earlier years are not available.

  the hon. Member's question. To provide this information would entail disproportionate cost.

  Deregulation Task Force
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the criteria used to select the right hon. Francis Maude as head of the deregulation task force. [32271]
  147
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The deregulation task force's role is to help the President of the Board of Trade promote deregulation and to advise him on action for Government Departments and associated bodies to take to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. In selecting a chairman for the task force the President sought a senior figure who carried weight in both business and political circles.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much remuneration the right hon. Francis Maude receives as head of the deregulation task force. [32265]

  Mr. Evans
  The right hon. Francis Maude is not paid for his work as chairman of the deregulation task force but, like other members of the task force, he receives travel and subsistence expenses. Administrative support for Mr. Maude and the task force is provided by the deregulation unit in the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many candidates were considered for the appointment as head of the deregulation task force; and who made the appointment. [32274]

  Mr. Evans
  A number of possible candidates were considered for this appointment. It would not be appropriate to disclose details of particular names. The appointment was made by my right hon. Friend the President of Board of Trade.

  Teaching Company Schemes
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans the Government have to enable small and medium-sized enterprises in Barnsley to benefit from the teaching company schemes for the transfer of technology from universities through the secondment of graduates. [32266]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government are doing much to enable small and medium-sized enterprises to benefit from the teaching company scheme and SMEs in Barnsley and throughout the UK stand to gain substantially from these measures.

  In 1994–95, Government funding of TCS was about £18 million. My Department is the largest contributor to TCS programme costs with £6 million in 1994–95, and we have announced an increase of £4 million over the three years from 1995–96 to 1996–97. In addition, the European regional development fund is able to co-finance TCS spend with SMEs in the area of Yorkshire and Humberside which includes Barnsley. This further increases the money available for TCS there.

  There are 518 TCS programmes current at 31 March 1995 and 278 have a SME as an industrial partner. But my Department aims to further increase the number of SMEs who benefit from TCS; our target is that 80 per cent of DTI-supported TCS programmes will involve SMEs. The recent White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" reported that a network of 11 TCS centres for small firms has been established. These TCS centres offer SMEs easier access to the technology, knowledge and skills available in Universities. By the end of this year, the number of TCS will increase to 17 and will cover the whole of the UK. The two TCS centres for small firms based at Leeds Metropolitan University and
  148
  at Sheffield Hallam University are both well placed to help SMEs in Barnsley.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which universities have a teaching company scheme centre set up by his Department to help the needs of small businesses. [32272]

  Mr. Taylor
  The 10 TCS centres for small firms part-funded by my Department are located at the following universities.

  The University of Brighton

  Brunel University

  The University of Durham

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  Nottingham Trent University

  The University of Plymouth

  The University of Reading

  Salford University

  Sheffield Hallam University

  The University of Warwick

  In addition, a TCS centre for small firms administered jointly by the University of Ulster and Queens University Belfast is part funded by the Northern Ireland Office.

  Business Links
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements his Department has considered to ensure that local businesses are not handicapped by the lack of access to quality business advice if their local business link were to be excluded from the business links network because it had failed to meet the accreditation criteria set by his Department. [32270]

  Mr. Page
  The Business Link Accreditation Board will make recommendations to me on individual business link accreditation. These recommendations will take full account of the impact on local businesses and their continuing access to high quality services, should the licence to use the business link brand be withdrawn.

  Insurance Policy Sales
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he now has to improve the regulation of the sale of mortgage protection and unemployment protection policies to ensure that those selling them are properly trained to do so. [32048]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. The sale of creditor insurance policies is already governed by the Association of British Insurers code of practice. The code's operation is kept under constant review by an independent code monitoring committee.

  Television Rental Industry
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to enhance consumer protection in the television rental industry. [31526]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Most agreements made by consumers for television rental are consumer hire agreements regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. We have no plans to change the provisions of the Act in regard to such agreements.
  149

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31304]

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department does not keep separate records of its grants to or contracts with voluntary sector organisations.

  Insolvency Practitioners
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he has taken to ensure that insolvency practitioners provide adequate disqualification information, following the National Audit Office report on director disqualification. [32601]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Insolvency Service issued revised guidelines to insolvency practitioners in March 1993 which emphasised the need for timeliness of reports and the adequacy of evidence to support allegations of unfit conduct. These guidelines are being reinforced by the joint insolvency monitoring unit set up in March 1994 by the insolvency profession to raise standards of its members. In addition the Insolvency Service has commenced a programme of visits to practitioners who have a poor record of reporting, backed by prosecution in extreme cases; improved its feedback to insolvency practitioners on reasons why their reports have not met the criteria for commencement of proceedings, and proposed amendments to the disqualification forms used by practitioners, under the Government's deregulation initiative.

  Insolvency Service Computer Project
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many computer terminals were purchased by the Insolvency Service to implement the LOIS computer system.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A total of 1,342 PCs and computer terminals were purchased for the LOIS project.

  Official Receiver
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision will be made to ensure that, in the event of the contracting out of some of the functions of the official receiver and subsequent requirement on staff to relocate between offices, women staff will not be relatively disadvantaged. [32306]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Insolvency Service is an equal opportunities employer. In the event of contracting out going ahead, the needs of all staff would be taken into account as far as possible within its operational requirements.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in the event of the functions of the official receiver being contracted out, it will be necessary in every case for bankrupts and company directors to attend at the offices of the contractor for interview in order to establish the causes of the failure of the business. [32305]
  150
  Mr. Evans
  Yes, subject to individual circumstances which would prevent such attendance, such as ill-health.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what percentage of cases administered by the official receivers' office in Kingston upon Hull, a trustee or liquidator was appointed at a meeting of creditors or on the instructions of the Secretary of State, in order to realise and distribute assets, in each year since 1986. [32321]

  Mr. Evans
  The percentage of cases administered by the official receiver's office in Kingston upon Hull in which an insolvency practitioner was appointed as liquidator/trustee are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Financial year

  Bankruptcy

  Company

  April 1992-March 1993

  28

  30

  April 1993-March 1994

  24

  36

  April 1994-March 1995

  27

  48

  Information for previous years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance is given to staff of the Insolvency Service, in addition to their training, to ensure that they interview and conduct their inquiries into the affairs of bankrupts and company directors on a professional and consistent basis throughout the 33 official receivers' offices in England and Wales. [32309]

  Mr. Evans
  A consistent and professional approach is obtained through a thorough programme of training including the sitting of Certified Association of Chartered Accountants examinations by examiners, and the use of an internal technical manual which is regularly updated by the issue of technical bulletins.

  A system of management is in place which allows policies to be cascaded through regional managers to official receivers, who in turn disseminate the information to their staff to ensure that consistent practices are applied throughout the country. There is also a professional service action plan which stipulates the conduct of staff when dealing with customers and a pocket guide to investigative interviewing which is being introduced for staff who conduct interviews.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in the event of some of the functions of the official receiver being contracted out, bids will be invited from the management and staff of the Insolvency Service. [32307]

  Mr. Evans
  The advertisements inviting expressions of interest were open to all interested parties and any member of staff of the Insolvency Service will be able to be involved in the contracting out process in the same way as potential providers from the private sector.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide an estimate of the maximum distances currently travelled by bankrupts and company directors to be interviewed, in respect of each of the areas covered by each of the official receiver's offices in England and Wales. [32323]
  151
  Mr. Evans
  This information could only be provided at disproportionate cost. There are 33 official receivers' offices throughout England and Wales providing local accessibility for all bankrupts, directors and members of the public having business with the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what written guidance is given to the staff of the official receiver's office, in addition to their training, as to the conduct of their initial enquiries and interviews; and if the same written guidance will be given to contractors engaged in carrying out initial enquiries if some of the functions of the official receiver are contracted out. [32324]

  Mr. Evans
  All specialist staff within the Insolvency Service have copies of the Insolvency Service technical manual which provides written guidance for the conduct of their initial enquiries and interviews. In the event of contracting out, such guidance would be issued to contractors.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what responsibility he has as(a) director and (b) shareholder for the accounts of BNFL; if he has approved the accounts issued since his appointment as President and what steps his Department takes to verify them. [32199]

  Mr. Eggar
  It is the responsibility of the Board of Directors of British Nuclear Fuels plc to prepare accounts for each financial year in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Acts. The annual report of the directors and the audited accounts are submitted to the shareholder at the company's annual general meeting. The company's auditors are responsible for forming an independent opinion, based on their audit, on the accounts and for reporting their opinion to the shareholder. Under the terms of section 14 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1971, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for laying copies of BNFL's report and accounts before Parliament.

  Gas Regulator
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria will be used to judge the effectiveness of the Gas Regulator in promoting competition. [30073]

  Mr. Eggar
  The proposed new section 39(2A) of the Gas Act provides that the Director General must report annually to Parliament on the extent of effective competition and on developments in respect of that competition. That will enable Parliament and the public to make appropriate judgments on the effectiveness of the director's work.

  Gas Bill (Shippers Licences)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of the Gas Bill's requirement to legacy transportation holders to operate on terms with like effect and consequences as those without these contracts on increased competition in the gas market. [30098]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The requirements in question, which are contained in the draft
  152
  standard conditions of shippers' licences, are designed to help secure effective competition in the gas market. We believe, subject to any further points arising in the continuing consultation, that they will have this effect.

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of the titles of each report made to his Department by Shell UK about options for the future of the Brent Spar, the name of the person or organisation responsible for the report and the date on which they were written; and if he will place copies of each report in the Library. [31022]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: Copies of the Brent Spar best practicable environmental option assessment and impact hypothesis produced by Rudall Blanchard Associates Limited dated December 1994 were sent to the Oslo and Paris Commission on 16 February 1995, and are in the public domain. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The supporting studies submitted by Shell to my Department were as follows:

  Study

  Date

  A

  General arrangement of Spar

  December 1994

  B

  Inventory

  March 1993

  C

  Decommissioning and Abandonment Screening Study for the Brent Spar Facility/McDermott Engineering Europe

  April 1993

  D

  Likelihood and Extent of Contamination by Low Specific Activity Scale, Sand and Sludges within the Oil Storage Tanks and Associated Systems on the Brent Spar Loading Facility/ICI Tracerco

  May 1995

  E

  Brent Spar Abandonment Assessment of items and Materials for Retention Metocean

  April 1994

  F

  Brent Spar, Onshore Disposal Feasibility Study/McDermott Engineering Europe

  April 1993

  G

  Brent Spar Removal and Dumping Global Maritime

  April 1993

  H

  Environmental Impacts of Two Disposal Options for the Brent Spar Buoy/AURIS Environmental

  May 1994

  I

  Safety Assessment of the Removal and Disposal of Brent Spar/Aberdeen University Engineering Services

  May 1994

  J

  Brent Spar Scraping Study Heerema Engineering Services (UK)

  May 1994

  153

  Study

  Date

  K

  Evaluation of Environmental Aspects of the Deep Water Disposal Option/Metocean

  April 1993

  L

  Brent Spar Radiological Impact Study ICI Tracerco

  May 1994

  M

  Best Practicable Environmental Option Preliminary Evaluation Report/Metocean

  June 1994

  N

  Scope of Work for Deep Sea Surveys of Potential Disposal Sites/Shell Export/SOAFD

  June 1994

  I am considering, in consultation with Shell and the companies responsible for the supporting studies, whether they may also in due course be placed in the Library of the House. Such consideration will need to take account of commercial confidentiality and intellectual property rights.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list, for the period January 1991 to June 1995, all meetings held and all correspondence or other documentation received or sent between Ministers or officials in his Department and Ministers or other representatives of other foreign Governments in which options for the future of the Brent Spar installation were mentioned, giving for each separate meeting or documentation(a) the date on which the meeting was held, the correspondence or documentation received or correspondence or documentation sent. (b) a full list of attendees at each meeting or authors and recipients of the correspondence or documentation and (c) the topics discussed at the meeting or title and nature of the correspondence or documentation; and if he will place each piece of correspondence or documentation in the Library, [31010]

  (2) if he will publish a list for the period January 1991 to June 1995 of all meetings held and all correspondence or other documentation received or sent between Ministers or officials in his Department with any of the Royal Dutch Shell Group of companies or any of its subsidiaries including the Shell petroleum Co. Ltd UK, in which options for the future of Brent Spar installation were mentioned, giving for each separate meeting or documentation (a) the date on which the meeting was held, the correspondence or documentation received or correspondence or documentation sent, (b) a full list of attendees at each meeting or authors and recipients of the correspondence or documentation and (c) the topics discussed at the meeting or title and the nature of the correspondence or documentation; and if he will place copies of each piece of correspondence or documentation in the Library. [31001]

  (3) if he will list, for the period January 1991 to June 1995 all meetings held and all correspondence or other documentation received or sent between Ministers or officials in his Department and Ministers or officials in other Government Departments in which options for the future of the Brent Spar installation were mentioned, giving for each separate meeting or documentation (a) the date on which the meeting was held, the correspondence or
  154
  documentation received or correspondence or documentation sent, (b) a full list of attendees of each meeting or authors and recipients of the correspondence or documentation, and (c) the topics discussed at the meeting or title and nature of correspondence or documentation; and if he will place copies of each piece of correspondence or documentation in the Library. [31011]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answers 26 June 1995]: It is my intention to make available in the Library of the House as soon as possible an appropriate set of documents relating to the Brent Spar in accordance with the code of practice on access to government information.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) which of the reports referred to his Department by Shell dealt specifically with the option of onshore decommissioning; and if he will make a statement, [31252]

  (2) if he will list each report made available to him by Shell on which the decision was based to dispose of the Brent Spar by dumping if offshore; which of these were passed to his Department for inspection (a) in their entirety or (b) in summary form; and if he will place copies in the Library. [31253]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answers 28 June 1995]: The reports submitted by Shell to my Department are listed in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) today. The reports were submitted in their entirety. Two dealt specifically with onshore disposal: "Brent Spar Onshore Disposal Feasibility Study" by McDermott Engineering (Europe) Ltd, and "Brent Spar Scrapping Study" by Heerema Engineering Services (UK) Limited.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by how much Government spending has changed in 1994–95 as a result of the private finance initiative, what is the estimated effect in 1995–96; how many jobs are to be created by schemes approved to date under the initiative and how many have been lost as a consequence in the public sector; and what is the forecast of transfer of employment from public to private sector over the last five years because of the initiative. [30821]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: In addition to my Department's capital provision, £35.7 million was spent on the refurbishment of No. 1 Victoria street in 1994–95 as a result of obtaining private finance for this project. Around £30.5 million will be spent in 1995–96 on the same basis. No calculation has been made of the jobs this project has created/saved in the private sector but none has been lost in the public sector. No forecast has been made of the transfer of employment from the public to the private sector as a result of PFI.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Company directors have been disqualified under the company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for breaches of health and safety laws. [29240]
  155
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

  One company director has been disqualified for breaches of health and safety laws under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled People
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make a statement about the levels of disability in Northern Ireland in comparison with other parts of the United Kingdom and account for the differences; [31416]

  (2) what research he has conducted or intends to conduct on levels of disability in Northern Ireland. [31417]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In order to estimate the prevalence of disability among adults and children, a set of surveys was conducted in Northern Ireland during 1989–90. The surveys were designed to allow comparisons to be made with a similar set of surveys carried out in Great Britain.

  From these surveys, it is estimated that there are 201,000 disabled adults and 14,600 disabled children living in Northern Ireland. The prevalence of disability among adults in Northern Ireland is 174 per thousand, which exceeds the rate of 142 per thousand in Great Britain. The rate among children in Northern Ireland is 35 per thousand, which is similar to the rate of 32 per thousand observed in Great Britain.

  Information on the levels of disability in Northern Ireland is provided in table 2.8 of "Policy, Planning and Research Unit Surveys of Disability Report 1: the Prevalence of Disability among Adults in Northern Ireland" and in table 2.9 of "Policy, Planning and Research Unit Surveys of Disability Report 2: The Prevalence of Disability among Children in Northern Ireland", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Comparative information for other parts of the United Kingdom is provided in table 3.9 of "OPCS Surveys of Disability in Great Britain Report 1: the prevalence of disability among adults" and in table 3.8 of "OPTS Surveys of Disability in Great Britain 3: the prevalence of disability among adults" and in Table 3.8 of "OPCS Surveys of Disability in Great Britain Report 3: the prevalence of disability among children", copies of which are also available in the Library.

  These surveys were not designed to look at the underlying complaints or causes of disabilities, nor to speculate about the numerous possible reasons for regional differences observed.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding in Northern Ireland from the European Union is spent on meeting the needs of the disabled. [31415]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The main source of European Union funding is the Northern Ireland single programming document, which covers the period 1994–99. The needs of the disabled are addressed under the priority investment in communities and people and specifically the training for special target groups and training infrastructure measures.156
  Over the programme period, it is estimated that some £18 million—22.73 mecu—will be available from these measures for the provision of vocational training and associated services for the disabled. These measures are complemented by the targeting social needs measure, which may assist disabled groups but is primarily aimed at helping deprived and marginalised people, particularly in areas of social and economic deprivation. In addition to the main NI programme, assistance of some £3 million—3.78 mecu—is also available to the disabled, under the employment community initiative programme 1994–99.
  An exchange rate of £1:1.25 mecu has been used.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to require public transport undertakings to take more notice of the needs of the disabled. [31419]

  Mr. Moss
  The Government have brought forward amendments to the Disability Discrimination Bill to allow it to set minimum standards of accessibility in new land-based public transport vehicles. These provisions will apply to Northern Ireland public transport operations.

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the analysis of cost savings to be achieved by reducing the number of education and library boards in Northern Ireland from five to four. [31422]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 June,Official Report, columns 587–88.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many responses in respect of the consultative document, "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland: Proposals for Change", supported the removal of control of further education from the education and library boards to the Department of Education. [31656]

  Mr. Ancram
  Twenty-two responses have been received, which support the removal of the further education colleges from board control. A range of views has been expressed on the most appropriate centralised planning and funding arrangements.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many responses made in respect of the consultative document, "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland: Proposals for Change", called for the withdrawal of the proposals pending local parliamentary democracy and if he will list those representations; [31657]

  (2) how many responses made in respect of the consultative document, "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland: Proposals for Change", supported the rationalisation measures and how many favoured decentralisation. [31658]

  Mr. Ancram
  So far, I have received some 1,400 written responses to the proposals for change document. They relate to the full range of proposals in the document rather than to any specific aspect of them. The responses are being indexed and analysed at present and it is therefore not possible to provide the information requested at this time.
  157

  Dial-a-ride Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many dial-a-ride schemes there are in Northern Ireland; and what proposals he has to introduce more. [31418]

  Mr. Moss
  There are two dial-a-ride schemes operating in Northern Ireland—the Easyrider scheme, which operates in north and west Belfast, and Citylink, which operates in Londonderry. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland supports both schemes and is currently considering options for their future development. There are no plans to introduce more dial-a-ride schemes in Northern Ireland.

  Education Inspectorate Boards
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his education inspectorate's reports on(a) institutes of further education; and (b) private training agencies are published; and on what grounds. [31423]

  Mr. Ancram
  Reports of inspections of institutions of further education in Northern Ireland have been published.

  Reports of inspections of recognised training organisations—that is, those receiving public funding for their training programmes, including institutes of further education and private training agencies—have so far been distributed to the funding organisations and to the manager and, if applicable, to the chairman of the management committee of the training organisations to which the report refers, and will be made available to the public for inspections undertaken after 1 September 1995.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the members of Northern Ireland quangos, indicating which are appointed by the Secretary of State and which are appointed by, or on the recommendation of local authorities, with the scale of remuneration in each case. [30503]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The membership of public bodies in Northern Ireland is contained in the Northern Ireland public appointments list, a copy of which is available in the Library. Remuneration for the chairmen and members, plus details of those appointed by the Secretary of State or on the recommendation of local authorities, have also been placed in the Library.

  Terrorist Offenders
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people who have served prison sentences for terrorist offences have subsequently been convicted of further terrorist offences after their release during the last 25 years, or for as many years as figures are available,. [23367]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Figures for the reconviction of terrorist offenders are not kept and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, research carried out by the Northern Ireland Office in 1987 found that of those prisoners convicted of terrorist-related offences who were 158
  released in 1984, 20 per cent. were reconvicted of scheduled offences and 20 per cent. of non-scheduled offences in the following two years. The reconviction rate for life sentence prisoners is lower. Only two life sentence prisoners convicted of terrorist-related offences have been reconvicted of further offences directly related to terrorism, although others have been convicted of other scheduled offences.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners currently serving sentences for terrorist offences would be eligible for release if they could qualify for 50 per cent. remission; how many of those can be categorised as(a) loyalist and (b) republican; and if he will make a statement. [32268]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Precise figures are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Approximately 400 prisoners are currently serving sentences for scheduled offences which attract one third remission under section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. Of this 400, between 20 and 30 prisoners will be released by the end of 1995. If the law were changed to restore the rate of remission to 50 per cent. with retrospective effect, between 70 and 80 prisoners would be released immediately and a further 40 and 50 by the end of the year. Such a change would release approximately equal numbers of republican and loyalist over that period.

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32172]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–951 £

  Public transport

  1,829,775

  1,587,277

  Car mileage allowance

  9,503,424

  9,214,904

  Bicycle allowance

  2—

  2—

  1 At 1993–94 prices.

  2 Minimal or negligible amounts included in car mileage allowance.

ENVIRONMENT

  Leicestershire Museums, Arts and Records Service
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the future in a service is not adversely affected by any orders presented to parliamentary by the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning the reform of local government in Leicestershire and the city of Leicester; [30670]

  (2) if he will ensure that the Leicestershire museums, arts and records service will be maintained as an integrated operations after the coming into effect of local government reorganisation in Leicester. [30671]
  159
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage on 27 June,Official Report, column 600.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31311]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1993–94, the Department of the Environment paid direct grants centrally to more than 400 voluntary sector organisations to the value of £28 million. In addition, indirect grant of some £2.5 billion was paid to voluntary organisations; this amount includes all grant-paid by the Department to the Housing Corporation for the support of housing associations. Voluntary sector organisations also benefitted from the task force initiative and the city challenge programme but the precise figures are unavailable.

  Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Corresponding information on contracts is not collected centrally.

  Subsidence
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department holds on the incidence of subsidence of domestic dwellings, by area; in what form the information is held; and if this information can be related to post code areas. [31926]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Building Research Establishment maintains a subsidence database, containing statistical data on subsidence damage to houses, for use in the engineering assessment of causes and remedies but this does not contain information by area. However, there is no central record of incidents of subsidence damage to houses by area. The prime holder of such information would be the member companies of the Association of British Insurers and access to their data may be limited by commercial considerations.

  My Department's research has produced small-scale maps and databases on a national grid reference and administrative area basis, which can be interpreted to assess the susceptibility to subsidence from mining, natural underground cavities and shrinkable clay formations and to landsliding. In addition, the British Geological Survey operates a ground hazard assessment service (G-HASP) which contains an assessment of the susceptibility to subsidence from various causes on a national grid reference and post code basis.

  Bell Green (Contaminated Land)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake an inquiry by his Department to ensure that the London Waste Regulation Authority has fully complied with its legal and operational responsibilities with regard to the treatment of contaminated land at the ex-gas works site, Bell green, London SE26.
  160
  Mr. Atkins
  I have received no evidence which leads me to believe that the London Waste Regulation Authority may have failed to discharge its functions under part II of the Environment Protection Act 1990 in relation to the site referred to by the hon. Member.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future development of Battersea power station; and if he will list the people and organisations with whom he has discussed this issue during the last six months. [31702]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Discussions are continuing between Wandsworth council, English Heritage and the owners, on a master plan for the whole of the Battersea power station site. The Government are not a party to those discussions, but would like to see the future development of this important site on the river Thames resolved as soon as possible.

  Capital Receipts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the level of accumulated capital receipts by each local authority. [31755]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The latest information on the level of accumulated capital receipts relates to the position at 31 March 1994. The level of receipts can be split into two components;(a) usable capital receipts and (b) amounts set aside from capital receipts as provision for credit liabilities.

  A list of the amounts of usable capital receipts held by each local authority at 31 March 1994 was placed in the Library of the House in response to the question of Thursday 9 February 1995 from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).

  In response to the question of Tuesday 28 March 1995 from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), a further list was placed in the Library of the amounts set aside by each local authority as provision for credit liabilities and not yet applied. These include amounts set aside from both capital receipts and revenue. Separate figures are not available.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the efficiency savings for the last financial year for each water company for which figures are available. [32107]

  Mr. Atkins
  As a result of efficiency savings in 1994–95, water companies announced the following benefits:

  For customers

  Water company

  Cash

  Other

  Anglian

  £12 million over 1 year

  £2 million Trust Fund

  North West

  £90 million over 5 years

  £180 million Discretionary investment

  Severn Trent

  £87 million over 4 years

  £24 million Discretionary investment

  161

  For customers

  Water company

  Cash

  Other

  Yorkshire

  £20 million over 1 year

  £125 million Discretionary investment

  Welsh

  £40 million over 4 years

  £38 million Discretionary investment

  Wessex

  nil

  £25 million Discretionary investment

  For shareholders

  Water company

  Special dividends

  Other

  North West

  £90 million over 5 years

  nil

  Severn Trent

  £87 million over 5 years

  nil

  Yorkshire

  None announced

  £50 million efficiency dividend paid by core business to support future enhanced dividend growth

  Welsh Water

  £9 million per annum in perpetuity

  Prospect of dividend growth from new base including special dividend

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the capital investment made in the last financial year for each water company for which figures are available. [32108]

  Mr. Atkins
  During 1993–94, the last full year for which information is available, capital investment made by the water industry totalled £2.9 billion. Figures for individual companies are not held centrally.

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in a) 1993–94 and b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32211]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The amount of travel claims, at current prices, paid in my Department excluding agencies, are:

  £ thousands

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Public Transport

  1,492

  1,652

  Car/bicycle mileage allowance

  383

  357

  Information on bicycle claims is not available separately.

  Radioactive Waste Management
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the results of the Government's review of radioactive waste management policy, and if he will make a statement. [32968]

  Mr. Gummer
  The final conclusions of the review are being published today in a White Paper—Cm 2919— copies of which have been placed in the Library of the 162
  House. It includes the conclusions that I have already announced ont timing of the Nirex repository and strategies for decommissioning nuclear plant—Official Report, 9 May 1995, column 425—as well as on the siting of dry stores for spent fuel, Official Report, 21 February 1995, column 146. In reaching their final conclusions, the Government have taken account of responses to the preliminary conclusions of the review, which were published in a consultation paper last August.

  The White Paper sets out the Government's conclusions on the general principles which should be applied to radioactive waste management as well as on specific policies. The primary aim throughout has been to ensure that radioactive waste, irrespective of whether it is produced by public sector or private sector operations, is properly managed and that people and the environment are not exposed to unacceptable risks either now or in the future.

  The broad policy aims have been revised and updated to emphasise the respective roles of Government, regulators and producers and owners of radioactive waste, as well as to apply the concept of sustainable development and its supporting principles. Radioactive wastes should not be unnecessarily created. Such wastes as are created must be safely and appropriately managed and treated. They must then be safely disposed of at appropriate times and in appropriate ways.

  The Environment Bill, which is currently before Parliament, contains provisions which will streamline the handling of applications to dispose of radioactive waste for nuclear licensed sites in England and Wales by making the new Environment Agency the sole authoriser, with MAFF and the Welsh Office as statutory consultees. In Scotland, Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate—to be subsumed within the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—is already the sole authoriser. The White Paper also says that developers of major projects may, if they wish, submit early applications for disposal authorisations. The regulators will then be able to decide on these before major commitments of money and effort have been made.

  The White Paper proposes that disposal to geological formations on land is the favoured option for the long-term management of vitrified high-level waste— HLW—once it has been allowed to cool. The Government are putting in hand the development of the necessary research strategy for this. In selecting a site for the disposal of HLW, the Government will take into account the recommendations in the recent report of a joint study group, drawn from members of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, RWMAC, and the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations, ACSNI, about the need for transparency of decision making and for public reassurance.

  For intermediate-level waste, ILW, the Government have decided that there would be no advantage to be gained from delaying the development of the Nirex repository and that, once a suitable site has been found, it should be constructed as soon as reasonably practicable. The precise timetable will depend on the granting of planning consent and compliance with regulatory requirements, including the establishment of a sound safety case. The Government have already promised to hold a full public inquiry into an application for the

  163
  repository itself, wherever it may be situated, and sees no reason to depart from this procedure.

  In the meantime, waste destined for the repository must continue to be safely stored. Where the demands of safety are overriding, the waste must be treated as necessary to improve storage conditions. In addition, where early treatment of the waste will secure worthwhile safety benefits, or worthwhile economic benefits without prejudicing safety, the general presumption against action which might foreclose future waste management options may be relaxed.

  In the light of the genuine anxieties expressed by local residents who feared that they might have been affected by the proposal, the Government have decided not to encourage greater use by the nuclear industry of the "controlled burial" of low-level waste, LLW, at suitable landfill sites. Nevertheless, there are sound economic and radiological grounds for controlled burial and the Government believe that it should continue to be used as a disposal route, particularly for "small users"—such as hospitals, universities, research laboratories and non-nuclear industries—subject to the agreement of the site operators and to the necessary regulatory requirements being met. The Government will issue guidance to the environment agencies on the need to consult local authorities about authorisations for controlled burial.

  The Government have adopted a policy of self-sufficiency in relation to the import and export of radioactive waste. Radioactive waste should not be imported to or exported from the UK other than in the circumstances set out in the White Paper. These recognise, among other things, that developing countries should not be precluded from taking advantage of the non-nuclear uses of radioactivity, such as medical diagnosis and treatment, because they do not have the resources to acquire suitable disposal facilities of their own. RWMAC will be asked to advise on what detailed guidance might be prepared for the regulators in implementing this policy.

  Since 1976, all BNFL's contracts for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from foreign companies have included options for the return of operational wastes to the country of origin. In line with the principle of self-sufficiency, the Government's policy remains that the options should be exercised, but they accept that this can be achieved by means of waste substitution—whereby radiologically equivalent amounts of additional HLW are returned in place of LLW and ILW, which would be retained for disposal in the UK—provided there is broad environmental neutrality for the UK. However, the Government consider it prudent not to become irrevocably committed to waste substitution in the absence of appropriate disposal arrangements within the UK. This means that BNFL may substitute for LLW now, but any arrangements it now enters into and implements with its overseas customers for the substitution of ILW must be conditional on confirming, at the time a Nirex repository receives planning permission, that waste equivalence has been properly calculated and provide for the ILW to be returned should the Nirex repository not be established by the time BNFL is contractually obliged to return the wastes.

  The White Paper is the first comprehensive statement of Government policy on radioactive waste management
  164
  for 10 years and I hope that it will be welcomed. I will form part of the guidance given by the Government to the environment agencies that are due to be established next year. It will also provide a clear policy framework for regulating the nuclear industry, which is to be restructured and partially privatised following the nuclear review.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the proportion of(a) carbon monoxide, (b) oxides of nitrogen and (c) particulate emissions which will be the product of road transport in 1995. [30123]

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer Monday 3 July 1995]: For 1995 it has been estimated that road transport will account for (a) 89 per cent. of national emissions of carbon monoxide, (b) 45 per cent. of national emissions of oxides of nitrogen and (c) 24 per cent. of national emissions of particulates.

EDUCATION

  Special Education
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has received from the secretary of the Special Educational Needs National Advisory Council, university of Liverpool; what action he intends to take; and if he will make a statement. [32328]

  Mr. Forth
  The Secretary of State has received one letter recently from the Special Educational Needs National Advisory Council—about training for special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCOs).

  The GEST programme to help local educational authorities with the costs of training teachers of children with special educational needs supports all categories of SEN training, including for SENCOs, enabling LEAs to determine the areas in which they require staff to be trained. Officials are currently undertaking a survey of LEA expenditure under the grant in the 1994–95 financial year.

  SENCO training is also available under the GEST programme for the development of school SEN policies. An evaluation of expenditure under the scheme by a sample of LEAs will be undertaken in the autumn of next year.

  A full reply will be sent to the advisory council shortly.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 497, what was the pupil:teacher ratio in grant-maintained secondary schools in January. [32182]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The provisional pupil:teacher ration in grant-maintained secondary schools in England in January 1995 was 16:2.

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will detail the amount of travel claims
  165
  at constant prices in her Department in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32180]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what responses have been received to the consultation on the purpose and future shape and size of higher education; and if she will make a statement. [32194]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am replying with the agreement of my right hon. Friends with responsibility for education in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Altogether, there have been nearly 100 responses to this consultation. I am grateful to all those who took the trouble to send us their views. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The responses indicate that, while the objectives identified in the 1963 Robbins report remain broadly valid, there is now more emphasis on higher education's role in underpinning a modern, competitive economy. Both initial and continuing higher education are seen as increasingly important for equipping the work force for higher-skilled work, for coping with change, for handling the rapid proliferation of knowledge, for meeting the challenges of scientific and technical advance and for competing on a global stage.

  A number of steps are already being taken which will bear on the responsiveness of higher education to the needs of employers and the economy as a whole. First, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is consulting in England, Wales and Northern Ireland about the introduction of higher level general vocational qualifications, GNVQs, to complement those at levels 1–3 being developed for schools and colleges. Secondly, the Government have announced a new target for 30 per cent. of the work force to have a vocational, professional, management or academic qualification at NVQ level 4 and above. There are separate comparable targets for Scotland launched last year by the Advisory Scottish Council for Education and Training Targets. Thirdly, the Government have announced that they will consult later in the year about lifelong learning at all levels. Fourthly, the Higher Education Funding Council for England is undertaking a review of postgraduate education, including one-year vocational postgraduate taught courses, for a report in the spring of next year.

  The Government will take into account the responses received and the various steps already being taken in developing their higher education policies, and intend to issue a consultative paper. It will cover recent achievements in higher education, the Government's view on the aims and purposes of higher education, an analysis of the demand for higher education as well as for graduates in the economy and the scope for enhancing higher education's response to employment needs, and it will seek views on the future size, shape, and resourcing of higher education. We intend to issue the paper towards the end of this year.
  166

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the value to the United Kingdom economy of students from aborad studying at United Kingdom higher education institutions; and what assessment she has made of the corresponding situation in other European Union countries. [32451]

  Mr. Boswell
  Recent research by the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom estimated the economic value of international higher education students in the United Kingdom at approximately £1 billion. I am not aware of any equivalent studies in other European Union countries.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to ensure that United Kingdom universities attract a fair share of well-qualified students from overseas. [32449]

  Mr. Boswell
  This Department, in conjunction with the other education departments, has recently produced a booklet entitled "Studying in the United Kingdom" which aims to let students, as well as their parents and sponsors, know more about the quality of further and higher education in the United Kingdom. The booklet is being distributed mainly by the Government-funded British Council, which also provides the education counselling service, ECS. The ECS is represented in 11 countries across the world and spends around £3.5 million each year on jointly funded projects with institutions in attracting overseas students to the UK. By 1998, it is planned to expand this service to a total of 18 countries at a cost of £5.5 million per year.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students from overseas not including European Union students come to the United Kingdom for higher education; and what is her estimate of the value to the United Kingdom economy. [32450]

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, some 60,200 students from non-European Union countries attended publicly funded higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. A recent research study commissioned by the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom estimated the economic value of all international higher education students in they United Kingdom at approximately £1 billion per annum.

  Absence (Respiratory Problems)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children under the age of 16 years missed more than 18 school days due to respiratory problems is each of the last five years; if she will provide a regional breakdown of these figures; and if she will make a statement. [31924]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Out-of-school Provision
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will provide a breakdown of the forms of provision made by each local education authority to children out of school. [31824]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally.
  167

  School Meals
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the percentage of pupils taking(a) free school meals and (b) paid for school meals in (i) grant maintained schools and (ii) local education authority schools in the most recent years. [31513]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Percentages of day pupils1 taking free and paid school meals in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  Position in January each year

  LEA maintained schools

  Grant-maintained schools

  Free

  Paid

  Free

  Paid

  1990

  11

  32

  8

  48

  1991

  12

  31

  6

  45

  1992

  14

  29

  7

  41

  1993

  16

  28

  9

  37

  1994

  18

  29

  10

  38

  1 The number of day pupils who took a school meal on the census day expressed as a percentage of the number of day pupils on roll. A substantial reason for the difference in the respective percentages of pupils eligible for free school meals is the disproportionate number of LEAs with few or no GM schools who have a relatively high proportion of pupils thus eligible.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many voluntary sector organisations her Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31313]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1993–94, 141 such organisations received a total of £5.9 million. Comparable information for 1994–95 is not yet available, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible with the figures.

EMPLOYMENT

  Incomes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average take-home pay of(a) a lone mother and (b) both adults in a two-parent family with dependent children. [31590]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It is estimated from the winter 1994 labour force survey that the take-home pay for a lone mother, excluding benefits, is approximately £128 per week and the combined take-home pay, excluding benefits, of both adults in a two-parent family with dependent children is £357 per week.

  Benefits
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of children aged 18 years or under were dependent on people claiming unemployment benefit in(a) York, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) Yorkshire and Humberside and (d) England in each year since 1979. [31604]
  168
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on those aged 18 and under who are dependent on people claiming unemployment-related benefits is available from the labour force survey for England and Yorkshire and Humberside and for 1992–1994 is shown. Information for 1979–1983 is not available and for 1984–1991 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dependent children aged 18 and under whose head of family is claiming unemployment related benefits1 (spring each year, not seasonally adjusted)

  England

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Thousands

  Per cent2

  Thousands

  Per cent.2

  1992

  1,122

  10

  129

  11

  1993

  1,219

  11

  127

  10

  1994

  1,146

  10

  119

  0

  Notes:

  1 Unemployment benefit, income support and national insurance credits.

  2 Percentage of all dependent children aged 18 or under.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Training
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of people aged under 21 years are on Government-supported training schemes in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England. [31591]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is given in the table. Information for those on Government training programmes is not available for York. Information on the age of trainees is not available for all programmes, so the table covers youth training only. The latest available information on the numbers on YT is for March 1995. As the latest information on the population aged under 21 years of age is for mid-year 1994, YT figures for June 1994 are also given.

  Youth training and population aged 16–20: Table 1

  North Yorkshire TEC

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  England

  On YT (all ages) in March 1995

  2,900

  20,700

  227,000

  On YT (all ages) in June 1994

  2,580

  23,000

  217,200

  On YT in June 1994 as percentage of population aged 16–20 mid-year projection

  16

  18

  18

  Note:

  YT all ages figure will include a small number aged 21 and over.

  Sources:

  TEC Operating Agreement.

  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  1per cent.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people aged under 21 years leaving Government-supported training schemes in the past 12 months(a) obtained a recognised NVQ and (b) obtained a full-time job in the field for which they trained in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England. [31592]
  169
  Mr. Paice
  Information on the age of trainees is not available for all programmes, so the information provided covers youth training only. The latest 12 months for which information is available is for September 1993 to August 1994 leavers. The percentage of people leaving YT during this period who obtained a qualification or credit towards one is 49 per cent. for North Yorkshire training and enterprise council (TEC), 52 per cent. for Yorkshire and Humberside and 52 per cent. for England. Information is not available for York. Information is not separately available at present for recognised national vocational qualifications.

  The percentage of people leaving YT between September 1993 and August 1994 who had obtained a full-time job in a field closely related to that in which they received training is given in the table. Regional and TEC level information is not available.

  Percentage of those who trained in each occupational area and who got a full-time job, where that job was in an occupational area closely related to their training

  Youth Training England September 1993 to August 1994 leavers

  Percentage

  Science and engineering professions

  11

  Sport/creative/artistic work

  n/a

  Secretarial work

  13

  Engineering work

  25

  Vehicle trades, transport workers and drivers

  33

  Printing/woodworking work

  15

  Cooking/food preparation etc.

  39

  Security work/police/HM forces

  n/a

  Hairdressing/beautician work

  69

  Sales work, buying and sales representatives

  26

  Industrial plant machine work and assembly

  15

  Nursing and medical technicians

  n/a

  Clerical work

  24

  Building/construction work

  32

  Metal forming, welding and related trades

  n/a

  Making textiles and clothing

  34

  Health and childcare work

  15

  Farming, fishing or gardening work

  18

  Other elementary work

  18

  Note:

  n/a-not available due to the low number of responses.

  Source:

  YT follow-up survey.

  Merseyside TEC
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many places are provided by Merseyside TEC on the Jacuzzi course; and what is the cost per place; [31485]

  (2) what arrangements are in place to monitor the success of the Jacuzzi course provided by Merseyside TEC; how many people have to date completed the Jacuzzi course provided by Merseyside TEC; and what assessment he has made of whether the course is an appropriate use of the training budget; [31487]

  (3) what course fees or other payments are paid to Mr. Keith Elliott, course leader of the jacuzzi course, by Merseyside TEC, and to the Liverpool Moat House hotel for providing a venue for the course. [31486]

  Mr. Paice
  In February 1995, Merseyside training and enterprise council piloted a three-day course aimed at building up the motivation and confidence of long-term 170
  unemployed people. The course was designed to prepare them for entry on to a training for work programme by giving practical and positive advice on how to retrain and seek employment. The eight people who completed this course went on to further training, with six gaining work-related qualifications and one obtaining a work placement. The qualifications gained will be valuable, in helping them secure employment.

  On the strength of the success of this pilot course, Merseyside TEC contracted with John Moores university to deliver a further three-day course commencing 20 June 1995. Fourteen people completed this course and a similar evaluation of the longer-term benefits is currently under way.

  The Department contracts with the TECs for the provision of training. TECs are private sector companies and details of the financial arrangements that they make with subcontractors to organise and deliver training are commercial-in-confidence and not part of the Department's contract.

  Through the Government office for Merseyside, the Department has in place regular monitoring arrangements to ensure Merseyside TECs delivery of its programmes, meets the quality standards laid down in its contract.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds were in full-time employment in(a) York, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) Yorkshire and Humberside and (d) England in each year since 1979. [31605]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is shown in the table:

  Person aged 16 to 18 years old in full-time employment in Great Britain: spring of each year

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  England

  Level (000)

  As percentage of total

  Level (000)

  As percentage of total

  1984

  87

  37

  786

  35

  1985

  94

  40

  807

  37

  1986

  79

  35

  786

  36

  1987

  80

  36

  778

  37

  1988

  82

  39

  819

  40

  1989

  59

  28

  624

  31

  1990

  55

  28

  527

  28

  1991

  44

  23

  404

  22

  1992

  38

  20

  300

  17

  1993

  30

  17

  225

  17

  1994

  30

  17

  218

  13

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Note:

  Information prior to 1992 has not yet been re-weighted to take account of OPCS revised population estimates and hence there is a dis-continuity in the series between 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many students have worked or are working(a) full-time and (b) part-time in the food service industry for the year from summer 1994 to summer 1995. [31706]
  171
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 30 June 1995]: There are no students working full time in the food service industry. The number of students working part-time in this industry in Great Britain for the five quarters to winter 1994–95 is as follows

  Number of students working part-time in the food service industry in Great Britain (000s)

  Number

  Winter 1993–94

  121

  Spring 1994

  133

  Summer 1994

  120

  Autumn 1994

  118

  Winter 1994–95

  123

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey—not seasonally adjusted.

  Trichloroethylene
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for banning trichloroethylene. [31654]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are no current plans to prohibit the manufacture or use of trichloroethylene.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fatal cases there have been in each of the last 10 years from the use or inhalation of trichloroethylene. [31655]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive records the number of fatalities in workplaces in which trichloroethylene is implicated. The information on its database is shown in the table:

  Year

  Incidents

  1985

  nil

  1986

  nil

  1987

  nil

  1988

  1

  1989

  nil

  1990

  1

  1991

  nil

  1992

  1

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  Workplace Accidents (Children)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 384, what plans he has to undertaken an assessment as to the reliability of surveys and official statistics collated and published by his Department, on accidents at work which involve school-age children. [31714]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Statistics collected by the Health and Safety Executive give a reliable indication of trends.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will detail the criteria followed by the Health and Safety Executive when deciding whether to prosecute in cases of accidents at work which involve school-age children.
  172
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive investigates information or complaints concerning the employment of children from local authority child employment officers or any other source. If children are found to be working illegally the employer is told to dismiss the children and their employment is terminated at once. When deciding whether to prosecute, HSE considers the gravity of the offence, the general record and approach of the offender, the deterrent effect and whether the evidence available provides a realistic prospect of conviction.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will investigate the decision taken by the senior Birmingham inspector of the Health and Safety Executive not to prosecute the European African Trading Company for serious breaches of child labour legislation when requested to do so by the Birmingham education authority child employment department. [31715]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In August 1994, staff of the Health and Safety Executive's west midlands area office investigated a complaint from Birmingham education authority child employment department about the employment of school-age children. Insufficient evidence was found to support that complaint.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will detail the powers of entry available to investigating and enforcement officers of the Health and Safety Executive(a) in all cases and (b) in those cases with which involve school-age children. [31713]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Section 20(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 gives Health and Safety Executive inspectors the power to enter premises at any reasonable time, or at any time in a situation which is or may be dangerous, where there is reason to believe that it is necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect any of the relevant statutory provisions within the field of responsibility of the enforcing authority. That applies to all premises for which HSE is the enforcing authority.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 384, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current system whereby an employer may choose to report an accident at work involving a school-age child either to the Health and Safety Executive or to the local education authority. [31717]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 require employers to notify forthwith the appropriate enforcing authority, for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, in the event of an accident to any person of any age arising out of or in connection with work and resulting in a fatality or major injury. Accidents at work to employees of all ages resulting in an absence of more than three days must be reported within seven days.

  Employers do not have a choice of enforcing authority. The enforcing authority will be either the Health and Safety Executive or the local authority for the area and is determined by the nature of the main activity undertaken on the site concerned, according to the provisions of the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989.
  173

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from TECs on the length of the TEC operating agreement; and what are their main concerns. [31823]

  Mr. Paice
  I meet regularly with representatives of training and enterprise councils and I am aware of their concerns about the length and content of the TEC operating agreement. The agreement is necessary for proper stewardship of public funds and is reviewed annually.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many TECs(a) are currently financially viable (b) are in the low-risk band under financial appraisal and monitoring, (c) are delivering the YT guarantee, (d) are recognised as an investor in people and (e) have an operational business link; and how many meet all five of these requirements. [31752]

  Mr. Paice
  Of the training and enterprise councils in England the information is as follows:

  (a) Financial Viability

  All 74 TECs are assessed as being financially viable.

  (b) Financial Appraisal and Monitoring Risk Bands

  73 TECs were assessed as being low risk at the end of March 1995. One was assessed as medium risk.

  (c) Youth Training Guarantee

  All TECs deliver the YT guarantee as part of their contractual requirements.

  (d) Investors in People

  50 TECs are currently recognised as Investors in People.

  (e) Business Links

  There are 107 business link outlets covering 34 TEC areas.

  Twenty seven TECs satisfy all five requirements.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all training providers contracted to Hampshire training and enterprise councils at 1 January in each of the past five years and in each case the number of training places provided. [31842]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is not available in the format requested. Training and enterprise councils are private companies and as such are not required to provide this Department with such information. It is for TECs to decide how they contract with their training providers in order to deliver their contract to the Department. It is up to individual TECs to provide such information direct to hon. Members.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial tribunal cases were considered since 1979, by region; and how many resulted in a verdict of unfair dismissal. [32312]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of industrial tribunal cases in all jurisdictions considered at a hearing, by region, since 1986 is shown in the table. The number of successful unfair dismissal cases is also shown.174

  Region (England andWales)

  Number of cases heard (1986–1995)

  Number of successful unfair dismissal cases

  Bedford

  8,282

  2,284

  Birmingham

  10,920

  2,593

  Bristol

  8,001

  1,788

  Cardiff

  7,825

  1,466

  Leeds

  13,227

  3,204

  London North

  14,143

  2,665

  London South

  14,237

  3,374

  Manchester

  17,735

  4,490

  Newcastle

  6,609

  1,551

  Nottingham

  7,960

  1,922

  Southampton

  9,633

  2,376

  Scotland

  15,357

  3,808

  The raw data for individual regions are no longer available for 1985–86, but the aggregated figures for Great Britain for that year are as follows:

  Number of cases heard: 13,357

  Number of successful unfair dismissal cases: 3,229

  Prior to 1985–86, the Department published selected statistics only, and then not on a regular annual basis.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each training and enterprise council its budget for 1995–96. [31711]

  Mr. Paice
  The budgets of individual training and enterprise councils are treated as commercial in confidence between the Department and TECs until the autumn, while TECs complete their negotiations with providers of training.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 282, how the degree of hazard and risk posed to employees and the public is measured if the Health and Safety Executive does not specifically identify high-risk and low-risk premises. [32316]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Health and Safety Executive inspectors use their professional judgement to assess the degree of hazard and risk posed to employees and the public when they visit premises. In the field operations division, this assessment is formalised in the inspection rating system referred to in my answer to the hon. Member on 21 June 1995,Official Report, column 282.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimated health and safety inspector time, in hours, has been spent(a) to date and (b) is planned, in preparing the consultative document, "The Role and Status of Approved Codes of Practice". [32314]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  During the preparation of the consultative document, on "The Role and Status of Approved Codes of Practice", which was published on 14 March 1995, all divisions of the Health and Safety Executive were consulted about its content and accuracy. The divisions contain inspectors engaged in both operational and policy work, some of whom contributed to the development of the consultative document. However, hours spent on this work and the grades of
  175
  personnel involved were not recorded and cannot now be estimated. Most of the work done in the preparation of the document was carried out by administrative staff.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 281, what he estimates the final cost of undertaking the current review of the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division to be. [32315]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The current review of the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division will need to take account of the report of the senior management review of the Employment Department group which is being undertaken to follow up the White Paper "Continuity and Change" published last summer. That review is still in progress. It is not possible to anticipate the implications for the field operations division review, or its final cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total value of the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division training budget. [32376]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The training budget for 1995–96 administered by the field operations division is £678,380. This excludes costs of training for FOD staff provided by the Health and Safety Executive's central training management unit which in 1994–95 amounted to £1,191,165.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total value of the Health and Safety Executive's information technology budget. [32319]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The total value of the Health and Safety Executive's information technology budget for 1995–96 is £9,565,000.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ask the Secretary of State for Education to instruct local education authorities to submit annual accident returns to the Health and Safety Executive. [31761]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 30 June 1995]: The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 currently require employers, including local education authorities, to notify forthwith the appropriate enforcing authority, for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, in the event of an accident to any person arising out of or in connection with work and resulting in a fatality or major injury. Accidents at work to employees resulting in an absence of more than three days must be reported within seven days. For local education authorities the enforcing authority in all cases will be the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instruct the Health and Safety Executive to prosecute when it is requested to do so by local authority child employment officers. [31762]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 30 June 1995]: The Health and Safety Executive investigates information or complaints concerning the employment of children from local authority child employment officers or any other source. If children are found to be working illegally the employer is told to dismiss the children and their
  176
  employment is terminated at once. When deciding whether to prosecute, HSE considers the gravity of the offence, the general record and approach of the offender, the deterrent effect and whether the evidence available provides a realistic prospect of conviction.

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32212]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not held centrally and cannot be provided without disproportionate cost. The total amount of travel and subsistence claims paid by the Employment Department group in 1993–94 was £21,498,330 and in 1994–95 was £20,6111,190.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 286, on the introduction of jobseeker's allowance, if claimants participating in courses not funded by the Further Education Funding Council, including European social fund courses and non-schedule 2 courses, will continue to be able to participate in up to 21 hours per week of supervised study. [32334]

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not the case that the current rules allow unemployed people claiming benefits to study for up to 21 hours a week in all circumstances. The rules allow part-time study. Decisions on whether a course is part-time or full-time are made by independent adjudication officers applying the legislation. This will be carried forward into jobseeker's allowance. In the particular case of courses funded by the Further Education Funding Council the new rule for JSA will be that courses of over 16 guided learning hours per week will be classed as full-time. This rule change will not apply to non-schedule 2 courses or courses part-funded by the European social fund which are not also funded by the FEFC or to higher education where the rules will continue to specify "part-time".

  International Labour Organisation
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions the person responsible for auditing the accounts of the International Labour Organisation has declined to sign them in the last 10 years. [32398]

  Miss Widdecombe
  At no time in the last 10 years has the external auditor declined to sign the accounts.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who was appointed and when to audit the accounts of the International Labour Organisation. [32399]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The UK National Audit Office was first appointed as external auditor of the International Labour Organisation in 1978 and was reappointed in March 1995 for a further four years from April 1996.
  177

  Social Affairs Council
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Social Affairs Council held on 29 June. [32748]

  Mr. Portillo
  I attended the Social Affairs Council on 29 June in Luxembourg. I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Two proposed directives were discussed: the draft posted workers directive and a draft directive amending an existing health and safety directive on the use of work equipment. In addition, the agenda included items on the Commission's new social action programme, the follow-up to the employment conclusions of the Essen European Council, proposed programmes on poverty and on Community support for older people, a resolution on older workers and council conclusions on the quality of vocational training.

  There was a brief discussion of the posted workers directive. As at previous Councils, however, no agreement was reached and the dossier was passed to the Spanish presidency.

  Political agreement was reached on the draft amending directive on the use of work equipment. The presidency text on which agreement was reached represents a considerable improvement over the more prescriptive proposal originally put forward. Agreement was reached unanimously, with the UK and Italy abstaining.

  There was an informal exchange of views on the Commission's new social action programme. My hon. Friend the Minister of State welcomed the programme's recognition that tackling structural unemployment and creating new jobs should be the first priority for the Community's social policy but regretted that the programme none the less proposed more unnecessary and burdensome employment legislation. No formal conclusions were reached.

  There was a discussion but no agreement on the proposed new poverty programme and on the programme for older people. A resolution on older workers was agreed and Council conclusions on the quality of vocational training were agreed in principle.

  The Spanish Minister and Commissioner Flynn outlined the work they proposed during the Spanish presidency to follow up the Essen conclusions. The presidency reported on progress with the draft directive amending the acquired rights directive.

DEFENCE

  National Parks (Live Ammunition)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps he will take to protect the public enjoying the national parks for recreational purposes from dangers of unexploded live ammunition. [30560]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department will continue to warn the public of the dangers associated with military training areas, including those which fall within national parks. Although training areas are well defined and warning notices are placed at main access points, we are constantly looking for ways to improve further the safety of the public.
  178

  Naval Refits
  Mr Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances British shipyards will be invited to tender for the refit of Hunt and Sandown class minehunters. [30570]

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the policy set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 24 June 1993, British shipyards may be invited to tender for individual refits within the allocated programme should circumstances dictate such a need. Such circumstances might include operational factors, the needs of other vessels or failure to agree a fair and reasonable price with a royal dockyard company.

  BMARC
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the role of his Department's police in the BMARC case. [30571]

  Mr. Soames
  The role of Ministry of Defence police was to investigate allegations of corruption concerning employees of the Astra group of companies.

  Cadet Forces
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve and enlarge the cadet forces; and what account he takes of their contribution towards(a) good citizenship and (b) service recruiting. [30572]

  Mr. Soames
  I strongly support the work of the cadet forces, which help very many young people to develop into good citizens. We are pleased that some of them go on to join the services.

  European Procurement
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on European procurement. [30573]

  Mr. Freeman
  Our procurement policy is based on securing value for money through open competition. European manufactures may bid competitively for the majority of UK defence equipment needs. The UK actively pursues collaboration with our European allies.

  Tornadoes (Compensation Claim)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on compensation by Airwork for damage to F-3 Tornados at RAF St. Athan. [30574]

  Mr. Freeman
  The extent, nature and supporting evidence for the Department's claim have been notified to Bricom. Formal lodgment claim with the company will be made later this year
  Whether or not specific legal action has to be taken will depend on the company's response to the claim.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size and cost of the British defence force contribution in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [30575]
  179
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British forces in Bosnia. [30580]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently some 4,400 British troops in the former Yugoslavia as part of UNPROFOR. More than 4,000 additional troops from 24 Airmobile Brigade are on standby to deploy shortly. The cost to date, as at 31 March 1995, of our contribution to UNPROFOR is some £224,000,000. The estimated cost for the currents financial year is in the region of £130,000,000. This figure does not include the cost of deploying 24 Airmobile Brigade as the modalities of funding are still the subject of discussion. In accordance with long established arrangements, my Department recovers these costs from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which in turn seeks reimbursement from the UN.

  Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the prospects of concluding a comprehensive test ban treaty for nuclear weapons. [30576]

  Mr. Freeman
  It should be possible to conclude negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty by the end of 1996. Her Majesty's Government will continue to work actively for that end.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to accelerate the transfer of redundant married quarters and other residential accommodation to civilian use. [30578]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has accepted a target to dispose of 4,000 surplus married quarters by the summer of 1996. It has been agreed that properties identified for sale, but on which no sale is in progress after six months, will be auctioned.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many homes were owned at 1 April by his Department or the armed services; and how many were unoccupied on that date in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside, (iv) England and (v) elsewhere. [31586]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 31 March, the latest date for which figures are available, my Department owned the following dwellings:

  Stock

  Vacant

  York

  530

  100

  North Yorkshire

  4,382

  538

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,243

  776

  England

  53,789

  10,298

  Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  20,249

  2,931

  Of the vacant properties, five in York, 68 in North Yorkshire, 161 in Yorkshire and Humberside, 2,947 in England and 289 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were in the process of being sold.

  Many of the remaining vacant properties were undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work, held for unit deployments, already allotted to families due to move
  180
  in shortly or formed part of the management margin needed to ensure that accommodation is available for entitled service families.

  Conference on Disarmament, Geneva
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's ambassador to the conference on disarmament in Geneva; and if he will make a statement. [30579]

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials from my Department are in regular contact with the UK delegation to the conference on disarmament.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to review the United Kingdom's moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land mines which was announced in July 1994. [30581]

  Mr. Freeman
  The moratorium introduced in July 1994 was reviewed and extended in March of this year. It now prohibits the export of non-self-destruct and non-detectable anti-personnel mines to any country, and the export of any type of anti-personnel mine to countries which have not ratified the UN Weaponry Convention. It will be kept under review, particularly in the light of the forthcoming UN weaponry convention review conference, and of the UK-US proposals for a land mine control programme.

  Coulport and Faslane
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians are employed at the establishments at Coulport and Faslane. [30582]

  Mr. Freeman
  As at 1 April 1995, there were approximately 1,500 civilian staff employed at RNAD Coulport and some 2,000 at CSB Faslane.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to amend specific answers to parliamentary questions tabled on matters relating to arms exports with particular reference to weapons contractors. [30583]

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on BMARC, Departments have as a prudent measure, started to research some associated areas of defence exports to Singapore. It is too early to draw even tentative conclusions. Any evidence of illegal activity will of course be brought immediately to the attention of Customs and Excise, the independent prosecuting authority for its consideration.

  Nuclear Weapons Testing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his French colleagues on testing of nuclear weapons. [30584]

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has discussed nuclear testing with the French Defence Minister, most recently at their meeting on 27 June.
  181
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart concerning the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [30577]

  Mr. Freeman
  The negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty was one of the wide range of defence matters that my right hon. and learned Friend discussed with Mr. Millon when they met last week.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for further scientific collaboration with the United States of America on nuclear warhead testing. [32414]

  Mr. Freeman
  We plan to continue to cooperate closely with the US over a wide range of nuclear technical matters, including alternatives to nuclear weapon testing, which will be necessary under a comprehensive test ban treaty.

  RAF Air Crew (Self-authorising Status)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of Royal Air Force air crew hold self-authorising status; what is the lowest rank of officer authorised to grant such status; and what instructions are given to those with the power to grant such status, concerning the criteria to be adopted in granting this status. [31337]

  Mr. Soames
  The authority to grant self-authorising status is determined by appointment, not rank, and is vested in station commanders who, in most instances, are group captains. Instructions governing the granting of such status are contained in chapter 12 of the Queen's regulations for the Royal Air Force and orders issued by the command authority. The number and rank of officers holding this status is dependent on operational and training requirements and thus subject to constant revision. Consequently, no central records are kept and such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  UN Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days service on UN peacekeeping activities were carried out by United Kingdom military personnel in 1994. [31507]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not recorded centrally. The number of United Kingdom personnel involved in peacekeeping operations as at the end of each month in 1994 was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  January

  2,642

  February

  2,576

  March

  3,233

  April

  3,901

  May

  3,880

  June

  4,106

  July

  3,668

  August

  4,315

  September

  4,082

  October

  4,445

  November

  3,857

  December

  3,820

  182
  In addition, some 3,500 personnel were engaged throughout the year in operations in support of UN Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom military personnel were engaged on UN peacekeeping operations in each year since 1965. [31508]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally.

  War Graves
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what charge is currently made to spouses for photographs of graves of United Kingdom service men and women killed in action in the far east; and if he will make it his policy that his Department covers or waives the charge made to spouses for such photographs; [31413]

  (2) he will commission an inquiry into the charges made to the spouses of service men and women killed in action in the far east for photographs of the graves of such service personnel. [31414]

  Mr. Soames
  Although my Department does not charge the spouses of service men and women killed in action for photographs of the graves, we understand that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does charge a nominal fee for such photographs. As an independent body created by royal charter and funded by the Commonwealth countries for which it maintains war graves, this is a matter for the commission.

  Argentina (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received from the Argentinian Government about the possible sale of C130-Ks; and if he will make a statement. [32106]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has received no such representations. The UK embargo on defence sales to Argentina would not permit such a sale.

  Music Training
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what areas are covered by those taking courses in higher music training; and what is the average length of each course. [32218]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the content and length of higher music training courses provided by the three services are as follows:

  Royal Marines:

  (1) Bugler 1 course

  Duration: Five weeks—includes one week of examinations.

  Content: Elements-to grade 8, aural and conducting.

  (2) Musician 1 course

  Duration: Eight weeks—includes one week of examinations.

  Contents: Elements—to grade 8, conducting, history, harmony to GCSE standards, aural, scoring, course projects and viva voce—all subject matter covered on the course.

  (3) Bandmaster course

  Duration: 52 weeks.

  Contents: Aural—minimum A-level standard to degree level, vocationally related, harmony and composition, scoring, history

  183
  and analysis, bandmastership, elements—to advanced degree level, extended composition, conducting and viva voce.

  (4) Foreign and Commonwealth students course

  Duration: 10 weeks—includes one week of examinations.

  Content: As for the standard musician 1 course.

  Army

  (1) Band sergeants course

  Duration: From 14 weeks to 44 weeks depending on individual's music ability.

  Content: Instrumental skills, aural, perception (introductory); musical theory techniques; orchestration techniques (introductory); band ceremonial drill.

  (2) Band sergeant majors course

  Duration: Four weeks.

  Content: Perform as an accomplished instrumentalist; carry out supervisory management; carry out band administration; learn to conduct ensembles.

  (3) Bandmasters course

  Duration: Three years.

  Content: Instruction in instrumental studies; advanced orchestration; advanced history of music; direct a marching band; conduct various ensembles; compositional techniques; keyboard harmony; advanced aural perception; direct church music; present a concert; administer a band.

  (4) Passed school of music

  Duration: Five weeks.

  Content: Demonstrate aural perception, arrange for small orchestra; arrange for any prescribed ensemble; present a tattoo project; demonstrate general musical/administrative knowledge.

  Royal Air Force

  RAF music services offer a part-time based course which divided into five graded levels by rank and each module consists of the following subject areas: drill; instrumental performance; aural studies; orchestration; harmony and counterpoint; history and conducting.

  Dog Training
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for each service, how many centres are involved in dog training and where are they located; what is the estimate of the cost of each centre in the current year; and for each centre how many dogs are estimated to be trained in the current year. [32219]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Animal Centre under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. H. Roache to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 3 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question regarding the training of dogs.
  Following recent rationalisation, the Canine Wing of the Defence Animal Centre, located at Melton Mowbray in Leicestershire, is the only centre involved in the training of dogs for the Armed Forces. It is also able to train dogs and handlers for other government departments. The cost of running the centre in the current year 1995–96 is estimated to be £6.85m which covers cash running costs as well as notional costs for all activities. The cost of canine activities alone is obviously less. It is estimated that 556 dogs will be trained in the current year.
  I hope you find this information useful.
  184

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32213]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Accounts Agency, who is at present seeking the information requested and will write to the hon. Member shortly with as much as is available. I shall arrange for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Wrongful Dismissal
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what were the legal costs of his Department in each of the last five years for claims of wrongful dismissal. [32097]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: The information requested is not held centrally. The legal costs of wrongful dismissals could be provided only from records in the Treasury Solicitor's department, once my Department had identified all such cases to them. This could only be done at disproportionate cost and could cover only the last three years, since before that date the Treasury Solicitor did not charge Departments for his services. If the hon. Lady wishes to write to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence with details of the particular category of information is needed, my noble Friend will be happy to consider the matter further.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards direct line telephone contact between the Contributions Agency and members of the public; and what measures he has taken to ensure that public inquiries are dealt with quickly and efficiently; [31040]

  (2) what impact the business unit analysis restructuring exercise will have upon the number of local offices of the Contributions Agency; [31038]

  (3) what steps he has taken to maintain standards of service to the general public provided by the Contributions Agency in light of the business unit analysis restructuring exercise. [31039]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Nicholas Brown, dated 3 July 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about the operation of the Agency. I have been asked to reply to your questions about the restructuring of the Agency's Field Offices and the steps taken to maintain standards of service, and about telephone contact between the Agency and members of the public. In view of the nature of the questions I have combined the responses.

  185
  In 1991 the Agency obtained Ministerial approval to move towards a Field network of some 184 Field Offices supported by 90 Inspector outstations. Current research has shown that there is a need to match more closely Contributions Agency outlets to customer locations. Information has been obtained about density of businesses, density of population and locations of the self-employed. This information has been incorporated into the design of the new network; which will consist of around 100–115 locations; comprising 70–75 Field Offices and 30–40 Inspector outstations. This number of locations is similar to the number used by other Revenue collecting organisations dealing with similar operations.
  The proposed changes take account of research among customers which shows, in general, that they prefer to make contact by telephone or correspondence. The latest independent Customer Satisfaction Survey undertaken in November and December 1994 shows that 65% of the Agency's customers prefer to contact the Agency by telephone. This is also in line with the experience of other Revenue collecting bodies. The new network of offices will be supported by a fully integrated telephone system providing easier access for the customer to all parts of the Agency. The Agency's change programme includes installation of Information Technology systems which will improve response times for customers and enable quicker processing of work within local offices.
  As at present, customers who are unable to call at proposed outlets or who call at a DSS office which does not have a CA presence will be dealt with either by appointment by CA staff or by Benefits Agency staff under the terms of the National Service Statement.
  Staff in CA Field Operations will continue to provide a service to the business community advising them about how to operate the National Insurance scheme. This role will be further enhanced in the new organisation with increased emphasis on education and awareness about all aspects of National Insurance.
  Communication with customers and the business community will be ongoing to ensure that all those affected by the changes are kept informed and continue to receive an efficient service from the Agency.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. If I can be of any further assistance please let me know.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many local offices are proposed under the current restructuring proposals of the Contributions Agency; and how many people will, on average, be served by each office; [31240]

  (2) what commitments under the citizens charter apply to the service provided by the Contributions Agency; and what account has been taken of these in the proposed restructuring; [31242]

  (3) when he expects to lay before Parliament plans for restructuring the Contributions Agency; [31241]

  (4) how many local offices of the Contributions Agency currently exist; and how many people are, on average, currently served by each office. [31239]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. John Denham, dated 3 July 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency and the National Insurance (NI) scheme. I have been asked to reply to your questions about the numbers of local offices, the current restructuring proposals and our commitments under the Citizens's Charter. In view of the nature of the questions I have combined the responses.
  186
  In 1991 the Agency obtained Ministerial approval to move towards a Field network of some 184 Field Offices supported by 90 Inspector outstations. There are currently 267 Field locations. The Agency maintains over 60 million individual contributors accounts, and deals with over 1.2 million employers and 2.4 million self-employed people. Figures of the number of customers currently served by each location are not kept, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The number of staff currently employed varies considerably between locations from 4 or 5 in some outstations to over 50 in some offices which have already successfully consolidated their operations in one location.
  Current research has shown that there is a need to match more closely Contributions Agency outlets to customer locations. Information has been obtained about density of businesses, density of population and locations of the self-employed. This information has been incorporated into the design of the new network which will consist of 9 Regional units outside London, each containing roughly equal numbers of businesses and population. London will be served by 3 Regional units. There will be around 100–115 locations, comprising 70–75 Field Offices and 30–40 Inspector outstations. This number of locations is similar to the number used by other Revenue collecting organisations dealing with similar operations. The exact number of locations has yet to be finalised and it is not possible to give an average figure of the number of people to be served by each location, but overall the effect will be to move to larger numbers which will allow staff to be used more flexibility to meet customer needs and to develop their specialised functional skills and expertise more fully. The locations have been chosen to combine the business needs of the Agency with those of the customer.

  The Agency is fully committed to the Citizen's Charter principle and its standards of service are laid down in the Agency's Contributor's and Employer's Charters. These are:

  —to reply to complaints sent to the Chief Executive within 10 days

  —to respond to enquiries within 10 days

  —to reply to a request for a visit within one week and then visit within the next two weeks

  —to keep waiting time at our reception points to a maximum of 30 minutes

  —to arrange customer appointments within two weeks

  The changes proposed by the restructuring take account of research among customers which shows, in general, that they prefer to make contact by telephone or correspondence. This is also in line with the experience of other Revenue collecting bodies. The latest Customer Satisfaction Survey undertaken in November and December 1994 shows that 65% of the Agency's customers prefer to contact the Agency by telephone. The new network of offices will be supported by a fully integrated telephone system providing easier access for the customer to all parts of the Agency. The Agency's change programme includes installation of information technology systems which will improve response times for customers and enable quicker processing of work within local offices.

  As at present, customers who are unable to call at proposed outlets or who call at a DSS office which does not have a CA presence will be dealt with either by appointment by CA staff or by Benefits Agency staff under the terms of the National Service Statement. Implementation of the proposed changes within the Agency will result in an improved service provided by Field offices.

  Changes within the Contributions Agency which may impact on customer groups and staff are only introduced after careful consideration of representations received. As re-organisation of a Next Steps Agency is an operational matter this falls within my delegated authority as Chief Executive, I understand that the Secretary of State has no plans to lay the Contributions Agency's restructuring proposals before Parliament.

  I hope you will find this reply helpful. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
  187
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the role played by the local field officers of the Contributions Agency in monitoring the state of the informal economy and ensuring local employers implement properly the national insurance system. [31116]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 3 July1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the National Insurance (NI) scheme. I have been asked to reply to your question about the monitoring role played by the Agency's local field officers.
  The Agency is responsible for ensuring compliance with the law on NI matters. To achieve this, NI inspectors, based in our Field Operations local offices, carry out surveys and educational visits to employers to ensure correct administration of the NI scheme. The Secretary of State sets a target for the number of surveys to be undertaken each year. There is currently a re-structuring exercise within our Field Operations which enhances the educational role played by the Agency with increased emphasis on education and awareness of the scheme, the intention being to help our customers "get it right first time".
  Proposals for the future include the setting up of dedicated teams specifically to investigate aspects of the informal economy.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

  Social Fund
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the monthly amount and (b) the total amount of (i) community care grants and (ii) crisis loans in the (1) Paisley, North and (2) Paisley, South parliamentary constituencies which resulted from the flood of December 1994; if he will show in respect of community care grants the average amount awarded to claimants in each constituency, and in respect of crisis loans (A) the average amount and (B) the average weekly repayment which is sought from claimants in each constituency; and if he will make a statement. [31408]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the Social Fund is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 3 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Community Care Grant (CCG) and Crisis Loan (CL) applications received by the Benefits Agency from people affected by the flooding in the Paisley North and Paisley South constituencies.
  I should first of all point out that constituency and Benefits Agency (BA) District boundaries do not correspond exactly. Paisley North and Paisley South constituencies are served by the BA District of Renfrew. The information is therefore given for this District.
  Information relating to the average weekly repayment of CLs made is not readily available. It could only be obtained by examining every loan award made to the flood victims. In general, if an applicant has no commitments then the repayment rate for a loan is normally 15% of the amount of the Income Support applicable in an individual case. This is intended to ensure both that the repayment rate is appropriate to an applicant's individual
  188
  circumstances, and that the loan is repaid in the shortest reasonable time. It is also intended to prevent the repayments being too high or going on for too long. However, if the applicant has commitments or debts, rates of 10% or 5% may be applied and even lower rates may be used in extreme cases. Full regard is taken of the applicant's income and any existing commitments when decisions on the rate of repayment are made.
  At Annex A I have provided information on the total and average amounts of CCG and CL awards made in the District as at 31 January 1995. After this date only one other application was received from a victim of the flood. The application was made in June and resulted in a CCG award of £869.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Annex A: Details of community care grant and crisis loan awards made by Renfrew district as at 31 January 1995

  District

  Benefit type

  Number of awards

  Amount awarded £

  Average award £

  Renfrew

  Community care grant

  424

  80,951

  190.92

  Crisis loans

  99

  13,159

  132.92

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent consideration he has given the operation of the social fund review process. [32852]

  Mr. Evans
  I am pleased to announce that an improvement to the social fund review process will be made and will take effect from 4 September 1995. The change is designed to streamline the stages of the first tier of the social fund review procedures and will improve the speed and the efficiency with which cases are handled within the Benefits Agency district offices.

  Applicants will, of course, continue to retain the right of an independent review by a social fund inspector.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of children aged 18 years or under were living in families dependent on(a) income support or supplementary benefit and (b) family credit in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England in each year since 1979. [31584]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Such information as is available is set out in the tables. Income support data for York cannot be provided. Reliable data for North Yorkshire is available only from 1993 following an increase in the sample size. Information for the statistical region of Yorkshire and Humberside is only available from 1991. Family credit data cannot be provided for the specified regions.

  Number of dependents in families in receipt of income support in North Yorkshire and Yorkshire and Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  May 1991

  —

  252,000

  May 1992

  —

  269,000

  May 1993

  20,000

  286,000

  May 1994

  22,000

  287,000

  Notes:

  See table 1 for notes:

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Local Authority Tables Annual/Quarterly Enquiries May 1991-May 1994.
  189

  Year

  Number of dependants in families in receipt of Supplementary Benefit/Income Support in England

  Population in England aged 18 and under

  Percentage

  Number of dependants in families in receipt of Family Credit in England

  Population in England aged 18 and under

  Percentage

  1979

  784,000

  12,939,000

  6.1

  —

  12,939,000

  —

  1980

  937,000

  12,805,000

  7.3

  —

  12,805,000

  —

  1981

  1,294,000

  12,644,000

  10.2

  —

  12,644,000

  —

  1982

  1,495,000

  12,462,000

  12.0

  —

  12,462,000

  —

  1983

  1,573,000

  12,264,000

  12.81

  —

  12,264,000

  —

  1984

  1,704,000

  12,061,000

  4.1

  —

  12,061,000

  —

  1985

  —

  11,927,000

  —

  —

  11,927,000

  —

  1986

  1,870,000

  11,812,000

  15.8

  —

  11,812,000

  —

  1987

  1,880,000

  11,708,000

  16.1

  —

  11,708,000

  —

  1988

  1,830,000

  11,631,000

  15.7

  459,000

  11,631,000

  3.9

  1989

  1,783,000

  11,576,000

  15.4

  519,000

  11,576,000

  4.5

  1990

  1,793,000

  11,518,000

  15.6

  552,000

  11,518,000

  4.8

  1991

  2,110,000

  11,533,000

  18.3

  609,000

  11,533,000

  5.3

  1992

  2,454,000

  11,556,000

  21.2

  687,000

  11,555,000

  5.9

  1993

  2,725,000

  11,589,000

  23.5

  825,000

  11,589,000

  7.1

  1994

  2,748,000

  11,589,000(5)

  23.7

  940,000

  11,589,000(5)

  8.1

  Notes:

  1. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in 1988.

  2. Data for 1985 not available.

  3. Family credit figures are only available from 1988 to date.

  4. A dependant is aged up to 18. Income support figures included those 19 in full time education who live with their parents.

  5. Population figures are not yet available for 1994. 1993 figures have been used.

  6. Family credit statistics for York, North Yorkshire and Humberside are not readily available.

  Source:

  Supplementary benefit/income support statistics annual enquiries 1979–1993

  Income support statistics quarterly enquiry May 1995.

  Family credit statistics May 1988-May 1994.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid year estimates 1979–1993.

  Ms Liz Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social security how many people claimed income support by(a) gender and (b) age, for each region in England in the last month for which figures are available and (ii) in the same month in each year since 1990. [32391]

  Mr. Evans
  I have placed a copy of the available information in the Library.

  Pilot Correspondence
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he is considering in the organisation and pattern of replies he expects to make in respect of specific individual cases brought to his attention by hon. Members. [31943]

  Mr. Hague
  Hon. Members continue to receive individual replies to queries raised on behalf of their constituents. A pilot correspondence unit was set up in April to test whether centralising the management of staff dealing with departmental correspondence would help provide a better service to Ministers, hon. Members and the public.

  The pilot project will last until the autumn. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will then consider the results of the exercise, with regard to quality of replies and efficiency of the service provided.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the central correspondence section pilot scheme; what representations he has received concerned the pilot; and what means of consultation will be carried out with hon. Members before any further extension of the scheme is made. [31925]
  190
  Mr. Hague
  The pilot correspondence unit was set up in April to test whether centralising the management of staff dealing with Departmental correspondence would provide a better service to Ministers, hon. Members and the public.

  The pilot project will last until the autumn. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will then consider the results of the exercise, with regard to quality of replies and efficiency of the service provided. In the first three months of operations the unit has replied more than 2,000 inquiries from hon. member. There have been no complaints about the quality of the replies received.

  We have received several letters from hon. Members in response to the letter sent by Mr. Sheldon of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to pilot a project to standardise replies to inquiries from hon. members; and if he will make a statement. [31665]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The Department's pilot project aims to provide hon. Members with replies which answer their specific concerns. Ministers personally approve and sign all replies to hon. Members on policy issues.

  The arrangements whereby agency chief executives reply to hon. Members about cases involving their constituents are not altered.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into

  191
  contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31305]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the table.

  Year

  Number of organisations paid grants

  Number of contracts

  Total value £

  1993–94

  83

  85

  17,001,000

  1994–95

  85

  87

  18,591,000

  The figures quoted show actual expenditure. Figures rounded to nearest £000.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a person signing on as unemployed will have this held against him in an appeal for incapacity benefit. [31662]

  Mr. Hague
  No.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that a claimant denied incapacity benefit further to appeal, and in turn denied benefit as being classed as unemployed, as the claimant could be deemed unfit for work, will not be left without any money. [31663]

  Mr. Hague
  The decision on incapacity for work applies across the benefit system. People found capable of work, including those who appeal against that decision, are entitled to claim unemployment benefits if they are available for and actively seeking work. People who are not looking for work may claim income support while waiting for their appeal to be heard.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people who appeal against a decision that they are capable of work and claim income support pending their appeal will have their full incapacity benefit reinstated for the period between the date of the original decision and the date of the appeal decision. [32040]

  Mr. Hague
  If a social security appeal tribunal uphold an appeal against a decision that a person is capable of work, any incapacity benefit withheld pending the tribunal decision will be paid. Where income support has been in payment for the period covered by the backdated incapacity benefit, this payment will be reduced to take account of the income support actually paid.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice will be given to claimants appealing against a decision that they are capable of work concerning their benefit entitlement pending a tribunal hearing. [32041]

  Mr. Hague
  In addition to advice from officials in Benefits Agency and Employment Services Offices, everyone found capable of work after application of all work test will be sent, with their decision notice, leaflet IB 203 which explains the help available in finding work and claiming benefits.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security of those people in 1995–96 whom he expects to appeal against a decision that they are capable 192
  of work, how many he estimates will, (a) sign on as unemployed and (b) claim income support without signing on. [32043]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on 7 March,Official Report, column 168.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if claimants in receipt of incapacity benefit may retain benefit entitlement for up to four weeks during which they are on a training for work scheme on a trial basis; and if they are deemed to be available for work. [32332]

  Mr. Hague
  Availability for work is not an issue. Incapacity Benefit claimants who undertake training for work receive an allowance equivalent to their benefit entitlement and additional £10. This is not incapacity benefit. Linking provisions ensure that if there is a break in incapacity benefit entitlement of less than eight weeks, claimants can return to the rate of benefit in payment before the break. For claimants on the short-term higher or long-term rates who attend training courses, this is extended to two years, provided that they are incapable of work when the training course ends.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what help will be offered to a claimant denied the jobseeker's allowance for up to 26 weeks because that claimant had been dismissed from his job. [31664]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Sanctioned claimants in vulnerable groups—those with children, those who are sick or pregnant or those who have a sick or pregnant partner, or who have caring responsibilities—may have access to hardship payments, at a reduced rate of jobseeker's allowance throughout the period of the sanction. Claimants who are not in vulnerable groups will receive no benefit for the first two weeks or a sanction; thereafter they may receive hardship payments if they can demonstrate that they or their partner would otherwise suffer hardship.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, on the introduction of jobseeker's allowance,(a) carers receiving invalid care allowance and (b) claimants in receipt of severe disablement allowance will continue to be able to study up to 21 hours per week on education and training courses without prejudice to benefit entitlement. [32333]

  Mr. Evans
  We are considering what changes, if any, need to be made to invalid care allowance and severe disablement allowance when jobseeker's allowance is introduced.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of(a) employers' and (b) employees' national insurance contributions collected for each of the last 10 fiscal years expressed (i) at April 1995 prices and (ii) as a percentage of total Exchequer income. [32335]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested is in the table.
  193

  UK contribution income April 1995 prices (£ billion)

  Percentage of UK Exchequer income

  Employees' NICs

  Employers' NICs

  Employees' NICs

  Employer's NICs

  1985–86

  18.851

  19.50

  8

  8

  1986–87

  19.29

  20.85

  8

  9

  1987–88

  20.50

  22.24

  8

  9

  1988–89

  21.42

  23.65

  8

  9

  1989–90

  18.73

  22.92

  7

  9

  1990–91

  16.75

  23.06

  7

  9

  1991–92

  16.81

  23.17

  7

  9

  1992–93

  16.44

  23.65

  7

  10

  1993–94

  16.89

  24.11

  7

  10

  1994–952

  18.59

  24.88

  7

  10

  1 Includes national insurance contributions by self-employed for which separate data are available only from 1986–87.

  2 Estimate.

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32175]

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available in the form requested. The total amount of UK travel claims at constant 1994–95 prices in this Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 is as follows:

  1993–94: £25,609,547

  1994–95: £24,582,379

  Residential Care Homes
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the number of residents of care or nursing homes with preserved rights to the higher limits of income support, whose total entitlement to social security benefits does not meet their care home fees; and how many such residents are in care homes in the London borough of Barnet. [32528]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are 57,000 people in Great Britain with preserved rights to the higher levels of income support whose total entitlement to income support does not meet their care home fees. Some of these residents may have disregarded benefit, income or capital which could be used to meet any shortfalls.

  Figures are not available for the London borough of Barnet.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry: May 1994.

  Former Foreign Heads of State
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what special rules apply to former heads of state of foreign countries in respect of social security payments; and what is the current procedure for handling claims from such persons. [32517]

  Mr. Hague
  None. Any claim from such a person is handled in the normal manner.
  194

WALES

  Housing Renovation Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what circumstances district councils found allocating money received by them from his Department towards housing renovation grants without following the procedure laid down in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 are liable to repay monies to his Department; on what extent local councillors are surchargeable for dereliction of duty in those circumstances; and who is responsible for instigating surcharges. [31275]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The question of recovery would depend on the circumstances of each case. Local authorities are required to certify that their in-year and final claims meet the legal requirements and that they will notify the Welsh Office of any irregularity. The Welsh Office can suspend or abate on-account payments where it is notified of suspected fraud or other irregularity and can adjust overpaid contributions under a determination made under section 132 of the Local Government and Housing Act.

  Section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 provides that if it appears to the district auditor that any item of account is contrary to law, he may apply to the courts for a declaration to that effect. If such a declaration is made, the courts have various powers including the surcharge of those responsible for authorising the expenditure.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts within (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31298]

  Mr. Richards
  In 1993–94 369 voluntary organisations in Wales received grants totalling £18.6 million from the Welsh Office, mainly in direct funding, although some indirect grants are also included. Details of outturn expenditure for 1994–95 will be available shortly and I will write to the hon. Lady.

  Details of the number of voluntary organisations contracting with the Welsh Office and the value of these contracts are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  Amount £

  1993–94

  44

  543,100

  1994–95

  51

  672,940

  Trunk Road Improvements
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the specific environmental reasons for the withdrawal of the A40 Treffgarne Rocks improvement from the road improvement programme in Wales. [31376]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  "Roads in Wales: 1994 Review" identified priority routes and schemes on which resources are to be concentrated. This followed a review of all schemes in the trunk road programme, taking account of
  195
  economic, traffic and environmental considerations. Against this background it was judged that the scale of the previously envisaged improvement at Treffgarne Rocks could not be justified. The relevant environmental factors included the landscape, river habitats, protected species, wildlife and the river itself within the Treffgarne Rocks, Gorge and Tors sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each trunk road improvement scheme listed in table 1 of the 1986 Welsh Office document, "Roads for Wales: the 1990s and Beyond", and described as expected to start between January 1988 and December 1990(a) the actual starting date for construction, (b) the completion date and (c) the cost; and if he will also list those schemes that have been abandoned or where there is still no definite starting date. [31848]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is set out as follows. A revised forward programme was published in "Road in Wales: 1994 Review", and updated in the Welsh Office's departmental report 1995, Cm 2815.

  Scheme

  Start

  Finish

  Cost £ million

  M4 Baglan Lonlas—split as follows:-

  M4 Earlswood-Lonlas

  March 1990

  February 1993

  57

  M4 Briton Ferry-Earlswood

  January 1992

  December 1994

  58

  M4 Baglan-Briton Ferry

  August 1992

  December 1994

  39

  M4 Brynglas Tunnels and Malpas relief road

  September 1991

  May 1995

  88

  A5 Pont Padog approaches

  In "Longer Term consideration" pool of forward trunk road programme

  A5 Halfway bridge reconstruction

  In "Longer consideration" pool of Term forward trunk road programme

  A5 Glyn Bends-Tynant-Dinmael School

  May 1994

  1995–96

  8

  A40 Llandeilo northern bypass

  February 1994

  December 1994

  4

  A40 Carmarthen eastern bypass

  In "Programmed" pool of forward trunk road programme

  A40 Whitland bypass

  March 1995

  1996–97

  10

  A55 Aber improvement

  February 1993

  September 1994

  12

  A55 Pen-y-Clip tunnels

  November 1989

  March 1994

  109

  A55 Rhaullt Hill improvement

  May 1990

  April 1992

  17

  A465/A40 Abergavenny western bypass

  In "Longer Term consideration" pool of forward trunk road programme

  A465 Glynneath-Aberdulais improvement

  January 1994

  Autumn 1996

  76

  A470 Pentrebach-Cefn Coed improvement

  May 1994

  Spring 1997

  53

  A470 Gelligemlin-Llanelltyd diversion

  Under £3 million scheme. Start of work planned in 1997–98

  A470 Improvement of A470 and A44 at their junctions south of Llangurig

  April 1990

  July 1991

  2

  196

  Scheme

  Start

  Finish

  Cost £ million

  A483 Llandeilo eastern bypass

  In "In preparation" pool of forward trunk road programme

  A483 Welshpool relief roads

  September 1991

  July 1993

  19

  A483 Chirk bypass

  April 1989

  April 1991

  12

  A487 Cardigan bypass

  August 1989

  December 1990

  12

  A487 Caernarfon-South of Port Dinorwic

  Withdrawn in January 1993 in favour of Caernarfon Eastern Bypass

  A487 Port Dinorwic bypass

  July 1992

  March 1994

  14

  A487 Seiont bridge and approaches

  Withdrawn from major scheme programme in January 1993. Now Pont Seiont Contract (under £3 million scheme). Work started February 1995

  A494 Mold bypass

  January 1991

  October 1992

  18

  A4042 Penperlleni bypass

  In "Longer Term consideration" pool of forward trunk road programme

  A4042 Llantarnam bypass

  January 1994

  1995–96

  17

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh health authorities fund the ICSI infertility treatment either within their own hospitals or as extra-contractual referrals. [23504]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  Schools Performance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of schools in Gwent included in examination league tables published in each year; and what was the position in those tables of Gwent's grant-maintained schools. [32104]

  Mr. Richards
  The information on individual school performance is published in county booklets which lists schools in alphabetical order by postal district. They are not presented in ranked position. The total number of schools in the booklet for Gwent is as follows:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  LEA maintained schools

  28

  29

  30

  Grant-maintained schools

  2

  2

  3

  Special schools

  5

  2

  1

  Independent schools

  1

  3

  3

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list those schools which pupils have(a) left and (b) moved to under the assisted places scheme in the past five years; and what were the numbers of placements for each school per year. [32105]

  Mr. Richards
  Information about pupil movements is not available centrally. The numbers of new assisted places taken per year for each school is as follows:
  197

  Academic year

  School

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Christ College

  20

  18

  18

  18

  17

  Howells School, Denbigh

  12

  15

  15

  11

  14

  Howells School, Llandaff

  26

  28

  28

  28

  29

  Llandovery College

  11

  11

  11

  11

  9

  Monmouth School

  20

  23

  24

  25

  24

  Monmouth School for Girls

  10

  14

  13

  11

  14

  Penrhos College

  12

  10

  13

  13

  12

  Rydal School

  12

  11

  9

  10

  11

  123

  130

  131

  127

  130

  Rent and Council Tax
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list for each district council the amount of(a) uncollected rent from council houses, and (b) uncollected council or poll tax; and what percentage in each case the uncollected amounts represent of the annual revenue. [32525]

  Uncollected community charge and council tax and council house rent arrears

  Council house rent arrears1

  Uncollected community charge2

  Uncollected council tax3

  £000

  As a percentage of rental income

  £000

  As a percentage of collectable debit4

  £000

  As a percentage of collectable debit4

  Alyn and Deeside

  256

  3.5

  919

  10.8

  633

  7.4

  Colwyn

  52

  1.4

  969

  14.8

  701

  10.7

  Delyn

  104

  1.4

  554

  7.3

  355

  4.7

  Glyndwr

  188

  5.1

  529

  10.7

  726

  14.7

  Rhuddlan

  95

  2.4

  923

  15.3

  422

  7.0

  Wrexham Maelor

  386

  1.9

  2,393

  19.9

  1,067

  8.9

  Carmarthen

  189

  3.5

  342

  5.0

  516

  7.6

  Ceredigion

  115

  2.2

  785

  9.0

  798

  9.2

  Dinefwr

  118

  3.6

  495

  11.1

  579

  13.0

  Llanelli

  286

  2.5

  752

  9.2

  702

  8.6

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  205

  2.6

  263

  3.3

  653

  8.2

  South Pembrokeshire

  169

  3.7

  332

  6.6

  455

  9.1

  Blaenau Gwent

  160

  1.0

  938

  18.0

  626

  12.0

  Islwyn

  123

  1.3

  660

  13.4

  379

  7.7

  Monmouth

  182

  2.0

  628

  6.6

  646

  6.8

  Newport

  912

  3.7

  2,656

  22.6

  1,064

  9.1

  Torfaen

  1,030

  4.1

  1,006

  13.4

  473

  6.3

  Aberconwy

  93

  2.4

  432

  6.8

  243

  3.8

  Arfon

  113

  1.4

  851

  17.2

  326

  6.6

  Dwyfor

  56

  2.6

  103

  2.8

  190

  5.2

  Meirionnydd

  41

  1.4

  256

  6.1

  318

  7.5

  Ynys Mon

  176

  2.1

  823

  10.9

  477

  6.3

  Cynon Valley

  81

  1.1

  542

  11.0

  270

  5.5

  Merthyr Tydfil

  91

  0.9

  471

  11.2

  287

  6.8

  Ogwr

  475

  3.1

  1,652

  12.4

  905

  6.8

  Rhondda

  247

  3.3

  414

  7.9

  210

  4.0

  Rhymney Valley

  614

  3.5

  1,168

  14.6

  475

  5.9

  Taff Ely

  391

  3.7

  987

  10.6

  632

  6.8

  Brecknock

  93

  2.4

  242

  4.9

  239

  4.8

  Montgomeryshire

  108

  2.6

  225

  3.7

  291

  4.7

  Radnorshire

  30

  1.4

  55

  1.9

  140

  4.9

  Cardiff

  719

  2.1

  4,417

  17.8

  3,173

  12.8

  Vale of Glamorgan

  265

  2.4

  937

  8.1

  728

  6.3

  Port Talbot

  113

  1.3

  363

  7.9

  389

  8.4

  Lliw Valley

  179

  2.4

  310

  4.7

  368

  5.6

  Neath

  240

  2.7

  670

  9.9

  355

  5.3

  Swansea

  1,060

  4.0

  2,413

  12.4

  1,770

  9.1

  1 Cumulative arrears of council house rent, for current and former tenants, at 31 March 1995. Rental income is for the financial year 1994–95.

  2 Provisional. Includes amounts written off between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1995 and cumulative arrears at 31 March 1995.

  3 Provisional. Includes amounts written off between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1995 and cumulative arrears at 31 March 1995.

  4 The collectable debit is the total amount billed for the financial year 1994–95 net of council tax benefit.

  198
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is given in the following table. The uncollected amounts are as at 31 March 1995 and are given as percentages of income for the financial year 1994–95.
  199

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total(a) capital payments and (b) revenue payments made to grant-maintained schools in Wales in each year since their status changed. [32109]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Capital payments £

  Revenue payments £

  1991–92

  —

  1,101,134

  1992–93

  500,367

  4,540,974

  1993–94

  6,195,751

  15,112,114

  1994–95

  7,349,278

  22,869,252

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32179]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Expenditure figures for travel claims are not available in the form requested. Separate figures are available for rail and air travel and for road travel by 200
  private car—mileage allowance—or by hire cars as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Rail and air

  427,557

  420,552

  Road

  564,658

  550,900

  Euro-Freight Terminal
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce a decision on funding the proposed Euro-freight terminal in south-east Wales. [32393]

  Mr. David Hunt
  As soon as practicable.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many trusts and directly managed hospitals in Wales have made pay offers to the nursing professions; and if he will list those which have not yet made offers. [32392]

  Mr. David Hunt
  All NHS trusts and directly managed units in Wales which employ nurses have made pay offers.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

St. Bartholomew's Hospital
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any representations that persuade them to reconsider their decision concerning the future of St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government continue to believe that the decisions made by East London and the City Health Authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State are right for patients and for the future of health services in East London.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that the threat to St. Bartholomew's Hospital has brought about the most amazing alliances? Is she aware, for example, that the gentlemen of the City are backed by and working together with the people of Stepney to try to save that wonderful hospital; that in the other place yesterday there was a massive revolt about the closing down of Bart's; and that the BMA has said that some of the reports that have been submitted are without fact or foundation? In short, I doubt whether there is anywhere in the country where there has been such opposition to the proposal to demolish that great, well-known British hospital.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, your Lordships are well aware of the reasons for the closure of the hospital. I accept that there have been some very useful alliances formed. The proposal for a community hospital on the St. Bartholomew's site is being actively pursued. It is one to which we give encouragement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people will not forgive the Minister if she closes down that wonderful hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, time is a great healer.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Sir Bernard Tomlinson has been reported as admitting that if he had had in his possession the full statistics, he would not have recommended closures to that extent at Bart's or Guy's? In view of that, will she halt the closures, which I understand have numbered nearly 11,000 over the past four years in London alone and which have brought such suffering and distress?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord is quoting from the Evening Standard, which quoted Sir Bernard Tomlinson. He will perhaps have
996
seen the next edition on the following day when Sir Bernard contradicted what the Evening Standard had reported him as saying. There is no question of going back. The Secretary of State has made her decision. The trust now knows what the future is. It is working towards that future. I believe that it is in the interests not only of the patients in London but also of the staff who work in the hospital.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the closure of the casualty department at St. Bartholomew's Hospital has put very great pressure on the casualty department of the Homerton Hospital, which has had to close several times because of lack of beds? Is she aware that that has put pressure on the London Hospital, which has had to stop its "cold" surgery so that it can take the casualties?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there have been pressures on the Homerton Hospital. The noble Baroness is correct. However, she will also know that we are investing £2 million in that hospital and that there will be an extra 28 beds in the emergency department, which are to open quite shortly. We believe that they will reduce the pressure and the problem will not continue.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although the population at large outside London regret the turmoil within London, those patients, doctors and hospitals are glad because of the enhanced services which they are enjoying as a result of what is happening in London?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in what he says. Some of the closures in London represent the success of London in that the very distinguished consultants who worked in those famous teaching hospitals have gone to other parts of the country—to Liverpool, Newcastle, Southampton and all over the country—setting up departments with enormous expertise. It is those departments which are now treating the people who previously used to come to London. Also, we subsidise London to the tune of £28 million per year. That is money which should be spread to other parts of the country.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the future of Bart's has been threatened in other centuries? On those occasions, parliamentary action preserved it. If our representations should prove less successful than those of our predecessors, is that a mark of the declining importance of Parliament in our national life?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Minister congratulates herself and others on the departure of consultants from London; but is she also pleased with the situation in London in which most hospitals now operate at 95 per cent. bed occupancy, whereas the most appropriate figure is about 85 per cent? Is she aware that in the recent period cancelled admissions in London were 17 per cent. higher than in any other place in England, and that the Thames regions have the highest percentage of patients on waiting lists

997
waiting for more than one year than any other part of the country? Time may heal, but will she accept that these are issues for the present or even a future Secretary of State to consider?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have heard the noble Baroness on other occasions tell your Lordships that it is time that we improved primary care because a lot of the pressures on London hospitals are due to the poor primary facilities that exist within London. The noble Baroness will know that we have made huge investments into that aspect and, once the services are firmly established, there will not be the problem that exists at the moment in London. In relation to waiting lists, it is interesting to see that over the past year there has been a reduction by 10 per cent. of the patients who have been waiting-more than one year. In the country as a whole we have reduced by half the number of people waiting more than one year. That is a tremendous tribute to the National Health Service.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Sir Bernard Tomlinson, on whose report the Government's London decisions were based, recently said that had he had the information that is now available, he would not have made the recommendations he did in his report?
Noble Lords: Order, order!

Seatbelts in Minibuses and Coaches
2.44 p.m.
Lord McConnell Lord McConnell asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to introduce legislation to make the fitting of seatbelts compulsory in buses and coaches carrying children and whether it will apply to Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the responses to the consultation exercise on this subject are currently being considered. It is hoped that legislation requiring the fitting of seatbelts in minibuses and coaches used specifically for the transport of children will be introduced in the autumn. A concurrent consultation exercise has been conducted in Northern Ireland and it is intended that regulations will maintain parity with Great Britain on this issue.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his Answer—I am grateful for the information he has given—may I ask him whether he will also abolish what is called the "three-into-two" rule? That allows three children to be accommodated on seats designed for two adults. In many cases it results in 101 children being placed into a bus designed to accommodate 53 people.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is an issue we have addressed. Our proposals are that the concession which permits three seated children to share a double seat is ended where seatbelts are fitted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister said that he is considering the use of seatbelts for vehicles specifically designed to carry children. What about those which are mainly, but not exclusively, designed to carry children? Why not seek to apply Article 36, with the agreement of the Commission, to all coaches while the Government are considering this issue?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can correct the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Our proposals address the issue of use rather than design. It is not a question of whether coaches are specifically designed for the carriage of children; it is a question of whether they are specifically used for the carriage of children.
Article 36 is not a tool which can be used every time a member state would like to legislate but is effectively prevented from doing so because the EC has the competence. It is not available where there is already full harmonisation of measures designed for the protection of health and life, and that is the case in these circumstances.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that seatbelts can be fitted with high or low clasps? Small children cannot wear the seatbelts fitted with high clasps. In further considering the matter, will my noble friend ensure that when seatbelts are fitted for children, they are made to fit the size of the children?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point which was raised during the consultation exercise. We shall bear his remarks fully in mind.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will clarify something I may have got wrong. He used the words "specifically for children". Does that mean that minibuses or coaches which are used mainly but not exclusively by children will be covered by his proposals?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the simple explanation is that our proposals require a forward-facing seat with a seatbelt to be provided for every child travelling in a minibus or coach, or group of children—that is three or more—on an organised trip. That includes home-to-school journeys and school outings but not scheduled coach operations where the coach operator could not possibly be expected to know the number of children making use of the service.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, as well as considering seatbelts, is it not also important to ensure that there is better oversight and control over those who drive the school minibuses? The Minister may remember one incident when it was found that the person driving was not in a fit state to drive.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is right: minibuses can at present be driven on car licences. Under the second EC directive on driver licensing which comes into operation on 1st July 1996, new drivers will not be permitted to drive minibuses without passing a further test. Also, the UK has made a derogation from the directive which allows car drivers to drive minibuses within their own boundaries if certain criteria are complied with. Those criteria cover factors such as the

999
body involved being non-commercial and non-profit-making; and the driver being aged 21 or more and providing his or her services on a voluntary basis. There are also licence restrictions, and a weight restriction on the minibus.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the concern expressed about one design of seatbelt—the lap fitting seatbelt? Will he confirm that the Government are taking into account the concerns that have been raised about the damage that can be done by that type of seatbelt as opposed to the one that crosses the shoulder?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords. I can confirm that these issues have been taken fully into consideration both in designing our proposals and during the consultation process.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would be kind enough to clarify a confusion which I now have in my mind relative to his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Is it proposed that a school minibus may not carry children unless seatbelts are fitted?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes.

Electoral Law: Ballot Papers
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review electoral law with particular reference to the disqualifying of unfranked ballot papers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, all ballot papers found not to have the official mark are declared void. There are no plans to review this system.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, on a day when ballot papers, franked or unfranked, have assumed a new importance, particularly to the government party, is the noble Baroness aware that since 1968 in Great Britain there have been a number of court cases, the most recent two in Scotland—one in the sheriff court in Falkirk and one in Jedburgh three weeks ago—in which the courts ruled that unfranked ballot papers are a mistake made not by the elector but by the returning officer's staff and therefore should not be disqualified and that those elections should be re-run? Will the Minister accept that I fully understand the risk attached to the forgery of ballot papers—and that that is the reason for franking? Nevertheless, will she further accept that, against the background of those court decisions, there is now a need to look at electoral law to see whether some method can he found whereby ballot papers that are not franked are not disqualified?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is almost impossible to have a totally foolproof system. Even though there are the cases cited by the noble Lord, it is a very, very rare occurrence. Where it has happened and where it has been contested, the courts have quite rightly taken the
1000
view that the ballot should be re-run, particularly with regard to the recent cases in Scotland. If an unfranked ballot paper comes out of the ballot box, it is not possible for a returning officer or anyone else to know whether it is there by fraudulent means or by dint of a mistake by someone presiding over the election at that time. Because there is a doubt about that, the fairest thing is to re-run the ballot. In every case that has been petitioned, that is what has happened.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has a very important point? It would be much better to put this beyond any shadow of a doubt. I have monitored elections in four central European countries and I know that there are always dangers in saying that the courts should decide in rare cases. Would it not he better to keep the courts out of this matter and say instead that any unfranked ballot paper will be invalid?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, any ballot paper that is not franked is void. In the two Scottish examples the elections were won by one vote. In each of those elections there were two unfranked ballot papers. In fairness to those who lost those elections by dint of what might have been either a fraudulent act or a mistake by someone presiding over the elections, a judgment was made that the ballots should be re-run. The only people who can take that decision are the courts.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that fraud would be made much easier if the man who was supposed to mark the ballot paper had strong views and did not mark the ballot paper? Is she further aware that 50 years ago tomorrow I had 84 such unfranked ballot papers in my favour and the only thing that stopped me protesting was that they had a big majority?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the credentials of the noble Viscount are so beyond doubt that it is absolutely characteristic of him to take that view. However, if one applied a Machiavellian mind to this, if there were an automatic assumption that an unfranked ballot paper was discounted, it might be in the interests of someone overseeing a ballot to ensure that some ballot papers were not franked—in favour or disfavour of a candidate. In that situation it would be absolutely right that the courts should have the last word.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is there not a case for looking at a number of areas of electoral law, particularly where there is a deliberate attempt to deceive the electorate by, for example, calling oneself a "Literal Democrat"? What is being done about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that my department is actively considering that point at the moment. It is in dialogue with the political parties. Indeed, I think it is the noble Lord's noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who in the course of a debate in this House said that he had some practical suggestions to make. He has now written to the department and those practical suggestions are being considered. I have to say that a solution is not without its problems, but we are giving active consideration to this phenomenon, which is a vexed issue for all parties.

International Development Association
2.56 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What role they see for the International Development Association (IDA) in relationship to the World Bank and to their own overseas development co-operation priorities and what action they are taking to enable it to fulfil that role.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the International Development Association has an important leadership role in support of poverty reduction, sound economic management and sustainable development. The IDA's policy agenda closely mirrors the priority objectives of the UK aid programme. In the current negotiations on the eleventh replenishment of IDA, we are working with others to ensure a sharper focus on poverty reduction as well as a significant replenishment of IDA's resources.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he assure the House that British support for a significant replenishment of the IDA will not be at the expense of our support for the European Development Fund with its concentration on some of the poorest countries in the world? Do the Government accept that in the past IDA credits have sometimes failed to achieve the objective of alleviating poverty and may even have exacerbated it? Will the Government insist in future that both IDA and the World Bank, when supporting structural adjustment programmes, must ensure that health and education are protected and even enhanced in the development programmes of the recipient countries?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I must begin by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the IDA and the European Development Fund are matters which are taken separately. The noble Lord is right. Particularly with the benefit of hindsight, both we and, I think, the bank would accept that mistakes have been made in the past in projects which were supported. The kind of points the noble Lord asks about are those which are of the greatest concern to the donors and the bank itself. The working group on poverty reduction has been set up to endeavour to focus attention on the kind of matters to which the noble Lord refers. We have to try both to focus on poverty reduction and at the same time ensure that we have programmes that lead to sustainable development for the future.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to comment on the progress that the IDA and the World Bank are making in constructing bridges with the NGO world, particularly with those in the UK which operate in the developing world?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that there has recently been a shift in World Bank policy. The bank has now pledged to consult more widely with people affected by its activities in developing countries and with NGOs. That is something we welcome very much. In particular, the NGOs probably make the greatest impact when consulted at an early stage of development projects and policies. That obviously requires trust to be built up. We
1002
were delighted to learn that the World Bank recently asked the Intermediate Technology Development Group to organise a consultation with European NGOs as part of efforts to develop new policies in support of renewable energy.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, considering that the Government will be reviewing the IDA before the next replenishment, will they press for a greater proportion of IDA funds to be focused on the least developed countries in Africa?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can only reiterate what I said earlier. It is important that we focus on poverty reduction. Africa is the source of many of the greatest problems.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Americans are scaling down their contributions to IDA and that that will send conflicting messages to other donor nations when considering their contribution levels?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right to point out that the United States has fallen behind with its current contributions to the present IDA 10. There is a serious question mark over contributions for IDA 11. Our position is at one with those of the Group of Seven and the communiqué from Halifax. We urge all donor countries promptly to fulfil their commitments to IDA 10 and also to support a significant replenishment through IDA 11 for the next chapter.
Lord Rea: My Lords, with the permission of the House, having inadvertently broken the rules with my earlier intervention, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that IDA loaned 2.7 billion dollars to the severely indebted low income countries in 1994. Is he further aware that 1.9 billion dollars—that is 70 per cent.—went to cover debt service, leaving only 30 per cent. (0.8 billion dollars) for true development assistance? Is not that a misuse of World Bank funds and not in the spirit of the original Bretton Woods agreement, which aimed to reduce poverty throughout the world?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am not in a position to comment in detail on the interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The Government are concerned on the one hand about problems of debt; on the other, they are very anxious to ensure that debts owed to multilateral institutions are not simply unilaterally rescheduled. For example, a wish to try to get out of this particular conundrum led my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward proposals whereby some of the gold reserves might be sold and used to generate income in order to help the problems of interest in the kind of circumstances which the noble Lord alludes to.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the House finds his remarks about government support for multilateral aid highly encouraging? Will he also accept that they do not sit altogether logically alongside frequent laments by the Government that multilateral aid programmes are undermining bilateral aid programmes? Can the Minister assure the House that at an early

1003
opportunity there will be a comprehensive statement on the Government's policy towards both bilateral and multilateral programmes and the balance between them? Is not the important point what helps the poor of the world most effectively?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, of course that is right. It is in order to ensure that we retain a balance between our multilateral commitments and our bilateral aid—which, as the noble Lord will be aware, was recently recognised by the OECD as being among the most effective there is—that we try to ensure that the position will be in equilibrium. If there is to be any major change in these matters, I can assure your Lordships that it will be reported to your Lordships' House.

Scotland: Alternative Forms of Government
3.4 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy rose to call attention to the alternatives canvassed for the government of Scotland and to their effect on the future of the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lady said: My Lords, the menu for the future government of Scotland offers three main choices: first, the present system; secondly, a devolved parliament for all domestic matters within the Union; and, thirdly, outright independence. For nearly 300 years the present system has not served Scotland badly, although there is always room for improvement. Productivity is high; the standard of living has risen dramatically in the past 20 years, and I would be pushed to recognise the country I know in some of the descriptions of her peddled by the advocates of change which suggest a third world country, sunk in grinding poverty under a repressive regime. But the grass on the other side of the fence has always traditionally looked greener.
It is perhaps not surprising that there has been a great resurgence of enthusiasm in Scotland for the concepts of either a devolved parliament within the United Kingdom or for Scotland leaving the Union and becoming once again a separate country. For the past 16 years she has been governed by a Conservative Government, despite having elected a majority of Labour MPs to Parliament. Recent suggestions on the part of the Government that Northern Ireland should have its own assembly have inevitably fuelled the demand for a Scottish parliament. In 1989 the Scottish Constitutional Convention was born in order to formulate proposals for one. It consists of Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs, MEPs, regional and district councillors, and representatives of the trade unions, the Churches and sundry other organisations.
Eventually, it recommended a directly elected parliament responsible for all functions except defence, foreign affairs, central economic and fiscal affairs and social security policy.
That parliament would initially consist of 112 members, 72 being elected on the first-past-the-post system from the present Westminster constituencies; plus 40 additional members elected from party lists, five
1004
being allocated to each Euro-constituency, in order to bring the party representation more into line with the proportion of votes cast for the various parties in each of those constituencies. Thereafter, an electoral commission would be set up to refine the system and the number of MPs would be increased. A more equal gender balance than obtains at Westminster would be aimed at. Initially, the number of MPs at Westminster would remain at 72, but this number might later be reduced to 55 or 60.
The government of Scotland would be financed by the allocation of all Scottish income tax and all Scottish VAT to the Scottish parliament. Equalisation would continue to be based on needs assessment, starting from the present Barnett formula basis. The Scottish parliament would have the power to vary the income tax rate by up to 3p in the pound for those residing in Scotland. Local government would he financed by a local income tax.
The Scottish parliament would establish a representative office in Brussels to put, clearly and directly, Scottish interests to the European Commission. Scotland would also have representation, through the Scottish parliament, on United Kingdom ministerial delegations to the Council of Ministers.
The vexed West Lothian question would ultimately be solved by giving Northern Ireland, Wales and England, or regions of England, their own parliaments with similar powers, and turning the Westminster Parliament into a federal parliament with a reformed House of Lords. Pending that solution, Scottish MPs at Westminster would continue to vote on English domestic matters, just as the Members of the Stormont Parliament used to do. What seems the obvious solution, that they should simply not be allowed to vote on the domestic affairs of the other three countries, was not considered practical because, for instance, a government with a slender majority might not be able to get their English domestic legislation through in another place without the Scottish vote. There would be no devolved second chamber. It would be a single chamber parliament.
That is a brief resumé of the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention to date. A number of questions pose themselves. Why should social security not be devolved? Surely that is a domestic matter. Is there any reason to suppose that Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who had some difficulty in coming to an agreement (with a dissenting minority) about the initial voting system, would ever agree about the permanent system? The Liberal Democrats want a proportional system which reflects the considerable number of voters who vote for them, but do not see their views reflected in the number of Liberal Democrat MPs elected, whereas Labour favour a first-past-the-post system, which gives them more parliamentary seats than their proportion of the total vote would entitle them to.
They do not agree about the way in which the question of gender balance should be tackled either, Labour wishing to make the 50:50 balance mandatory, regardless of the quality of the MPs on offer, while the Liberal Democrats were opposed to positive discrimination. I am not quite sure whether that

1005
disagreement has been resolved permanently, but the Constitutional Convention agreed in its October 1994 report to a number of measures designed to make membership of parliament easier for women, combined with a target of, say, a 40 per cent.-plus representation of women and what it describes as a "fair" representation of ethnic minorities within five years of the setting up of the parliament.
Fifty-five or 60 MPs seems an excessive number to continue to represent Scotland at Westminster once so much has been devolved to a Scottish Parliament and would be a source of expense. Perhaps that is to fight for the equalisation payment, which would certainly be at serious risk, for why should the English, Welsh and Irish Members of Parliament agree to subsidise expenditure over which they had no control? With the best will in the world, they would be unlikely to do so, for their voters would not thank them for it.
Turning to the equalisation payment, which bridges the gap between the revenue raised by taxation and the amount of government expenditure in Scotland and which amounted to some £7 billion or £8 billion in 1992–93, if it were to cease, how would the gap be bridged? Three pence on income tax would not even look at it. One penny on income tax raises about £150 million in Scotland—and your Lordships can all do simple arithmetic or little sums on pocket calculators. I wonder whether such costings as have been done take account of the additional cost of 112, and ultimately considerably more, MPs, their salaries, expenses and the cost of administering the Scottish parliament. How will that be paid for other than by raising income tax at once? Surely taxation in Scotland would be higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom—at any rate until the proposed federal scheme was in place when government would cost more in all regions.
A local income tax was proposed at a time when the poll tax was in place. Is it still envisaged that that will take the place of the community charge?
Has the European Commission in Brussels been consulted about the opening of a Scottish representative office there, and would it be prepared to co-operate with it?
Regarding the "West Lothian" question and the federal solution which the convention proposes to impose upon the United Kingdom, do the English "regions" want their own parliaments? Are they prepared to pay higher taxes for them? What would those "regions" be? Surely they would be quite artificial—and can anything as artificial as they would be have any cohesion? How would the regional boundaries be worked out? Why should the English have a federal system imposed on them to suit the convenience of the Scots?
A report published recently by the Institute of Public Policy Research rejects the federal solution and suggests that Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on English domestic legislation, however inconvenient to the government of the day. What would be the position of Scots Peers in the House of Lords? How could the Secretary of State continue to exist when his job had been taken over by the Scottish parliament? What
1006
therefore, if any, representation would Scotland have in the Cabinet? Is the Treaty of Union to be amended—or what? Those are just a few of the questions which remain unanswered.
Anyone reading the Scottish National Party's blueprint for an independent Scotland, as set out in its last election manifesto, might be forgiven for thinking that they had happened upon a recipe for Utopia. Everything is going to be perfect for everyone in the best of all possible worlds with guaranteed fundamental rights and liberties for everyone; the outlawing of discrimination on grounds of sex, race, colour, religion, personal beliefs, status or sexual orientation; economic and social rights guaranteed, covering working conditions, retirement pensions, housing, health services, and education; freedom of information except where necessary in the public interest; the right of the Scottish people to sovereignty over their territory and natural resources, recognising the rights and obligations of European Community membership which shall he subject to confirmation by a referendum; the right of Scottish citizenship to all Scottish residents and persons born in Scotland and such others as the parliament of Scotland may prescribe; single chamber government, elected every four years by proportional representation; the head of state to remain the Queen and her successors in a limited and constitutional monarchy until such time as the people of Scotland decide otherwise; supreme judicial power to be vested in the Court of Session and the High Court of the Justiciary, the independence of the justiciary to be guaranteed; the right to vote for all over the age of 16 and provision for the holding of referenda. It is heady stuff.
Along with that manifesto, we have to take Recovery in Scotland—Make it happen now! which details all the wonderful things which the government of an independent Scotland will do to regenerate the economy, create wealth and jobs, build houses, educate children, abolish poverty and improve social security and health care.
Recovery in Scotland has at least been costed, although the costings may be rather optimistic in some cases. For instance, a lot of additional healthcare is to be financed by raising the duty on cigarettes by 19 pence per packet of 20. I suspect that an increase of anything like that magnitude would be self-defeating, because so many people would give up smoking that nothing like the £100 million which the increase was designed to bring in would actually be forthcoming.
The national insurance contribution ceiling is to be abolished, so that (and I have upgraded the figures to today's rates) anyone earning more than £22,880 a year will contribute at the rate of 10 pence in the pound on all their earned income over that figure. Since they will not, as I understand it, receive increased benefits or a pension commensurate with the extra contribution paid, this amounts to an income tax increase of 10 pence in the pound on all earned income in excess of £22,880. Now £22,880 is not a particularly princely salary. It is the kind of salary earned by lower to middle management, which amounts to quite a large number of people, and their pockets are going to be hit—and pretty hard.
What has not been costed is running Scotland as it is run at present, with the additional expense of an independent parliament, cabinet and ministers, and foreign service, without the equalisation grant. As far as I can make out, the deficit is to be made up in two ways: first, by withdrawal from NATO and the Trident programme and the removal of the Polaris nuclear weapons fleet. The savings from this will be invested in health, housing, education and jobs, but at the same time we shall have strong conventional defence forces, and the cost of those is not mentioned. Secondly, we shall have the benefit of all the North Sea oil revenues from north of the latitude 55 degrees 50, and the combination of those and the savings on defence will plug the gap. In its 1992 budget, the Scottish National Party forecast oil revenues of £9.6 billion over the four years from 1991–92 to 1994–95. After three of those four years, only £3.6 billion has been raised, with only £1.6 billion forecast this year, leaving the small matter of a £4.4 billion shortfall; and in the long term, oil and gas are hound to be diminishing assets.
Many other questions pose themselves. For instance, we are to have a referendum to decide whether to remain in the European Community, but what certainty have we that an independent Scotland is going to he accepted as a member of the Community, or, if she is, what voting rights would she have, and what voting rights would the rump of the United Kingdom have? What about the United Nations Organisation? What about the G7?
An amicable treaty is to be negotiated with the remainder of the UK, giving Scotland the lion's share of what are now the United Kingdom oil revenues. What makes the nationalists think that the rest of the United Kingdom will be prepared to agree to that, let alone do so amicably?
With the equivalent of 10 pence on the income tax for any employee earning over £22,880, and swingeing increases in road fund tax, petrol, wine and cigarette duty, apart from any other additional taxes which have not been mentioned, is there any reason to suppose.that many business and professional people would not leave Scotland if it were possible for them to do so?
What other categories of person than those resident or born in Scotland is it envisaged will have Scottish nationality? What about the very many Scots born or resident south of the Border who at present are still Scots? How will this affect, for example, their right to own property in Scotland? What about Orkney and Shetland? They have never been very enthusiastic about becoming part of an independent Scotland and may wish to remain with the rump of the United Kingdom. Some in those islands might wish to become part of Norway, as they once were. What are the long-term prospects of the Queen continuing as Head of State? The Scottish Nationalists always used to be republican. Has this leopard really changed its spots?
Those are just a few of the questions which remain unanswered. What is certain is that the uncertainty as to the future which the possibility of devolution or independence has created is not helpful to the expansion or stability of industry. Let us take note of the effect of the prospect of independence on the economy of Quebec: a flight of capital; an exodus from Montreal of
1008
corporate headquarters; and a freeze on investment. Any increase in industrial costs which might result from independence would be very damaging indeed, especially to exports, and would lead to firms with bases in England or international firms withdrawing from Scotland.
As regards the devolution proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, many questions relating to taxation, cost and the relationship with Westminster have not been answered. Unless they were to be satisfactorily resolved it would not work, and if a devolved parliament were established and did not work, the result would he an increased demand for independence. The convention sees its proposals as a formula which would save the United Kingdom. If all the four countries comprising the United Kingdom were happy with the federal option and the additional cost of it, and if all the national governments had no tax-raising powers so that no part of the United Kingdom would be more highly taxed than another, it might work. Then there would be the great bonus to the Westminster Parliament of a huge reduction in the volume of legislation and consequently more acceptable hours and working conditions. I should have some sympathy with that concept; I believe that many of us would. As they stand, the constitutional convention's proposals fill me with foreboding. On 8th June the chairman of the Scottish National Party said:
"Most people recognise that once Scotland starts down the road of constitutional advance, we are unlikely to move backwards".
I fear that he is right.
I do not think that the level of support for political parties promising devolution or independence in their manifestos at a general election should be taken as support for devolution or independence because there are too many other factors influencing the way people vote at general elections. I believe it has also happened that people who voted for the Scottish National Party in an election were horrified later to learn that they had voted for the break-up of the United Kingdom. They thought that they had voted for a devolved parliament. Before any legislation were brought before Parliament all the questions that I have asked and many others would need to be answered satisfactorily, detailed proposals would need to be published, their probable effects considered and a referendum held. If federalism were involved that would need to be done not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.
I look forward to a very interesting debate and, I hope, to hear answers to some of my questions. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for the clear and effective way in which she has introduced the debate. It is on proposals for devolution and therefore I shall not speak on independence for Scotland—that is, the break up of the United Kingdom, which is the aim of the Scottish National Party—although one (devolution) could lead to the other if an unstable system, not carefully thought out, were created.

1009
Proposals for Scotland must also be considered together with their effects on the rest of the United Kingdom. For 40 years or so the idea of Scotland in a federal system in the UK has attracted some support, in particular from the Liberal Democrat Party. If that were for the four parts of the United Kingdom it would be top heavy, England having 10 times the population of any of the other three parts. England would dominate and the United Kingdom could not be a balanced federal country.
It has therefore been proposed that England should be divided into seven or eight regions. That ran into immediate difficulties. I understand that most residents in England do not wish to be split in this way, with regional assemblies artificially created. And why should they be forced to do so? However, most favour more decentralisation, but not through another elected layer of government. The Labour Party's present proposals, as I understand them, would divide England into regions, presumably aiming for some similarity and balance with a parliament in Scotland. However, similarity is obscure because there is doubt about the nature and functions of the regional assemblies.
As recently as last January, a Labour document entitled Renewing Democracy, Rebuilding Communities stated:
"We should provide for an elected authority for each English region".
However, on 5th March the Leader of the Opposition was reported in Scotland on Sunday as saying:
"We are not committed to regional assemblies in England".
There have been other conflicting and inconsistent statements. What does the Labour Party propose for England? I hope that we shall hear today from the Opposition Front Bench.
Decentralisation would be favoured by a majority of people in the streets of Manchester or Newcastle if they were questioned by those conducting opinion polls. In Scotland the question put by such people was different. It was: "Do you favour a Scottish assembly?". For some 30 years, about 70 per cent. of the answers were yes. An assembly has been identified with decentralisation and more decisions being taken locally. In Scotland, an assembly and decentralisation have appeared to be synonymous. However, when a particular scheme for an assembly is formulated, wholesale disagreement breaks out; for example, on the extent of its powers and functions, whether it should raise taxes, how it should be elected and whether it should take over some local authority functions.
The Labour Government of 1974–79 experienced that. The assembly in the Scotland Act 1978 was to take over less than half of the functions of the Secretary of State, who would have remained with the Scottish Office. The assembly was to have an executive, so there would have been two executive bodies operating in Scotland causing confusion and creating an arena for conflict. The assembly would not have had tax raising powers. Grants were to be allocated from central government and it could be predicted that there would be continual complaints that they were not enough.
1010
Another serious flaw in the Scotland Act was that the West Lothian question had not been solved. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that Scottish MPs at Westminster would have continued to vote on English legislation on subjects which the new assembly would have dealt with in Scotland. The other side of the West Lothian question was: why should they be deprived of the role of legislating on those subjects affecting their Scottish constituencies because assemblymen were dealing with those subjects in Edinburgh?
Although a clumsy system for voting at Westminster was inserted in Section 66 of the 1978 Act, that did not solve the problem. I remind your Lordships that it applied only to Second Readings in another place and prescribed a 14-day period for second thoughts. It was not surprising in the referendum upon that Act that there was only a very small majority in favour of it. The number was well below the required threshold of 40 per cent. Labour Government Cabinet Ministers must have been relieved because to put that Act into effect would have been a nightmare as all the faults and confusion about the new assembly were exposed.
It took four years for that government to produce and put the legislation through Parliament. There are reports now that the present Shadow Cabinet is proposing legislation in the first year of a Parliament, if it wins an election and forms a government. Can that be correct? Four years were needed for a half-baked Scottish Bill in the 1970s. What preparation and consultation does the Labour Party think necessary now for legislation which will apparently also affect England and Wales?
In this debate, each of us is allowed only a limited time and I shall describe very briefly earlier events. The Labour Government proposed a Royal Commission on the constitution of the United Kingdom which was appointed in April 1969. It took four-and-a-half years and reported only four months before the general election was called in 1974 and a change of government occurred. The first chairman of that Royal Commission, the late Lord Crowther, who died soon afterwards in office, told me, as I was Secretary of State for Scotland in 1970, that he hoped that the report would be made within two years of the commission's appointment.
During 1970–73, I had hoped to issue a consultation document on the Home constitutional committee's proposals—anodyne proposals as they were. I was told that the new chairman, the late Lord Kilbrandon, and several members of the commission would resign were I to pre-empt their conclusions by doing so. When the commission reported, there was little time to consider and consult before a Labour Government followed.
The Kilbrandon Royal Commission report suggested that if a Scottish assembly were created, the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster should be reduced so that representation in proportion to population would be the same as in England. That would have brought the present 72 down to fewer than 60 Members. If there were to be a Scottish parliament, would that number be reduced further as in Northern Ireland when there was a parliament there before 1971? The electorate in the constituencies there were deliberately made larger than the average United Kingdom electorates.

1011
There has been massive administrative devolution in Scotland which is not known or understood everywhere. Several ministries in Whitehall do not have functions in Scotland; for example, the departments dealing with health, environment and education. The departments of the Scottish Office are their equivalents in Scotland.
I have never been negative on the question of arrangements for supervising the administration of the Scottish Office. For example, 33 years ago, when I was Scottish Whip in another place, I offered proposals within government to make changes in the composition of the Scottish Grand Committee and in its scope, procedures and methods, including holding meetings in Scotland. Later, the Scotsman newspaper published a series of articles by me setting out those proposals. I am happy to say today—and agreeably surprised—that all those proposals have now been adopted and are incorporated in the Scottish system working now in the House of Commons.
In any move to create an assembly in Scotland, one factor must be that it is a stable, workable system. If it is not, it will play into the hands of separatists. I urge the opposition parties or any others contemplating constitutional change in relation to the position of Scotland in the United Kingdom to proceed with the greatest care and caution.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will wish to thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for tabling this Motion. I was rather surprised to see that it referred to,
"the alternatives canvassed for the government of Scotland"
because I believe that there is only one alternative; that is, devolution. I thank the noble Lady for raising the matter and in particular for the first part of her speech in which she addressed the problems—and there is no doubt they will arise—in evolving a devolved system of government.
I should like to speak fairly briefly on the whole question of what the Government are trying to do. I believe that they are trying to mix up devolution and independence. In the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee of the other place on 17th May, there was, I believe, a quite deliberate attempt to confuse the minds of people and to concentrate only on the question of independence. I agree very largely with what the noble Lady said about total independence.
Some voices cry for an independent Scotland having no direct links with the other parts and countries of the United Kingdom. But all surveys and, much more importantly, election results over the years have shown clearly that although the desire for some form of home rule—however that is defined—is very strong indeed, the demand for complete independence is much weaker.
Let us take the example of the recent by-election in Perth and Kinross. A System 3 poll found that 52 per cent. of those voting Scottish Nationalist rejected the whole idea of independence. In that regard, I disagree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who said that the people who voted Scottish Nationalist did not know what they were voting for. It is clear from that poll that
1012
the 52 per cent. who voted Scottish Nationalist and did not agree with independence were simply making an anti-Conservative vote. They considered that to be the best way in which to keep the Conservatives from holding the seat. One must assume that the Scottish National Party will need to hold more than 30 seats in Scotland or receive a very substantial vote before we can accept its claim that the Scottish people want total independence.
I was closely involved in the earlier referendum. I was extremely annoyed with the Member in another place, George Cunningham, who proposed the figure of 40 per cent. It was an almost mischievous proposal to require a 40 per cent. vote—not of those voting but of the entire Scottish electorate—before the devolution proposals which we were putting forward could be accepted.
Noble Lords may recall that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Home, who was and still is held in great respect by most people in Scotland, said definitely, "Do not vote for these proposals. If we form a government, we shall put forward proper proposals for the proper government of Scotland." That was one of the reasons for the large number of abstentions. Noble Lords may recall that 33 per cent. were in favour, 33 per cent. were against and 33 per cent. abstained. I should not have supported any devolution proposals made on that rather shaky basis.
In the course of today's debate, our arguments must focus on devolution and away from separatism. I do not believe for a moment that most Scottish people believe that the total separation of Scotland from the rest of the UK is a possible proposition. I do not believe that it will come to that.
However, if there is a Scottish assembly, which I do want—I expect to hear at some point during today's debate that devolution is the ultimate road, the slippery slope, to independence—and the Scottish people feel their feet and decide democratically and very positively that they want independence, then, much as I deplore it and believe it to be quite wrong in a modern world, who should say that they should not have it if they democratically decide for it, knowing all the pitfalls? I do not see why we should not go forward. But it will not come to that.
Despite the strong sentiments that all of us in Scotland feel for our country, its history and its traditions, we are far too logical a people to pretend to ourselves that the break-up of the United Kingdom could be anything other than a disbenefit to the whole of the UK. Therefore, let us rid ourselves of the dangerous illusion that a totally separate Scotland would be viable or would be workable without having a relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. The reality is that the Scottish people want much more say in their own affairs. But they have only shown real support for the SNP at by-elections.
One of my honourable friends in the other place, the Member for Dundee East, Mr. John McAllion, has examined the election results since 1979. They are interesting figures. Since that date 288 parliamentary seats have been contested in Scotland. The SNP has won 10 of them; that means that it has actually lost 278. Yet there is no doubting the fact that the SNP makes a good

1013
deal of noise and that it attracts a certain amount of attention in Scotland. However, I believe that it is a tension caused by frustration because Scotland does not have the power that it really should have. Last year the SNP poll gave the party 32 per cent., a record. However, in the election for unitary authorities in April—in other words, a real election when we were speaking about hard facts and real people were being elected—its vote dropped to 26 per cent.
Noble Lords may feel that I am spending too much time on the question of independence. However, I believe it to be necessary because it is a hindrance to the consideration of the real democratic deficit which we suffer in Scotland. It is easier for the Government to encourage us to chase that will-o'-the-wisp than to accept the obvious fact; namely, that the people of Scotland have elected 49 Labour Members and 10 Liberal Democrats who prominently stood for the policy of devolution.
In a letter to my honourable friend, the Member for Hamilton, the Secretary of State wrote:
"If the SNP were to secure a majority of Scottish seats at a General Election, then Parliament would have to give consideration to the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom. Following this consideration, it might then be appropriate for discussion to take place which could lead to the electorate of Scotland being consulted in a Referendum".
That "majority" of seats is 37 seats that the Secretary of State says the Scottish Nationalists must get. The people who want devolution are 49 Labour MPs plus nine Liberal Democrats. That is 58 Scottish MPs. Yet we are not given the possibility of having a referendum or anything other than an attempt to smother the whole idea of Scottish independence.
The Secretary of State has been putting out some statements—easily knocked down—to try to avoid the debate about real democratic government for Scotland. Devolution is the only item on the Scottish agenda. I should like to emphasise that fact. I am sorry that the noble Lady who, I thought, started her speech so well, went on, as I said, to chase a will-o'-the-wisp.
I wish to quote briefly from a leader in the Financial Times of Friday, January 13th of this year which talked about devolution. It said:
"Devolution has a respectable enough international pedigree. Every other large state within the EU has regional government in some form; and while devolved or federal government is not a panacea for inter-regional tension—witness Canada"—
and, of course, the Quebec question about which we have spoken and about which we are all aware—
"it can help to reduce it. The sustained determination of a large majority of Scots to secure greater autonomy will have to be answered at some stage. Failure to do so could be more dangerous to the union than Labour's relatively modest proposals for devolution. A devolved Parliament would give Scotland one level of Government more than England and Wales, but the number of executive tiers already varies across the UK".
The leader concluded:
"Such an outcome would have rough edges. So does every workable constitution. Labour must show that it is ready to tackle such anomalies. It also needs to think hard about the desirability of instituting regions in England—a dubious policy which could jeopardise the whole endeavour. Yet Mr. Major's inflexibility on these issues is not an adequate answer to the tensions within the UK".
1014
Of course, I do not know, but we may not have Mr. Major. I am unaware as to how things are going in another place. However, I believe that we cannot dodge the idea that devolution is firmly on the agenda of the Scottish people.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, we are all greatly indebted to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for raising the issue today. Indeed, the following two speeches were very impressive: namely, that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has great experience in such matters as he was, once upon a time, Secretary of State for Scotland, and therefore knows a great deal about the subject; and also that of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. However, it is quite clear from listening to those speeches that many questions are raised to which no one has put forward satisfactory answers. I am not surprised at that because devolution is a most difficult issue.
Perhaps I may start by saying that I am all for the Union. But, having said that, I am equally for the Scots being able to run their own affairs. The problem is how to marry the two concepts. Without endangering the Union, how can we have the Scots saying more and, indeed, deciding on how they want to run their own internal affairs?
Let us go back for a moment to the early days; namely, the time of the Act of Union. The people of Scotland did not want that Act, but those in power, with a suitably sugared pill, let it go through or, in fact, promoted it. For 300 years we have seen the outcome. There have been hiccups: there was the 1715 uprising and there was the one in 1745 which was brutally suppressed. However, after all of that, we had the age of Enlightenment in Scotland when we really did go forward in a great way. Whether it was on philosophy, on economics, on the Industrial Revolution and, above all, whether it was on literature, we showed the great contribution that we could make to the whole of the country's well-being. I stress, "the whole of the country's well-being". Let us also look abroad at, for example, the work of our missionaries and our military. We were a very important element in the Empire.
However, over that latter period the Empire was in decline. That inevitably made people restless. The Scots in particular were more and more anxious to run their own affairs. The first breakthrough, after pressure, came in 1885 when a Secretary for Scotland was announced. Then, to follow what happened afterwards, we had the Secretary of State for Scotland and a Scottish Office, but its evolution was always within—and rightly so—the Union. The Scottish Office power with its block grant grew enormously. Indeed today there are over 5,000 people in the Scottish Office. That is about a third of what one finds in Brussels. Perhaps that makes your Lordships think!
What are we to do? How are we to control that Scottish Office? Of course Ministers and Secretaries of State do their best to consult but they consult the good and the wise whom they know. They do not consult the people and that is our trouble; namely, that the people of Scotland feel—and rightly so—that they do not have

1015
a say in how they are to be governed. We have seen the result of that in recent elections when, over the past few years, the Conservatives have only had a fraction of the vote but they have decided what is to be done. People do not like that. They do not like a sort of "nanny knows best" rule. I am quite clear myself that we must get away from that and that we must give the people of Scotland a real say in the running of the country.
Many of the matters are already decided and therefore we do not have to worry too much about them. We take it for granted that health, education and everything except social security, foreign affairs and defence will he taken care of in Scotland. Social security, foreign affairs and defence are matters for Whitehall and its Parliament. But how are we to ensure that the Scottish people have a say in their affairs? I am quite clear that the solution which we tried in 1979 was in general right; namely, that there should be a Scottish assembly. The referendum failed for various reasons which have already been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, but that was bad luck. The noble Lord, Lord Home, very reasonably said that he was for devolution but that he did not like the Bill. The problem is to find the right Bill. We must make another attempt.
What do I suggest? My next point may have shades of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I suggest that we have another Royal Commission because this question is so vitally important to all of us: not only to the people of Scotland but also to the rest of the Union. That Royal Commission should be given an impossible task. If one gives it an impossible task it often succeeds. I have in mind that it should be asked to report within, let us say, 18 months or two years. Much of the work has been done for it by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The questions in a sense are quite obvious. What is the relationship between a Secretary of State for Scotland and a convenor—I suspect that is what we would call him—of the assembly? What would be their respective powers? How would the voters elect the assembly? Would it be by indirect voting or should we have direct voting? I can think of a multitude of similar questions. However, I do not propose to suggest any answers, otherwise why set up a Royal Commission?
We have heard speakers in this debate say that this is an issue which is of the greatest importance for the whole of the country. It will not go away. If we do not do something now, as I have tried to demonstrate, this matter may well arise in a shape that none of us in this House would like. I have particularly in mind the idea of independence, although I must say, knowing the Scots, I suspect they are much too wise to go along with such an idea. I beg the Government to consider once again setting up a Royal Commission. I ask them to remember the history of evolution over the past 100 years. They must in the end find a solution which satisfies the Scottish people. As I say, let us be given an answer in 18 months, which allows time for some kind of legislation to he introduced by a new government of whatever colour; otherwise I fear, lest Scotland and the Union explode.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I join with others of your Lordships' House in thanking the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for giving us this opportunity to discuss what is an important subject for Scotland. I also congratulate the noble Lady on launching the debate in such grand style and on giving us such a wide-ranging speech. My only criticism of it is that she said so many things I wanted to say which I must now cut out.
I also enjoyed hearing what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, had to say, although I have some doubts about setting up yet another Royal Commission. In the honourable game of rugby, when a full-back gets in real trouble he kicks for touch. I think that the Secretary of State of whatever government happened to be in power would be accused of kicking for touch if he set up yet another Royal Commission on this subject.
I am a convinced Unionist, a position reached after an initial period of open-mindedness on the subject, followed by a brief sympathy during the late '60s and early '70s for a Scottish assembly of some sort, and my ultimate abandonment of the whole concept in the belief, which I still hold, that there can he no middle way. The alternative to Unionism is separatism, and any intermediate position can only lead ultimately to an independent Scotland. I can see no benefit whatsoever for Scotland in independence, and there are positive disadvantages, as I see it, in the sort of makeshift parliament presently on offer. I see nothing which is not available and attainable through the United Kingdom Parliament.
I do not propose to dwell on the many flaws in the Labour Party policy document A Parliament for Scotland other than to suggest that those proposals have been conceived for all the wrong reasons. They will create a further tier of taxation in Scotland; they will ensure constant friction between Edinburgh and Westminster; they will create aspirations which they will be unable to gratify; they will establish a monster with an insatiable appetite for money, aided and abetted by a membership which will blame Westminster for every defect and imperfection it may encounter in the day to day administration of Scottish government.
This situation will benefit only nationalism. The Scottish National Party need only sit back and wait. All its hopes will be fulfilled, and I predict that if Labour were to win the next election and legislate on the basis of the proposals at present before us, Scotland will be independent within a decade. The frustrations and the bickerings will make that certain and nearly 300 years of one of the greatest unions in history will be shattered. Proposals designed to counter nationalism will serve only to fuel the very fires they seek to quell.
Furthermore, the proposals have other serious consequences for Scotland. The West Lothian question is no nearer to being resolved, and it is inconceivable that the United Kingdom Parliament would continue to accept 72 Scottish Members representing Scottish constituencies to carry out only half or less of their present workload, presumably for the same remuneration, not to mention their ability to vote on English and Welsh matters, while the United Kingdom

1017
Parliament would lose the opportunity of voting on Scottish Bills. It seems to me that, after a great deal of argument, Scotland might finish up with something like 58 Members instead of 72. The position and authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland would be diluted substantially in Cabinet. All those factors would be to the great disadvantage of Scotland.
The truth of the matter is that Scotland has very little to gain and much to lose from the creation of a parliament in Edinburgh. The unpopularity of the Conservatives and the popularity of Labour for the time being in Scotland has little or nothing to do with the parties' attitudes to Scottish devolution. Instead of promising to legislate for a Scottish parliament in its first year of government, I suggest that Labour would be very much better employed promising a multi-option referendum within the first year. The Times of 11th January 1995, quoted Mr. Tony Blair on the question of a referendum on European matters as saying:
"Where important constitutional arrangements are at stake the people must have their say".
From the point of view of the people of Scotland, I should have thought that these proposals are vitally important. They concern a constitutional change and there should be an opportunity for the people of Scotland to have their say on the question. I should like to see a referendum that set out three options: the Labour proposals as presented; independence; or the status quo.
It is incumbent on those who seek major constitutional change to spell out in detail the pros and cons of the legislation. The Scottish people should have the full facts explained in detail—the benefits and the disadvantages. Such a major constitutional issue should be separated from the many policies on which a general election is fought, and a proper referendum campaign should be allowed. My assessment has always been that devolution is a media fascination and comes fairly well down the priority list of policies at a general election with most Scots.
There are precedents. We have had four separate referendums on constitutional matters, and the results have not always been predictable. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out that in previous referendums pollsters had frequently assessed support as being somewhere in the region of 75 per cent. However, in the 1979 referendum on devolution, despite opinion poll forecasts suggesting that 80 per cent. of Scots were in favour of a devolved parliament, less than a third of the population voted in favour.
If at the end of such a thorough and in-depth examination of the issues, separate from the distractions of a general election, the people of Scotland selected the route they wish to follow for their future there should be no recriminations. In my view, to proceed without such precautions would be wrong, dangerous and close to treacherous.
4.4 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, perhaps I may also begin by congratulating my noble kinsman Lady Saltoun of Abernethy for having the wisdom and
1018
persistence to introduce this debate about the future government of Scotland. It is a most urgent subject in Scotland.
A historical approach is essential to my thinking and relevant to today's situation. In 1603 James VI, King of Scots, succeeded to the throne of England and became executive head of both autonomous states in parallel. He successfully worked with both the English Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. He understood above all that good government of Scotland was direct Scottish government. His successors as kings and queens of Scots understood progressively less about the importance of separate government within their united kingdoms. By the end of the 17th century the misunderstood roles of the twin governments led to confusion, especially as the two countries had adopted different foreign and economic policies.
The debate about the merits of moving to a united and hence international parliament was fought out by those gurus of the time, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun and John Erskine, Earl of Mar and Principal Secretary. The two usually agreed, but not about this subject. Fletcher of Saltoun said:
"The Scots deserve no pity if they voluntarily surrender their united and separate interests to the mercy of a united parliament, where the English have so vast a majority. This will be the issue of that darling plea, of being one and not two; it will be turned upon the Scots with a vengeance; and their 45 Scots members may dance around to all eternity, in a trap of their own making".
Fletcher of Saltoun was right about the merry dance, but Mar signed the Union in 1707. He subsequently led a rebellion against it in 1715, a clear assessment of how the Union was not working out. He commented at the time:
"I was as keen to break it as I was to make it".
Today the majority of the Scottish people consistently vote for parties which promote different foreign and economic policies from those chosen by the vast majority of English voters. Scotland prefers a more communal and democratic approach to the economy and a more internationalist approach in foreign affairs. Meanwhile England prefers a more individualist and nationalist approach. I am very worried by the rise of English nationalism as expressed in the anti-European movement.
Throughout my comparatively short lifetime the party opposite has never held a majority of seats in Scotland, yet we have endured 33 years of minority government in the past 46 years. That democratic deficit, characterised by the 49 Labour seats and the 11 Conservative seats held at present out of a total of 72, points the way forward. Scotland should return to autonomous government within the united kingdoms. As a small nation the Scots would find their place in the world as the 26th economic nation. Only in that way will the Scots be able to eliminate the democratic deficit.
Other devolutionary measures would not lead to a true picture of the political choice of the Scots, for as long as some voters choose to vote SNP, which is a broad pressure group cum political party, we shall not be able to achieve a democratically accurate government for Scotland. That may also be true of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, which will then be

1019
able to promote Conservative policies for Scotland rather than devoting its energies to defending the Union as it is currently organised. That process will also be assisted by the adoption of proportional representation.
My second reservation over devolutionary measures is that there seems to be little demand for regional government in some parts of England. I fear that that would create an unbalanced tier of government which I believe would lead to endless argument, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords.
This renegotiation of the Union should be entered into willingly and co-operatively. The treaty of 1707 was a freely negotiated settlement voted for by the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned itself for as long as the treaty held. It is a trial marriage. The future treaty must also be freely negotiated. Those negotiations must be conducted in stark contrast to the debate and negotiations in the early part of this century over devolution in Ireland. The intransigence of the British Government led to a war of independence, a truce at the request of the British Government, a grudging and inadequate treaty in 1921, and a brief civil war in the newly established Irish Free State.
The move to the autonomous government of Scotland must be the result of the intellectual decision of the Scottish people. There is no need for violent action to back this claim. I have been saddened by the repeated assertions of visiting Conservative politicians that there is not enough bitterness yet to merit devolution or constitutional change and that the Scots would be better off as minority players in a united parliament situation. This playing of the regrettable "no corpses, no referendum" card sounds a little like the negotiating stance over Ireland in 1921.
On the economic front, I freely acknowledge that initially Scotland would be less well off after splitting with a G7 country. The Scots must weigh up the benefit of subsidy against that of democracy. The challenge that I throw down is that the conversion to small national status would unleash the latent Scottish economic potential and creativity which is being stifled by being the northern and distant branch of British enterprises. Ireland's success within the European Union points the way; and the Irish started off on a much shakier economic footing.
Scotland would definitely wish to maintain its seat in the European Union. As the treaty of 1707 was between equal partners, who is to say that it would not be Scotland which maintains the former British seat?
I conclude my contribution to the debate by confirming that Scotland's future lies in solving the democratic deficit and making its own way into the global economy. This Brito-sceptic position bears no malice towards England, Wales or Northern Ireland. There would be an open European Union border with no barbed wire. I sincerely hope that when the new treaty is being drawn up the negotiations are entered into generously and benevolently by statesmen who can see that our countries have a fine co-operative future ahead. The music will then have stopped for Fletcher of Saltoun's merry dance. The possibility of a British Isles
1020
Federation, including Ireland, will have become increasingly attractive. That will be the ultimate evolution for our island peoples.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I, too, should like to pay tribute to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, for bringing forward this subject for debate today. I believe that your Lordships' House is a very suitable place to debate calmly and rationally these important issues on a subject that naturally raises the emotions of those of us who care deeply for the future of Scotland within the United Kingdom. I say "within the United Kingdom"; I was interested to hear what the previous speaker said about, presumably, a separate Scotland.
I state at the outset that I do not personally favour a Scottish assembly, not through any doctrinaire view but because I believe that constitutional change can end up in disaster for the very people that it is intended to help. I realise that perhaps my perception is not shared by a very large number of my fellow Scots, but I trust that my views can be considered alongside those who take a different view.
My concern is that in any constitutional change—particularly legislative change—the whole process has to be fair, and be seen to be fair, by all those affected. That is particularly necessary where the nations of Scotland and indeed Wales are numerically so much smaller than their English neighbour. In short, it is essential that no political party or group plays fast and loose with the constitutional base on which the United Kingdom is founded.
The reasons for the desire for a devolved assembly in Scotland, and perhaps in Wales, (although I cannot speak for Wales) are not difficult to find: bringing government nearer to the people; devolving power and law-making from the centre; satisfying the inbuilt nationalism which is in all of us in Scotland—in Scotland's case those feelings are fostered by a period of government by a party whose political strength lies elsewhere—and an aversion to the man from Whitehall who always seems to know best. That is quite apart from anything that might happen on the football pitch or rugby field.
First, I believe that if a law-making assembly is to be long lasting and answerable to the electorate, it must have tax-raising powers. Representation without taxation is not a good democratic recipe.
Secondly, it is difficult to circumscribe the law-making powers of any assembly. Where the United Kingdom and the assembly government in power sing from the same hymn sheet, all can be well and good. But if the opposite were the case—remember, my Lords, that we are considering law-making bodies—that would be totally different from the tensions which can and do exist between local government and national Government.
Thirdly—and in my view this is fundamental to any change—what is offered to the Scots and the Welsh must be offered in equal measure to the English. It is no answer to say that the English do not demand change,

1021
therefore they need not have it. Their interests should not be ignored, because if we ignore them we do so at our peril. I do not believe that a federal solution can be introduced into the United Kingdom gradually. For devolved government to work it must give each citizen, or the citizen's representative, as nearly as possible equal treatment under the law.
That brings me to my real fear for any lopsided proposals for change. Is it fair and reasonable to expect English Members of Parliament to condone the practice of Scottish MPs at Westminster voting on matters which, by their very nature, are devolved to their own assembly? If regional assemblies, exactly akin to their Scottish and Welsh counterparts, are not proposed then binding arrangements would have to be in place to satisfy the Members representing English constituencies. Will that not lead to first-class and second-class citizens as MPs; or, if not, an undoubted reduction in the power, number and influence of MPs from areas with devolved assemblies? Is that what Scotland and Wales really want—a diminution of their power and influence at the United Kingdom Government level? If this matter is not attended to, there will, I believe, be chaos in another place in the first Session after the Scottish and Welsh assemblies are set up.
Other questions arise which need to be addressed, the most important of which is electoral representation at Westminster as a result of the creation of assemblies; the future arrangements concerning the Callaghan formula for Scottish bloc finance upheld by successive governments; and the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who under any such scheme could sit in Cabinet as a Minister without portfolio.
I leave your Lordships with one last thought. No responsible government can be, or is likely to be, popular throughout their tenure of office. That is perfectly clear in history. Labour and Conservative Administrations have suffered equally in this regard.
Looking ahead to a scenario where perhaps a Labour Party, given its strength in the central belt of Scotland, controls a Scottish assembly, and (as is bound to happen at some stage) offends the feelings of the people—that is easily done—what then? Will the protest vote emerge to push the Scottish nation towards a separate Scottish state? The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, does not think so. Alternatively, will the Unionist parties win through? Whichever way, it is a very considerable risk for the people of Scotland.
I hear the siren voices of Scottish businessmen being discounted by supporters of a Scottish assembly. I accept that the arrival of a Scottish assembly is unlikely to bring about immediate change—although it is a great risk. But the scenario which I have just painted will, I believe, bring with it an avalanche of change if there is even a threat of going down the road towards a separate Scotland.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, your Lordships' House is a forum for rational debate. As a businessman and a Scot who has worked all my life in Scotland, I believe in creating the climate where risk and reward can flourish. Scotland, in the industrial sense, is making sustained and steady progress. By inching in a
1022
well-meaning way towards a separate state, politicians could do long-term damage to our industrial and commercial future. I urge caution on all those who propose change.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he assure us that under PR the Conservatives would have their proper representation in Scotland so that the disasters that he envisages need not occur?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I know his views on proportional representation. What concerns me far more is what happens in the Palace of Westminster at the time of the proposals being put forward, without equal treatment being given to those who live in England.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I have a slight degree of trepidation at being the first non-Scottish Member of your Lordships' House to intervene in the debate. I do so at the kind invitation of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and I am grateful to her, as a colleague on the Cross-Benches, for proposing the debate.
I have been fascinated by the range of the historical discussion we have had so far. We have ranged back to the roots of the union between England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. We have also ranged heavily through devolution. There are two separate Welsh and Scottish pronunciations of that word; one rhymes with "revolution", the other apparently does not. We have ranged from the devolution debates of the 1960s and 1970s through to a great concern about a separatist future.
Speaking as a post-nationalist of strong conviction, I wish to argue that there can be no separatism anywhere any more. Neither can there be pure nationalism which is not also negative. However, there can be degrees of power relations between various centres of powers. That, I believe, is what the debate should be about. If we are calling attention to alternatives for the governance of Scotland, we are at the same time looking at the structures which will influence the rest of the United Kingdom, indeed the rest of Europe. We are no longer in the age of the construction of nation states. Whether we like it or not—and I have the impression that many Members of the House do not like it—we are not in the time of the construction of a nation state, but in a time of its deconstruction. The argument which is still going on in another place is very much about that subject and the relationship between the British state and the European Union. That is part of the European context of our debate. That is why I say that we are no longer about separatism or borders; we are no longer debating economic independence. We should be debating how we set out the relationships between partners.
Therefore, when we argue about the relationship between Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, we should not be positing the question of the United Kingdom and separatism as if they were two alternatives. None of my colleagues in the Government of Catalonia would posit the issue in that way. They have no difficulty. Jordi Pujol, as the Minister President of Catalonia, a Christian Democrat

1023
of long standing, would have no difficulty in reconciling the unity of the Spanish crown with the autonomy of Catalonia.
Similarly, the time is coming when unionists in the United Kingdom who have a serious commitment to the Crown in Parliament, as the constitutional structure of the kingdom, should also address themselves to the question that the United Kingdom is not necessarily a unitary state. With respect, that seems to me to be at the root of much of the confusion in the debate. One can have a United Kingdom. If I dare to speak on behalf of the Principality of Wales, one can feel oneself part of the United Kingdom without at the same time taking the view that it should be run by a Secretary of State, appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, to govern the country in the style of the previous Secretary of State for Wales. I am not talking about the present caretaker, but about his predecessor.
So one can imagine a situation where, within a United Kingdom, there can be elected and devolved levels of government which share power in a federal structure, as is the situation in the Spanish and the Belgian kingdoms. Your Lordships' House might have a view about the Belgian state which has recently gone through a major constitutional transformation. It has emerged with what? A crisis? With a major political upheaval? No: with the same kind of government in terms of party balance as it had before. I suggest that it is possible to imagine a similar translation within the United Kingdom. It is possible to envisage the development of gradual federalism within the kingdom without undermining either the Crown itself or the traditional institutions of British society which we share in common.
Therefore, as we look to the future and the 21st century of the principalities, nations and regions of these islands, we need to have a far more forward-looking and, dare I say it, European continental philosophical approach in terms of political structures. We need to return, as this House has always done, to the major constitutional issues that were debated at the turn of the 19th century and debated again in the 1960s and 1970s when Members of this noble House made such an important contribution. We have already heard of Lord Crowther and Lord Kilbrandon, and we need to return to those attempts to consider the issue rationally and dispassionately.
I was interested in the proposal of my colleague on the Cross-Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that we should have another constitutional convention or commission to consider the issue. It seems to me that that might not be the appropriate solution. However, if, after the next general election to the other place, there is a clear majority in the Principality of Wales and the nation of Scotland for proposals of a devolutionary nature, it might be appropriate for all parties sharing those views—whether or not in government—to sit around a table. It might be at a Speaker's Conference or some other constitutional venue that they should discuss future developments. Thus all the parties within those areas that might be devolved could feel that they had a share in the change. I would not want Conservatives and unionists in Scotland or Wales to feel that they were in
1024
any way excluded from a process of change, if that is what the peoples of those two nations decide after an election.
That brings me finally and appropriately to the question of England. I have a deep concern for the well-being of all colleagues in England. As a historic nation, we have enjoyed open borders with England for over a thousand years. Indeed, we no longer have an Act of Union because, by Schedule 2 to the Welsh Language Act 1993, the legislation which incorporated Wales into this realm of England henceforth and evermore was deleted from the statute book as lapsed legislation. The basis of the union between Wales and England is now current and modern legislation. Therefore, it is quite easily reformed. It does not even require another treaty.
Looking at the future of England, I do not see how the argument that one partner is bigger than the other somehow denies the basis of the relationship. Historically, the growth of the English nation and its becoming intertwined with the British state may have been a negative force in the life and culture of England itself. I believe that when the people of England—those in its regions and of its ethnic and cultural diversity—realise the potential of being a free partner in the European Union, then those will be positive days for England itself. We may see less Euro-scepticism about than has been the case in recent weeks and months.
England is a medium-sized European nation. Its historical role as the determining and strong nation within the British state probably even now prevents it from being a wholehearted partner in a European union of nations and regions. Therefore, I believe that it has always been the historic role of Welsh and Scottish nationalists to assist in the liberation of England.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I want to speak about a more detailed matter than has just been dealt with by the previous speaker. In an article last week in The Times entitled "Labour's Better Way", Mr. Tony Blair gave his justification for some of the recently announced U-turns in policy which he hopes that the Labour Party is about to execute. In that article he spoke about reversal of his policy for parts of the National Health Service and for schools in England and Wales. It seems that, having consulted the customers, the Labour Party has decided that many of the Conservative Government's new arrangements which the Labour Party has bitterly opposed through the years are in fact working well and should not be changed.
I want to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who opened the debate for the Labour Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, who will wind up for them, that there is an urgent need for the Labour Party to extend such pragmatic realism to its thinking about its policy for the governance of Scotland. From the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, given from the Labour Front Bench, one would not have known that his party had any detailed policy at all but merely that it favours devolution and feels that it will be the solution to the fear that Scotland might go independent.

1025
In fact, I should have thought that to reverse policy on the plans for a Scottish parliament would not be easy for Mr. Blair. On his visits to Scotland, he has in person repeatedly and explicitly promised the people of Scotland that, if elected, a Labour Government would legislate in their first year for a legislative and tax-raising body covering a very large area of responsibility. He has promised that. That general prospect—most people do not think too much about the details—played a large part in Labour's success in the recent European and local government elections in Scotland. Negative equity in housing is an issue in only very small parts of Scotland. The economy is succeeding above the UK average in Scotland. I believe that the feel-good factor has to do with the issue of the Scottish parliament.
The trouble is that, attractive though the general idea may seem to be in Scotland, from what we know so far from the small print the scheme not only would not work but would lead to such tension between Scotland and the rest of the UK that possibly sooner rather than later the Union would simply disintegrate. It seems to me that, quite apart from the much discussed problems of which members of which parliament would vote on which matters, and the like, the financial arrangements alone, as so far indicated, would cause disastrous conflict.
Last November, speaking to local government councillors, Mr. George Robertson, Tony Blair's principal spokesman on Scotland, stated that the funding would be on the lines proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, whose proposals were explained very clearly by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and whose joint chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, will reply to this debate on behalf of the Labour Party. The Scottish parliament, we are told, would have assigned to it all the income tax and VAT raised in Scotland. That would be supplemented by a grant to make up any shortfall in current levels of funding for Scotland and the parliament would then be able to increase or cut Scottish tax by the equivalent of 3p on the standard rate. That means—the point has not yet been made—that in effect the level of the basic rate of income tax in Scotland would depend on the size of the parliament's grant from Westminster. So, inevitably, if the Scots parliament raised the basic rate from, say, 25p to 28p in the pound, that would justifiably be blamed by Scots on too small a Westminster grant; and if the Scots' basic rate was reduced from 25p to 22p, that would be seen in the rest of the United Kingdom as the result of too high a Westminster grant.
How would the Westminster grant be fixed, anyway? Scotland has 8.8 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom. It contributes only 8.3 per cent. of United Kingdom revenue from the four main taxes. But it secures, I believe for justifiable reasons, 10.3 per cent. of public spending. How would the rest of the United Kingdom see that 10.3 per cent. of public spending if the Scots parliament chose to lower Scots' tax by 3p?
Whatever else it is or will become, the Labour Party is a party which values the Union. It tells us that the parliament will be designed to strengthen that Union. I
1026
respectfully suggest that the parliament as so far proposed, far from strengthening the Union, would in fact destroy it. Doubtless, that is why the Scottish National Party separatists are thinking of supporting the Labour Party's legislation, if and when it ever comes to Parliament.
In the article in The Times that I mentioned, Mr. Blair wrote:
"The debate in the late '90s has to move beyond structures to outcomes".
I myself am not so sure as some of my political colleagues who have just spoken that we can in fact do without some change of structure for the governance of Scotland beyond the ideas already under way for greater use of the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Standing Committee system. But it must be change which will strengthen the Union and not weaken it.
Scotland's sense of nationhood is strong. It still does not see that sense adequately reflected in Parliament. That does not mean that people want to be a separate nation. Perhaps the recently announced independent constitutional unit, which nobody has yet mentioned, to be chaired by the director of the Hamlyn Foundation and financed by charity will have helpful ideas. I do not know. At least it is looking at the right problem.
I hope that my own party will continue to develop its thinking. In the meantime, I hope that the Labour Party, for the moment in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, when he speaks, can give us some assurance that it is looking at plans which are different from those that it has so far advocated and that it realises that the outcome of the structural change that it seems to have in mind could be disastrous for the Union.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for bringing forward this debate today. It is important and timely and I particularly note the second half of the Motion,
"and to their effect on the future of the United Kingdom".
I believe that to be important. However, I rise with some trepidation fearing that I may be struck down because I do not have the Scottish credentials of those noble Lords who have already spoken. I am merely a near neighbour from across the 12 miles of the Irish Sea.
I have an interest in the debate because I am a committed Unionist who would oppose any weakening of the Union. I have been glad to note that almost all noble Lords who have spoken have been strongly in favour of the Union. However, I wonder whether concern and thought for the Union is so widespread in the world outside. Since this Motion appeared on the Order Paper, I have been asking people what they think about the Union and often received a reply such as, "I don't mind if the Scots go off on their own"; but usually the consequences have not been thought out and after some discussion the remark is withdrawn. It is worrying that the importance and value of the Union does not seem to be generally understood.
As a native of Northern Ireland I can well understand why the Scots have been discussing a whole range of alternatives. In their view their interests and needs have

1027
not been taken into account by a Government that is based in London and appearing to think only of London and the Home Counties. Exactly the same feelings are widespread in Northern Ireland where we have an even greater democratic deficit. I believe damage has been done in the past 12 or 14 years by the increasing centralisation and concentration of government in London. To those living several hundred miles from London it often seemed that decisions had been made and action taken for reasons of political doctrine and little or no account taken of the possibility that a particular policy may not be appropriate to all regions. Representations and reasoned objections seldom have any effect. It is no wonder that a wide range of alternatives have been discussed. I do not find it surprising that Conservative Party support in Scotland has almost disappeared.
However, the future of the United Kingdom and the steps taken in Scotland are so important that it would be dangerous if they were taken in any way for party reasons. I listened with interest to the suggestion from my noble friend Lord Perth that in some way we might have another Royal Commission, though I can understand the possible difficulties in that regard.
The thought of a regional parliament terrifies me. I can see it leading to all sorts of problems. I do not think much better of a regional assembly. It will lead to bickering, arguments and lusting after further powers. It does not seem to me to be impossible, by the parties working together, to devolve two regions to work on what they can best do locally. The principle of subsidiarity is treated with disdain because of its European context, but it should be applied to Scotland and the outer regions. It should not be beyond the wit of man to arrange a practical system for devolved government that can be dealt with locally.
Unless those matters are thought through and appropriate action taken in the near future, we shall see growing support for unreasonable action or even unilateral declaration of independence by Scotland. I hope and trust that that does not come about and that all politicians who care about the Union will come together to find a solution for what is a real and urgent problem; a solution that will strengthen the Union rather than lead to its destruction.
4.44 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, first, I apologise for any discourtesy to other speakers if I do not stay for the whole of the debate; I am temporarily incapacitated and cannot sit for any length of time.
We should all be grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for the opportunity she has given us today to discuss the future of Scottish constitutional affairs. The whole issue is inextricably linked with the national identity of Scots and Scotland and the future of the Union itself. On the first of those I make no bones about my position. I was born a Scot; I live and work there; and therefore, like so many of my countrymen, I consider myself as Scottish first and British second.
Equally, on the issue of the Union, I speak as a Unionist who supports Conservative policies rather than as a Conservative. Indeed, I greatly regret the changes
1028
made in the 1960s under which my party in Scotland ceased to be styled as plain and simple Unionist, or Scottish Unionist. I believe that we would fare far better electorally if we now returned to our original and proper description.
My definition of a Unionist is one who believes that the maintenance of the Union is the great political concept which is overwhelmingly more important than any of the lesser political issues that divide parties. There have always been two perversely different sides to the Scots, or perhaps there are even two different types of Scot. There are the progressive Scots who looked on the United Kingdom, and often the world, as giving them the wider opportunities that a small country would have denied them. In industry, finance,12 commerce, science, medicine, war, philosophy and politics, the Scots have made contributions quite disproportionate to their numbers, and a great many of them achieved such things, not after permanently leaving their homeland, but while remaining firmly based in Scotland.
It was the native and constructive energy of the Scots which was released by the Union and which for centuries now has benefited both parties to that great bargain. However, I am afraid that there is another side to the Scots which is something of a querulous, parochial and complaining one—we all suffer from that at times. Right now I fear it is that side of our character which is in the ascendant.
There is today much general discontent in the UK as a whole with the performance of the Government. In Scotland that discontent is conveniently, if somewhat irrationally, magnified because the main seat of government is in London. Just as Britons often find it useful to blame Brussels for many of their perceived woes, so perhaps the Scots today, in their moments of discontent, blame what they perceive as an English Government because it is English. The Scottish Nationalists of course have nurtured that unconstructive reaction with the sound bites which pass for their policy.
In all of that the benefits of the Union are simply taken for granted, and we Scots should just remind ourselves clearly what some of those are. There is the wider opportunity the Union provides; there is the disproportionate share of national revenue which Scotland enjoys—naturally the SNP denies that that particular advantage exists but its studies on the subject do not stand up even to superficial analysis compared to the financial reality which is strongly beneficial to Scotland.
In domestic political terms, Scotland benefits from the Union through disproportionate representation at Westminster—and, incidentally, no party normally benefits more from that than does Labour. In international political terms, the Union also benefits Scotland as its interests are backed by the weight of the United Kingdom as a whole. Such are some of the advantages of the Union to Scotland. Perhaps they are taken for granted simply because they have existed for so long and have become such integral parts of the structure of Scotland. It is because I believe that

1029
devolution will strain the bonds of the Union and ultimately even destroy them that I am so strongly opposed to it.
Consider for a moment just what strains devolution in the form proposed will cause: the West Lothian question, with which your Lordships are all familiar, is not effectively addressed by these proposals; over-representation at Westminster is not addressed; the proposals for tax-raising powers can be condemned twice over—first, because of the public focus they will inevitably bring on Scotland's disproportionate share of national revenue and the likely practical result of that, and secondly because they will adversely affect Scots financially. They will add to the costs of Scottish industry and to the cost of simply being a Scot. Worst of all is the situation which will arise if there are governments of quite different political persuasions in Westminster and in Edinburgh.
Of course the simplistic will argue that there are successful politically devolved states all over the world. But most of them started that way—like Switzerland and the United States—and none of them that I can recollect consciously and successfully turned itself into such a form of government.
There are plenty more lesser issues which time prevents me rehearsing but which would give every divisive opportunity for rancour and disagreement. I would only mention the proposal to have, compulsorily, a large number of ladies in the proposed assembly. Some people will rightly think that this proposal is condescending to ladies. Others, I am afraid, will simply recall John Knox's phrase "the monstrous regiment of women". The SNP will make it their destructive business to exploit these opportunities, since to them the assembly is but a stepping-stone to the dissolution of the Union as we know it. The media, for whom good news seldom counts today as news at all, will hardly pour oil on such troubled waters.
Finally, I ask whether Scots really want devolution. Of course the opinion polls say that they do, and so do those who go on about such matters as "a widely perceived democratic deficit". But I remind your Lordships that when the referendum campaign started in 1978, the majority for devolution in the opinion polls was exactly the same as it is today; and yet in the end the vote was almost exactly evenly divided. Moreover, without exception, the opinion polls always show that devolution is very low in the list of concerns of the Scottish public.
Perhaps the true situation is that a majority of Scots have some vague sympathy today for the idea of an assembly, but the low place they seem to give it in their political priorities simply indicates their lack of conviction or enthusiasm, just as it confirms how totally unsound it is to use the result of a general election, where presumably people actually vote for their political priorities, as a mandate by proxy for constitutional change of this magnitude.
After all, the populist instinct of most lemmings, prompted perhaps by their love of sea-bathing, leads them to jump off cliffs, but that is no good reason for responsible political leaders to invite them to do so, or
1030
even give them the opportunity. I do not know where it leaves you all, my Lords. It leaves me, as a Scot, with a deep sense of foreboding and with the fear of constitutional convulsion and even the destruction of the Union in which Scotland's distinct identity and spirit have been preserved, and on which its prosperity and success have been built, if we plunge into such murky waters.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we are indebted to two Members of this House for the debate today. One is the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, whose interesting and perceptive introduction was much appreciated by noble Lords on all Benches. We are indebted, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, who has to wind up the proceedings for the Opposition today, because for two years he shared the chairmanship of the convention which has been the basis of the new policy document of the Labour Party, but not only of the Labour Party because it has been widely welcomed among the Scottish people.
My only criticism of the convention at the time was that, although it invited all organisations in Scotland to contribute to its deliberations, somehow or other it omitted the Scottish Peers Association, as a result of which they do not feature in the convention's plans for a unicameral parliament in Scotland. I somewhat regret the fact that while I am a Peer in this House it will be impossible for me in future to make any contribution whatever on the questions of housing, health, education, rural transport and so on. I shall be able to do that down here in England, but I shall have no voice whatever on those matters as they affect Scotland. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, will respond to that minor criticism when he comes to wind up.
During the previous discussions on this matter and on the original referendum on the subject I, along with the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, campaigned against a Scottish assembly. There was a very active committee at that time, of which I was a member. I have since changed my mind on the matter. I support the Labour Party document on this subject for several reasons. First, it is obvious that around 80 per cent. of the people of Scotland want an assembly. Some—a minority—want complete independence but about 80 per cent. of the people have declared in favour of a Scottish assembly.
A great deal has been said about preserving the Union. The noble Viscount, Lord Weir, has painted a picture of decline and a slippery slope towards complete independence. I tell the House that if we do not respond to the wishes of the Scottish people for an assembly the descent into the demand for complete independence will grow and will not diminish. The people of Scotland will feel that they have a right to their own assembly. But if they are told that they cannot have it and that the English Parliament has decided that they cannot have it, the reaction will be towards more extreme demands for independence than are involved in the document which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, produced.
That is one reason. This demand cannot be resisted. As a democrat I feel that we must respect that demand. I must say, too, that one of the unfortunate things about

1031
my fellow Scots who have contributed to the debate is their lack of trust in the good sense of the Scottish people to resist complete independence. I have trust in the Scottish people in that they want to preserve the Union, as I want to preserve the Union. I am quite sure that the disadvantages of complete independence will be readily apparent to the very sober and sensible fellow Scots with whom I live.
The other interesting thing that made me change my mind on this matter is the complete decline of the democratic process in Scotland. When I was a very young member of the Glasgow City Council we had complete control over housing, health and education. They were all locally controlled and in the hands of people who had responsibility for administering these matters. Today in Scotland all these functions have been transferred to non-elected quangos. There has been a tremendous growth of centralisation of government. People have lost power over the things that affect them in their daily lives. The suggestion of the Labour Party for a Scottish assembly is simply to bring back power to the people. It is a demand that must be met.
One thing that encourages me about the proposals of the Labour Party is its acceptance of a degree of proportional representation. I am sure that that commends itself to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and the Liberal Benches. Initially, I was afraid that a new Scottish assembly under the old voting arrangements would simply be Strathclyde Council Mark II, but I am now satisfied that, because we shall have proportional representation, we shall have better and more democratic representation and greater diversity in the deliberations of that assembly.
Many people have said that, if we move towards the assembly, somehow that will seriously affect the economy. I do not believe that that is so. Some people have said, "You will not get the same degree of inward investment". Southern Ireland does not do too badly in terms of inward investment. It is a much smaller country with a greater degree of independence than Scotland. Inward investment is attracted by skilled labour and the kind of environment in which people can have their work and their being. I do not believe that the creation of the assembly would necessarily have any serious impact on inward investment.
The problem of centralisation of government and power is an international problem. Some countries have been able to do very well in decentralising without necessarily disturbing the state as a whole. I have family who live in Switzerland. There a great deal of power is decentralised into the cantons. I look at the power and the exercise of influence of the German Lander which not only has a great deal of power in conducting its own affairs, but has representation in Brussels to ensure that its regional interests are taken care of.
So I believe that decentralisation proposals put forward by the convention of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, will not in any sense destroy the Union. They will not in any sense cause us to rush down the path of Scottish nationalism. Therefore, I commend very much the proposals which will be further outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing.
1032
We are glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, back in her place today. She was a little unfair about the Labour Party not giving details of its proposals. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, in winding up, will tell her a little more about that.
There are several questions still outstanding. As has been indicated, the West Lothian question has not been completely dealt with, including the number of MPs and so on. These are matters that can be worked out at a later stage. From these Benches we are simply saying that the voice of the people of Scotland is demanding some degree of devolution. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that it is a major constitutional change and that we must proceed with some degree of care and caution.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, that the figure of 80 per cent. in the poll as the number of people in favour of a Scottish assembly is the same as it was the last time round, and that the votes in the referendum showed that less one-third of the electorate voted for the Bill, which is why it fell in the end?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, this is a time-limited debate and I shall not intrude on someone else's time. As I recall, at the last referendum, the pro-assembly group failed to gain 40 per cent. of the electors. I suggest that if a referendum was held now, the result would be somewhat different.
5.5 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject and to consider the implications and the possible alternatives that are being canvassed for the future government of Scotland.
The noble Lady has often spoken in the past in your Lordships' House on this subject. I particularly recall the contribution that she made to the debate initiated by the late Lord Morton of Shuna on 13th January 1988 which appeared in Hansard at col. 1246. She described the Union as,
"a marriage of convenience between a rather arrogant and sometimes rather cruel man, possessed of large and rich estates, and a neighbouring lady, with a beautiful but impoverished estate, of great pride and a slightly prickly temperament".
The American, John Dickinson, coined the immortal words in his Liberty Song,
"By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall".
How very true those words are today when we come to consider our own United Kingdom and in particular the position of Scotland within that United Kingdom. The importance of our union must be viewed in an historical context if we are to understand the very real benefits that it has brought to all of the parties to that union. Professor Sir George Clark's book in the Oxford History of England series highlights this. In it he describes the

1033
work of the commission which was established by the Parliaments of Scotland and England, which led to the achievement of the Union in 1707. I quote,
"The Commission worked with real good will. On both sides they included men of the highest legal and political ability and they did their work well. A failure of intelligence or temper might easily have made it extremely difficult; but in sittings which lasted only three months, in the middle of the all absorbing business of war, they completed and signed their treaty".
I hope that the same spirit of goodwill can guide us all in the months and years ahead when it seems that the whole question of devolution will be coming again to the top of our agendas.
Trevelyan, in his History of England, stresses the immense benefits that the Union brought to both Scotland and England in the 18th century. Scotland gained free trade with a huge English domestic market and with the overseas markets of the emerging British Empire, and England gained free access to the best educated and most actively minded people in Europe.
It is upon the economic benefits accruing from the Union, right up to the present that I should like to concentrate my remarks this afternoon. That does not mean that I am not sensitive to the very real dangers that a bungled devolution might mean for our Union, but merely that I believe that the tangible problems that would be created by trying to implement such a devolution have been very adequately covered by other noble Lords this afternoon.
Speaking in 1988, my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, said in Edinburgh,
"With Scotland in unity with England, the United Kingdom in unity with Europe and Europe in unity with the Atlantic Community, there can be no threat to our increasing wealth".
I ask your Lordships to concentrate your minds on the positive economic benefits of our Union and not to be seduced by the theoreticians who seek the Holy Grail of misguided nationalism.
Summing up a debate on this subject in 1989, my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden emphasised how important economic success is to the very lifeblood of Scotland. A similar point was made strongly last week in the Scottish newspaper, the Herald, on 28th June, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goold, who had hoped to speak in this debate, for bringing it to my attention. I quote:
"Labour's approach to devolution could seriously affect inward investment in Scotland and lead to major companies transferring their headquarters south of the Border, the Director-General of the Institute of Directors warned yesterday.
"He said Scottish businesses such as Scottish and Newcastle, Morrison Construction Group, Standard Life and Scottish Widows were very closely integrated with the rest of the UK and their ability to create and maintain wealth depended on this. But devolution could result in them moving their headquarters South of the Border.
"The impact would not be immediate. Clearly if you have made an investment of £60 million, you are going to stay with that. But over a long period, you would see a gradual drain of investment away from Scotland. After all why have your main base in Scotland when the tax regime is more favourable in England?"
Let us not forget that Scotland has been a major beneficiary of inward investment, particularly in the manufacturing of electronic components and equipment in the so-called "Silicon Glen". Labour's approach to devolution would certainly put that benefit at risk.
1034
The facts are clear. In 1990, net capital investment by foreign-owned manufacturing firms in Scotland totalled £423 million, one-third of total UK manufacturing investment. With 1.5 per cent. of Europe's population, Scotland produces 11 per cent. of Europe's semi-conductors, 35 per cent. of personal computers, 50 per cent. of automated banking machines and nearly 60 per cent. of workstations. Those are impressive figures, which we should not put at risk.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount in a time-limited debate, but can he say how it is possible for Southern Ireland to have an equally impressive record of inward investment with its limited population and with an independent parliament, as compared with Scotland? Why would companies move out of Scotland just because it has a Scottish Assembly? It is nonsense.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord reads in Hansard the rest of my contribution.
I was delighted to read in the April edition of Engineering magazine, a respected business periodical for the engineering sector, a piece under the heading, "Celtic Revival". I shall quote:
"A previous slump in the output index of Scottish mechanical engineering halted by the end of last year. The latest Scottish Business Survey published at the start of this year, suggests that this is the long awaited turning point for the industry. Of the firms taking part in the survey some 43 per cent. expressed some business optimism.
It is a situation broadly supported by the Fraser of Allander Institute of the University of Strathclyde, which has been examining the mechanical engineering sector. In a recent report, the Institute noted that the engineering industry had, by necessity, become increasingly sophisticated and specialised sover the years in order to survive".
There is now clear evidence that a turning point in the Scottish industrial economy has been achieved after years of painstaking hard work. I believe that Scotland is poised to share with the whole United Kingdom the benefits of an economic upturn which has already begun.
I beg your Lordships not to throw away those benefits by imposing upon Scotland an ill-conceived and motley hybrid of constitutional changes which will provide no tangible gains, but merely provide a tinker's charter for muddle and obfuscation.
Scotland is potentially one of the wealthiest parts of our kingdom. The Scots are brimming over with energy, with creativity, with a love of learning and with a willingness to adapt. As a United Kingdom we are greater than the sum of our parts. I urge your Lordships not to meddle but to preserve the status quo.
I conclude with the reminder of my noble friend Lord Younger in his article in the House Magazine of March this year, when he wrote:
"Our greatest achievement is, I believe, to have joined with England and Wales to create Great Britain, without losing our individuality in the process. This track record bodes well for our fortunes in the 21st Century when we will have much leadership to contribute to Great Britain and the wider world".
If it isn't broken, for heaven's sake don't let's try to fix it.
5 15 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, this debate, which is of crucial importance both to this House and to the United Kingdom as a whole, has been admirably introduced by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, both with clarity and balance. I should like to join others in thanking her, in particular for her approach. She did not lay down rules; she asked questions. I believe that many Members of your Lordships' House, including myself, are searching for answers to the same questions. I have not yet heard satisfactory solutions. Like other noble Lords, I declare my passionate devotion to the Union although I believe that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House to speak who happens to have a 100 per cent. English father. I am therefore taking part in the debate as an English citizen of this country. I share the determination of noble Lords from Scotland to retain the Union which is the United Kingdom.
The Opposition have declared their intention to establish a parliament in Scotland. As that would raise issues already touched on by previous speakers, I shall not discuss it. It is, however, worth recalling that recent detailed figures published by the Treasury show that England pays more income tax per capita at £1,165 compared with Scotland's £1,050, with Scotland receiving £3,976 per capita to England's £3,263. Nobody complains about that. However, we must question whether the rest of the United Kingdom would be willing to continue that financial imbalance.
We must remember the cost of setting up a parliament in Scotland and the fact that it would be an expensive body to run, paying salaries commensurate with Members' tasks. I wonder whether the Scots realise when they vote for the party opposite that it will be an expensive business for them, to say nothing of the costs of running elections almost every year for one body or another. It is evident that the party opposite realises that there may well be a financial deficit since one of its first propositions is that a Scottish parliament would have the right to raise taxes. The hidden costs for Scotland could harm the competitive edge that it has succeeded in gaining in recent years through the skills and abilities to which my noble friends Lord Weir and Lord Oxfuird referred. That would be a loss not only for Scotland, but for the United Kingdom as a whole.
While it is the desire of the party opposite to gain popularity in order to form a government at the next election—at almost any price, it would seem, including that of risking the future of the United Kingdom—it might bear in mind that voting is not the preferred activity of Scots, nor of the populations of most democratic countries. When the party opposite talks about the "democratic deficit" with a sad voice, it is worth recording the fact that 25 per cent. of Scots did not vote at the last general election in 1992; that only 38.2 per cent. voted at the European parliamentary elections in 1994; and only 44 per cent. at the local elections in 1995. I do not see where the passionate desire for mending the democratic deficit is evident. Indeed, when the votes are counted, there is no guarantee that the majority would he held by Labour, as I am sure noble Lords opposite recognise. To set up a
1036
parliament is one thing, but to set up a parliament in which the Labour Party would or could be in a minority seems nothing short of incredible.
In considering the future of Scotland it is natural to look at the aspirations of the different political parties as set out in their party manifestos and in their leaders' speeches. Attention should be drawn specifically to the SNP manifesto published before the 1992 general election and also to the manifesto for the European parliamentary elections held in June 1994 as well as the policy statements made in the recent Perth and Kinross by-election. Its 1992 election programme headed, "Independence in Europe. Make it happen now" states:
"Meanwhile—as confirmed by eminent legal opinion"—
it does not say whose—
"as a successor state to the United Kingdom, Scotland continues to be part of the European Community".
And in the EP elections manifesto for June 1994:
"an independent Scotland will not need to apply for EU membership—all that will be required is a change in our status within the Community from powerless province to independent member state … Scotland will continue as a member of the European Union".
Apart from the complete misconception that Scotland is a powerless province when it is represented, as part of the UK, as one of the four leading players in the EU and has been a major beneficiary in terms of financial aid as a result, it would become a small country among many and among the four or five other small countries which obviously need the support of major countries to be heard. With the increase in the use of qualified majority voting, as supported by the Labour Party, and the right of veto which could disappear with a Labour government, which is one of the strengths of a small country, Scotland's voice would be hardly a whisper, if heard at all. It is also to be questioned whether the Scots, should they be so ill advised as to vote for independence, would surely want then to decide whether they wished to join the EU. That would be a further political hurdle.
I would like briefly to comment on the deception of the Scottish people into believing that they would cast off their centuries old membership of the UK and immediately remain as members of the EU as an independent state. That worries me greatly. There is no legal certainty whatever that this would be so. All eminent legal opinion—I am sure that my noble and learned friend will agree that it is only an opinion—is subject to alternative views. I do not pretend to know the answer but nor does anyone else at the present time.
Perhaps I may mention three major queries. First, can the Treaty of Union of 1707 be abrogated when it is not possible to return to the status quo ante? Surely, the answer is no, since there is no longer a Scottish parliament nor a Scottish kingdom; nor is there an English parliament or a kingdom of England. Both were joined by mutual agreement to form a United Kingdom and a United Kingdom Parliament.
Secondly, the question of the succession of states is a very complex subject—I would not dare to enter into it—but there is no assurance in international law that if Scotland were to secede from the UK it could automatically remain or even become a member of the

1037
EU with all the obligations and rights set out in the EEC Treaty. That is an international treaty binding the member states which ratified it. Thirdly, all the member states would have to agree to the membership of a new state if only to agree the budgetary contribution, the weighted voting, number of MEPs and so forth. These matters could take up to five years to negotiate, in accordance with present accession demands. In the meantime, would the financial aid flowing through to Scotland because of UK negotiations continue to flow?
There is no precedent in the EU for such a situation. It could be resolved eventually, possibly, by united political will, including the UK's, but it cannot be dismissed by the SNP in such a facile way. It is doubtful, for instance, whether countries such as Belgium or Spain, which have territorial issues, would be willing to support such a move. Even Greenland, which some years ago wanted to leave the EC, did not secede from Denmark but remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a full member of the EC. That took about two years to negotiate.
These are fundamental questions which arise despite the claims of the SNP. As I said, there is no legal certainty of automatic membership of the EU. The Scottish people are being deceived if they are being told that that is the truth. They do not deserve to be cheated. Those of us who have a special affection for, and close links with, Scotland through family and other relationships—and there are thousands of us throughout the southern part of the kingdom—would certainly do everything possible to ensure that those close links are retained under the concept that we all are and will remain citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If that relationship were to be changed both Britain and Scotland would be the losers.
5.25 p.m.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on initiating the debate and on her comprehensive speech which fitted neatly into her allotted 20 minutes. I hope that the noble Lady will not mind if I draw attention to one of her charming Christian names, the rightly Scots Flora. That is no secret; it appears in any good reference book. If by the end of the evening some wonder whether she might not also adopt the name Pandora, so be it. This particular constitutional box is one which some, I know, strongly feel should be kept nailed shut.
I am bound to say that I find it extraordinarily difficult to square the circle of Scotland's position vis-a-vis England in the United Kingdom, even having listened to the speeches of your Lordships. Three aspects of that were mentioned by the noble Lady. The first was the existing position of the Union; the second was the Labour Party's proposals and the third was the Scottish Nationalists' proposal. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to people who do not vote. If they are linked with the "don't knows" and "don't cares", that would be the other side of the square.
As regards my own position, perhaps I may slightly divert the discussion. Some noble Lords may be aware that Isabella Countess of Buchan crowned King Robert
1038
the Bruce in 1306. That was a double first for Scotland: the first crowning of a Scottish king, and the first such crowning by a woman. Noble Lords who watched a recent programme of "Mastermind" will share my wife's indignation on hearing a wrong answer to the question: who crowned Bruce? Some other countess was given the credit. Watch out Magnus Magnusson, we shall be after you with Bruce's broken Bannockburn axe!
On the subject of trying to keep an open mind, some noble Lords may remember the Moderator's advice to a Member of your Lordships' House many years ago when he was asked, "How shall I find out what a Scotsman thinks?". The answer was, "Consult the writings of Robert Burns first and if they are no good find a precedent". Robert Burns was born shortly after the Young Pretender's unsuccessful effort to reclaim the Crown of the United Kingdom; let it be noted, not only of Scotland. Unfortunately, Robert Burns does not give us much help.
The search for a precedent has been more fruitful in that the sixth Earl of Buchan was a member of the Scottish Estates at the time of the Union. What did he do and what would have qualified him to be a founder patron of the Cross-Benches in your Lordships' House? First, he denounced the proposals in the estates because he said that they would interfere with the rights of Scottish Peers in the new parliament. For that he was punished by losing his offices under the Crown, which was, presumably, an early case of "not being one of us". Nothing has changed much in 275 years, therefore!
Subsequently, being a strong supporter of the Hanoverian succession, he came back into favour. This mention of the Scottish Estates at the time of the Union leads to an interesting question. If Scotland were independent, who might sit in the Scottish parliament before elections had taken place assuming, as some do, that the last Scottish Estates was adjourned only in 1707? On a reconvening of the Estates, I believe that I, as a direct descendant, could claim my ancestor's seat. No doubt other noble Lords whose families were wise enough to collect UK Peerages in the intervening period would be in the same position. I would have the right to sit in both the Scottish and English Parliaments at the same time. Therefore, on the same day I might vote in Edinburgh to declare war on England, to cries of "Remember Bannockburn"; rush back to London on the shuttle and vote in your Lordships' House to decline the challenge, to shouts of "Don't forget Flodden". That is fanciful nonsense.
However, that is nothing to the nonsenses and horrors of wrenching apart Scotland and England without proper, careful thought. In that regard, I must support the proposal made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, however imperfect it may be, that a Royal Commission should be appointed to consider the whole matter.
Like many other noble Lords, in the Labour Party's proposals I am quite unable to understand the relationship which is to exist between members of the

1039
Scottish assembly and Members of this Parliament. But I certainly understand the words of Mr. Robertson in the Scottish Grand Committee who said:
"The fact is that separatism will not happen. The people of Scotland do not want it and have not voted for it. It is not desirable or sensible; it is unsellable … Separatism is the constitutional option which dares not speak its name".—[Official Report, Commons, Scottish Grand Committee, 17/5/95; col. 10.]
With regard to the Scottish National Party, it is impossible not to detect a change in sentiment from 20 years ago, at least in my part of the world. I support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for some action. It is impossible also not to respect the sincerity of Mr. Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party, although I wish that he would rename his constituency from Banff and Buchan to Banff and Buchan-who-does-not-always-agree-with-him.
On the subject of North Sea oil, never mind the old oil, what about the new deep seawater oilfields? It would be wrong for the Scottish Nationalists to claim those for Scotland. I believe that they belong to the Imperial and Royal Kingdom of Orkney and Shetland which is bound by treaty to England and Norway.
One final matter which is not directly connected with this question is that when I was perusing the parliamentary debates, I looked at some of the debates which were held at the time of the Union. My eye was diverted to a problem which the parliament of the day was having with the press. Plus ca change, my Lords, because a Motion was introduced saying:
"That the great liberty taken in printing and publishing false, scandalous, and impious Libels, creates division among her majesty's subjects, tends to the disturbance of the public peace, to the encrease of immorality, prophaneness, and irreligion, and is highly prejudicial to her majesty, and her government".
We have all heard that recently but let us consider the proposal to put that right. It was:
"That all Printing-Presses be registered with the names of the owners, and their places of abode".
It must have seemed such a good idea at the time and a fat lot of good that has done us.
I should like to quote to your Lordships from the speech of Queen Anne who had what I believe is the last word on this matter when she addressed your Lordships' House in January 1707. She said:
"My Lords and Gentlemen; You have now an opportunity before you, of putting the last hand to a happy Union of the two kingdoms, which I hope will be a lasting blessing to the whole island, a great addition to its wealth and power, and a firm security to the protestant religion.—The advantages which will accrue to us all from an Union, are so apparent, that I will add no more".
There it is, my Lords.
5.35 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am very proud to he a citizen of Great Britain. I shall do all I can to uphold the treaty of the union of the parliaments of 1707 because I am convinced that this United Kingdom is well represented and governed by this Parliament at Westminster. Between the union of the crowns in 1603 and 1707, Scotland had its own parliament but it lacked the political power to enable Scotland to become economically sound. Many Scots moved to London and gained posts of great influence in commercial and political circles.
1040
After 1707, the number of Scots moving south increased vastly. Countless Scots have settled in England over the past 300 years. They have fought alongside the English in every part of the world. In trade and commerce, they have excelled. We have had half a dozen Scottish Prime Ministers this century. There are Burns clubs in almost every town and village in the land. Although rugby matches at Twickenham and Murrayfield may still be hard fought, the ties between the two countries are now virtually indissoluble.
I have no wish to see Scotland's strong representation in this Parliament at Westminster weakened in any way by we Scots having some form of devolved parliament of our own. This Parliament represents a total population of 58 million, out of which Scotland's population is only 5 million or 8.5 per cent. And yet we are extremely well represented. We have our own Secretary of State for Scotland who is always a Cabinet Minister. We have 72 Members of Parliament and a very good representation in your Lordships' House, including our own Lord Advocate. The average parliamentary seat in the United Kingdom represents 89,000 people. In Scotland, the average MP represents only 69,400 people. Therefore, again, at present Scotland is well represented.
Also in proportion to our population, we receive a very good allocation by way of Exchequer grants. I have heard arguments that North Sea oil and gas belongs to Scotland. It does not. It belongs to the individual companies which have developed it. All those companies have bought the right to search for and exploit that oil and gas under a government licence.
If there is to be a criticism of this Parliament, it is for the lack of support over the years for the very valuable export trade of whisky and beer from Scotland. The Scotch Whisky Act 1988, piloted through this House by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, was basically a support from the European Parliament in guaranteeing that Scotch can only be the product of Scotland. I ask the Government to remember that in our cold climate we need whisky as an anti-freeze.
I believe also that in Scotland we have suffered from far too many of our industries being heavy industries; for example, shipbuilding and steelmaking. We could make money out of ships that were no more than 16,000 tonnes, but we could never compete in the building of ships of 100,000 tonnes.
Ravenscraig steel mills should never have been built in Scotland because, basically, one requires three products to make steel: iron ore, limestone and coking coal, all of which had to be imported to Scotland and the iron ore from overseas. It is only in the Durham area that we have enough coking coal and limestone.
Besides the drinks industry, one of the success stories of Scotland is our development in electronics and computer ware which, with our high standards of education, we should always be able to achieve.
I shall do all in my power to preserve our Scottish legal system, which I consider in many ways to be superior to that of any other country. Equally, I am convinced that our mental health care, our education standards and our children's reporter system arc very good. However, if we had our own parliament which relied on the small population of Scotland for its own

1041
finances, I very much doubt that we would ever have the necessary finance from taxes to maintain those high standards. Finally, I thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for initiating today's debate.
5.42 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I should begin by stating that, contrary to what the first part of my title may suggest, I am in fact three-quarters English and only one-quarter Scottish. However, I have lived in Scotland for the past 16 years, as well as at other times during my life. I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for initiating the debate.
The purpose of my speaking today is not to get too involved with the arguments regarding what sort of alternative government Scotland should adopt. I prefer to leave that to others of your Lordships who have far greater knowledge of the constitutional consequences that might arise. My aim today is to try to give an assessment of someone like myself looking from Scotland towards the Palace of Westminster and at the Government in London and to offer some reasons why things have gone against the present Government and the Conservative Party; but which, in my opinion, could also result in the demise of a future Labour Government and party in Scotland in the long term if they adopt their present devolution policies.
The Conservative Party in Scotland has declined during the past 15 years for two main reasons; first, that it is looked upon as an English parliamentary party—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Weir—and has not really made any effort to rectify that by also giving it a truly Scottish dimension. Secondly, it has also tended to use Scotland as an experimental ground for new legislation, the most famous of which was the community charge or poll tax. However, a plus mark has been earned for the abolition of two-tier regional and district councils and reverting back to a single local government authority next April.
Devolution as proposed by the Labour Party would only bring back yet another layer of government which, in the long term, would lead to conflict with the United Kingdom Government and calls for more powers, ending in complete independence. The 3 per cent. tax raising proposal would have a devastating effect on inward investment, regardless of what some noble Lords have said. In the part of Scotland in which I live, which is south of Glasgow, I have seen over the past 15 years a remarkable transition from old, traditional and out-dated heavy industry and coal mining to the new high technology industries.
In conclusion, I make no secret of my wholehearted support for the Union, with the possible further extension of powers to the Scottish Grand Committee, with purely Scottish legislation being taken, if possible, on the floor of the Old High School in Edinburgh. As long as the main portfolios such as foreign affairs, defence and the Treasury remain in the hands of a UK government, that should go some way to overcoming the West Lothian Question and satisfying a Scottish identity within the Union.
1042
I have no idea where your Lordships' House would stand in any proposed changes to the constitutional situation in Scotland. However, I have always been a believer in the old Scottish representation system that we had before life peerages came in and the Scottish system was amended. In spite of my hereditary position, I would support some form of representative peerage for the whole of the United Kingdom. I think that that would be a rather more gentle way of reforming your Lordships' House.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, as one who played a part, albeit a small one, in the debates on devolution in your Lordships' House in the late 1970s, I must say that I find it almost beyond belief that the Labour Party, if it were to get the chance, would wish again to get sucked into the devolutionary quagmire which submerged it once and which will, undoubtedly, submerge it again.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has indeed done a great service in highlighting the great dangers to the unity of Great Britain that exist today. Certainly, as a committed Unionist, I fear greatly for the continued state of the Union. We hear much grandiose talk about Britain's role in the world as we approach the millennium, but the question is: will there be a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a decade from now, or merely perhaps a Disunited Kingdom of several little regions submerged, for good measure, into Europe?
As one of the relatively few English speakers in today's debate, I find it a little difficult to discuss Scotland in isolation. There are dangers from what is happening in Europe, events in Northern Ireland and, of course, the proposals for devolution of one kind or another for Scotland and Wales; and, indeed, for the English regions. As to Europe, an increasing number of people are worried as to whether the Government—any government—will take a firm enough stand at next year's Inter-Governmental Conference.
Of course, there is little point in taking a firm stand on Europe if the Union itself is to collapse and disintegrate from within. In Northern Ireland, the Government are preparing the way for a devolved assembly, and a greater say by Dublin in Northern Ireland affairs. A Labour Government will propose a Scottish parliament with full legislative powers, a Welsh assembly, and an assortment of mini-parliaments and assemblies for trumped-up regions of England.
I appreciate that there is a case for an assembly in Northern Ireland for historical reasons, because of the deep sectarian divide and the different aspirations of the two communities which make it quite different from Scotland—not least that a part of the minority community in Northern Ireland may wish to join a foreign republic. Nevertheless I must emphasise that the proposal for an assembly in Northern Ireland makes the Government vulnerable to charges of inconsistency and sits uncomfortably with their pledges to preserve the status quo in the rest of the UK. That was seized upon and exploited by Opposition parties in the recent Perth by-election.

1043
If the Government's credibility is not to be undermined in the future, the Government had better get their act together in this respect as it is a difficult argument to get across on the doorstep; otherwise there is a danger that the Government, perhaps unfairly, will be perceived as part-time Unionists—staunch Unionists for Scotland but perhaps not quite so staunch Unionists for Northern Ireland. Any lack of conviction about the Government's attitude towards Unionists in Northern Ireland bodes ill for Unionists in the rest of the UK.
As a Unionist I have no doubt at all that a separate parliament for Scotland and an assembly for Wales would be an unmitigated disaster and lead to constant friction between Westminster and Edinburgh. The SNP would have all to play for and would agitate and engineer a confrontation. There might quite possibly be a cross-party consensus that would develop in Edinburgh over aspects of economic policies placing an intolerable strain on the relationship between London and Edinburgh. It would, as other noble Lords have said, he no more than a halfway house that would eventually, I am afraid, lead to an independent Scotland. There can be no doubt that an end to the Union which has evolved and worked so well for nearly three centuries would be utterly tragic. It would weaken Scotland and weaken England, as together in the UK we are of course far greater than the individual parts.
Of course not all is right. It is no good being too rigidly Unionist. In practice successive governments have not always tended to give British affairs a sufficiently Scottish or Welsh dimension as well as an English one. Sometimes Westminster is too insensitive. If there were time, one could give examples. Certainly it would he helpful, when my noble and learned friend replies to the debate, if he could report on further progress on the proposals in the document, Scotland in the Union, towards updating the working of the Union.
In the meantime the issue of devolution will rumble on as it has for decades. The recent Perth by-election was a pretty dreadful result for the Government, but we should recall the result of other by-elections in the past, such as the Hamilton by-election in 1967 when a Labour majority of 17,000 was overturned by the SNP. Alarm bells rang everywhere and instant devolution was the rage.
I emphasise that if a referendum—there certainly should be a referendum if it came to it—was to be held on the single issue of devolution for Scotland and Wales, the result could quite well be broadly similar to the one held in 1979 when over 67 per cent. of the Scottish electorate voted no or failed to vote yes and a vast majority in Wales voted no, despite opinion polls at the time which showed that there was likely to be a contrary result. Why should this be so? It would be because supporters of devolution always concentrate on benefits but a referendum would bring home clearly the disadvantages, the costs and the adverse effects—considerably reduced Scottish representation at Westminster. As it became clear that the plans for an assembly or parliament would lead to swingeing tax increases, frighten investment and destroy jobs, public enthusiasm would wane, as on previous occasions. It should he stressed that once there is sovereign control over affairs, that means a sovereign duty to pay the bills.
1044
One thing is sure: a combination of over-representation at Westminster, with Scottish MPs at Westminster voting on English matters and English (and Scottish MPs) at Westminster unable to vote on Scottish matters, and England still subsidising expenditure by a Scottish parliament over which there was no control would be a recipe for disaster. That would be an unequal distribution of power, and to paraphrase one of Churchill's famous remarks, would be something,
"up with which the English will not put".
It would, of course, cause an explosion and it could indeed spell the end of the Union.
I have indirectly referred to the West Lothian question; it is almost obligatory to say something about it. I shall simply say that it would be difficult to change a unitary nation into a federal one, but the only answer would be the ultimate absurdity of all regions being given exactly the same powers. Nothing less would do. The East Midland region would require to have its Prime Minister just as Scotland would have its Prime Minister, and its own limited tax-raising powers just as Scotland. The same would apply to the West Midland region and so on. The whole thing is so absurd that sometimes one wonders whether Scottish devolution is so ill thought out and so flawed that it is perhaps no more than a wicked ploy by the present leader of the Labour Party so that, in the event of his becoming Prime Minister, he could get rid of some of his more unpalatable colleagues and send them packing from Westminster to Edinburgh.
I would say therefore that the best form of government for Scotland is the present one but it is most important that the Government emphasise more strongly and with greater clarity what they have already done in implementing proposals for updating the Union, and what other measures they have for recognising the Scottish dimension in our affairs.
5.57 p.m
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am sure we are all most grateful to my noble friend Lady Saltoun for bringing before us this most important issue and allowing us the opportunity to debate it today. I do not intend to take up my full 10 minutes because I wish to raise one question only: it has not been touched on before today but has been touched on on other occasions. It concerns the time standard.
In a devolved or decentralised United Kingdom, who will be responsible for the time standard? Will it be Westminster—I put in a plea for Westminster—or will it be the devolved administrations? I only ask this because this is, unfortunately, an area where the noble Lady and myself may disagree on the wisdom of whether Scotland harmonises with Central European Time or remains with the status quo as it is today. That is not the point I am trying to make. What I am trying to say is that I think the matter of the time standard in this country should be decided long before we reach the constitutional and legal complexities of devolution, when there is a severe danger that we may find that those of us who live in Scotland will be on Scottish standard time and there may even be Welsh standard

1045
time. There is a real danger here that political considerations may be put way in front of longitude or latitude, or indeed common sense. I make a plea that this subject should not be forgotten. It has not been mentioned today and I am not aware that it has been raised in relation to any of the constitutional matters that have been discussed in such depth, either behind closed doors or in open conference.
I should also like to know what is the position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the implementation of Single/Double Summer Time. It appears that the attempt of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, to get a Bill through your Lordships' House affecting only England and Wales was simply another delaying measure by the Government to prevent them having to come to a decision on the issue before the next general election. What is the position of the opposition parties? There has been no pressure by them to bring this matter further forward than it was in 1989, when the last statistics that we have before us were produced.
I have raised this question, as have other noble Lords, but we are getting no replies. People are looking in the other direction and saying that there are other more important matters to be dealt with in the Palace of Westminster. We are prepared to discuss devolution and the constitutional reform of your Lordships' House, yet we overlook one of the basic issues affecting our lives—namely, the time of day. I should like to know from noble Lords in opposition who are going to promote devolution whether the subject is included in their programme. I should be interested to know which department in a devolved government based in Edinburgh would be responsible for the time standard.
All the evidence shows that a small minority of Scottish hill farmers, the Scottish construction industry and men working on high ladders in Northern latitudes seem to have tremendous pull with the Government in influencing their decision for us not to go ahead and harmonise with Central European Time. It is. an absurdity that this situation is allowed to continue. Those who have to do business and the travelling public are inconvenienced. What is the point in getting a train to Paris which takes three hours when our clocks say that it takes four hours? Those are matters that have been discussed on other occasions.
It is not to the benefit of Scotland to be on a separate time. Many noble Lords have talked about inward investment. Have they considered that the turnover of business in Charlotte Square could be increased by another 20 per cent. if our time was linked to Central European Time? Apparently in Scotland we live in another world. As I have said before, it is a "Brigadoon" situation.
I would like noble Lords on both sides of the House to get together in a committee. If they are prepared to look at devolution, will they please pay attention to the time standard and come to some decision so that businessmen will know where they stand? Can we please have some more statistics? If there are that many hill farmers—and Scottish hill farmers would have another hour in bed—and a large number of people in Scotland who feel strongly, then perhaps we can have
1046
more statistics. Such information is not available to the Scottish Civil Law Office, which apparently is responsible for this subject in Scotland. I bet not many noble Lords knew that. I had to find that out in a rather roundabout way.
There has been a lot of talk. Other noble Lords have talked about referendums. When other questions of great constitutional significance are considered, for goodness sake let us take the opportunity to consider the question of time and get it out of the way before we get involved with devolution.
This is a matter which will continue to come up. If there is no referendum and the question has not been put properly to the people, we shall make a bad decision on the British time standard simply because political considerations will take priority. In that case, the decision is bound to be wrong.
I ask merely that in all the consultations and committees and in all the manifestos that will be produced before the next general election, some clear indication—much clearer than we have at present—will be given as to where the Opposition parties stand and where the Government stand. They have avoided the subject like a raging bull; they turn the other way and run like mad whenever the subject comes up. Let us have some real commitment. Businessmen, whose support all the parties want, need to know what is their policy.
That is my only contribution to the debate. I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to make it once again.
6.5 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, a century ago a parliament for Ireland was the great political issue of the day, the composition of the parliament and its powers being essentially those which are now contained in the Labour Party's proposals for Scotland. There were many differences between the Irish situation and that of Scotland, but the main issue then, as now, was what was to be the Irish representation in Westminster and what powers was it to have.
It was first proposed that there should be no representation. However, it rapidly came to be realised that that would inevitably lead to separation. It was then suggested that the Irish membership of the House of Commons should vote on certain subjects, the so-called Imperial subjects—foreign affairs, defence and trade. However, that was recognised as being an impossible distinction. Gladstone concluded that the distinction could not be drawn as it passed the wit of man. How much more true that must be now with our involvement with the European Union.
As an Englishman I am aware of the periods when the majority of the Government in the House of Commons has been much less than the Scottish representation. That was eminently true in the Parliaments of 1974 and 1976. While all authority lies at Westminster that is unobjectionable, but it becomes objectionable when a Scottish parliament has been created.

1047
Gladstone said in relation to Ireland:
"I will never be a party to allowing the Irish to manage their own affairs in Dublin and at the same time come over here and manage British affairs. Such an arrangement would not be a Bill to grant self government to Ireland, but one to remove self government from England. It would create a subordinate Parliament indeed, but it would he the one in Westminster, and not that in Dublin".
If one substitutes "Edinburgh" for "Dublin" and "Scottish" for "Irish" that statement is relevant to the present problem.
I view with great concern the concept of a Scottish parliament. If there were to be a federal parliament in Westminster that would have some logic. However, as an Englishman I do not believe that there is any demand for breaking up this country into Cumbrias and Wessexes. The English do not want that. So we are left with the problem of the West Lothian issue.
I fear—and I recall my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin saying the same—that if there is devolution as now proposed it will inevitably lead sooner or later, and maybe sooner, to separation of the country and the destruction of the Union. That would be a tragedy for England, but it would be a disaster for Scotland.
There have been many speeches about the economic effects of independence for Scotland. I should like to touch on two aspects. One relates to oil. As your Lordships will recall, the ownership of oil in the North Sea is regulated by a treaty, which is about 30 years old, between the riparian powers dividing on the map the areas between the riparian countries. Those treaties were made by their governments and ratified by their parliaments. They will continue irrespective of what might be done in terms of devolution for Scotland. In those treaties, there was no concept that any one of the riparian powers would be divided. Since those treaties, there have been innumerable long-term agreements between all the major oil companies of the world and the United Kingdom to which the Government of the United Kingdom—not a government in Scotland—is party. In a proper world, those cannot be altered. No doubt by negotiation in the financial circumstances of a separation, they would be one of the factors; but that is very different from assuming that the oil from the North Sea would immediately appertain to territorial Scotland.
My other point relates to the European Community. My noble friend Lady Elles has already spoken on it. In great detail she raised the doubts about whether Scotland would be admitted as a member of the European Union. We all know that admission is by unanimous vote. We all know that every negotiation has been long. But there would certainly be a gap. Numerous important industries in Scotland, owned by foreign companies, enjoy the many benefits of Scotland but they require the membership of the European Union if they are to continue manufacturing there. They would have hastily to withdraw if that were not the case.
I follow what so many other speakers have said. I hope that the aspirations of Scotland, with which I have the utmost sympathy, can be achieved without constitutional change because constitutional change will lead to trouble.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, after listening to about 90 per cent. of this debate, it occurs to me that the British Constitution and your Lordships' House are still the wonder of much of the world. Only last week I showed a Polish lady from the Polish Sejm around this Parliament. She observed to me that she liked the House of Lords better. People come here to see how we manage our affairs because we have the reputation of being the best managed country in the world. We have had that reputation for some 200 to 300 years, almost since the Union between Scotland and England.
Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for introducing the debate. Her speech is a classic; I shall read it with great interest. She has obviously gone to a great deal of trouble to elicit her facts. Her descriptions of devolution and Scottish independence made my hair stand on end and made me rather glad that as a Scot I am at present resident in England.
In the year 1707 a predecessor of mine in the Belhaven title, the second Lord Belhaven, was a prominent opponent of the Union with England in the last Scottish Parliament. He made a speech which was widely reported in Scotland, and distributed in broadsheets around the streets. I believe that it caused a bit of rioting too. I have read the speech many times and have often wondered whether he really said the words attributed to him. The speech was flowery and very emotional—I would not dare to make such a speech in your Lordships' House today. However, I shall quote the most famous sentence. Addressing the Lord Chancellor, as was customary in the Scottish Parliament in those days, he said:
"Above all, my Lords, I think I see our ancient mother Caledonia, like Caesar, sitting in the midst of our senate, ruefully looking round about her, covering herself with her Royal garment, attending the fatal blow, and breathing out her last with an 'Et tu quoque mi fili!'".
As a Scot who has been in exile for the past 12 years, I recently visited Scotland. I did not think that after nearly 300 years of Union our ancient mother Caledonia was doing too badly. I thought that she was doing rather better than when I left in the early 1980s.
So what is the problem? If one takes Scotland as a political entity—and it still is a nation—it is somewhat unfair that she should have been governed for the past many years by the party which managed to poll only 24 per cent. of the vote. That is more than the Liberal Democrats, but still not enough possibly to justify being a government. On the other hand, we might say that southern England would be unfairly treated by a Labour Government. But southern England is not a political entity or a nation—we do not know where it starts or finishes; Watford, or somewhere—in the sense that Scotland is.
However, it appears as though the majority in Scotland now want a Scottish parliament. But I wonder whether those people have faced up to what that means. We have heard much about it today, in particular from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. If Scotland is to govern her own internal affairs, with her own Parliament, her MPs in Westminster will certainly have no moral right

1049
to vote on English internal affairs. We have heard that previously. But what happens if we have a Labour majority in the other place which depends on the Scottish vote? In what position does that put the people of England?
We have already had raised the question of over-representation of England. I shall not pursue it. That would have to cease and the Labour Party would lose an important part of its Scottish power base. I suppose that the party opposite has considered that situation. However, the Labour Party imagines that by one means or another it will overcome the problem and have its cake and eat it. For a short time, perhaps it will. But the Labour Party must know that the situation will not last. No amount of fiddling about with English regions will solve the West Lothian question. The party must know that. So why does it persist in its present policy?
I have to say that some time ago, in the late 1940s and 1950s, when my father and others founded a movement called the Scottish covenant and achieved one million votes for home rule, the Labour Government were absolutely opposed to the idea. But the Labour Party has changed its mind on that, as it has on many other things. It is afraid of the SNP and wants to steal its thunder. However, the solution which the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats propose is, in my view, half baked and will not work. As I see it, the only logical policies on this subject in Scotland are those of the Conservative Party and the SNP: either independence, with all that it entails—and, as we have heard today, it entails a great deal—or things as they are, with all that that entails. I do not see that there is any half-way house; and I think that the parties opposite are deluding the Scottish people and themselves by suggesting that there is one.
I suggest that we could have a referendum on Scottish independence. It would be a clear choice and people could make up their own minds. Let us have that, as we should have a referendum on Maastricht—another treaty of union which may have more far-reaching consequences than its proponents are at present prepared to admit.
The parties opposite, with certain honourable exceptions (that does not mean that others are dishonourable), are enthusiastic about Maastricht. Indeed, in the debates on the Treaty of Maastricht two years ago, the Front Benches seemed to be interchangeable. Her Majesty's Government could have spared themselves quite a lot of trouble if they had called on the Opposition to answer even half of the amendments.
I would seem to be digressing but I am not. If the parties opposite are serious about regional assemblies, and about being at the heart of Europe at the same time with more power for the European Parliament and Commission, why should any of us waste our time coming here, and waste the taxpayers' money? The Palace of Westminster would be ideal as a museum. To use a fashionable phrase, the place would be cost effective. It is not so now because people are paid who sit in another place, we are paid expenses, and so on.
1050
I would urge that we have no more nonsense about Scottish parliaments in the UK. I believe that it is nonsense. Let the Scottish people decide what they want— independence or the Union—and do not encourage them to imagine that they can have their cake and eat it.
Incidentally, I do not believe that the comparison with southern Ireland by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is apt. southern Ireland has been a massive beneficiary of EC subventions and subsidies and I do not believe that there is a parallel with Scotland.
Finally, it seems to me that Scotland already has a good deal of devolution. It would be perfectly practicable to give it more by returning powers to local government which have recently been eroded. Attention was drawn to that point by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Scotland has its own legal system, education system and its own established and self-governing Church. There is an abiding patriotism among Scots of all persuasions which the Union with England has not affected one little bit. More devolution except at local government level will mean a Scottish parliament. In my opinion, sooner or later a Scottish parliament will lead to independence. I do not see any middle way .
6.20 p.m
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Saltoun for her great speech and for giving us the opportunity today to speak. Noble Lords may recall the 1992 general election. I do for one reason. It was then that the French television station, Antenne 2, brought a team to Kirriemuir. My noble neighbour Lord Mackie seems excited. It was not to film the cattle or the Kirrie show that it came, but to interview me about the general election in Scotland. It is no coincidence that the team is across the road on the lawn today, not far from your Lordships' House. I was able to stress to the excellent team from another part of Europe that it seemed to me that that general election and political scene in Scotland had four items on offer.
The first item was independence. The noble Lady made an excellent speech about that. With accountants and young men of figures, it seems to me that some of the arguments advanced for independence in Scotland are based on the calculation of 2 + 2 = 5—an outburst of joy and a vast boost in economic activity in Scotland. Bluntly, I do not believe it. For an independent nation, we merely have to look to south-west of Scotland at a proud, free and independent nation of 3½million people—it has been mentioned three times by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—and that is the Republic of Ireland. The noble Lord was quite harsh on three of my colleagues, and I hope that he will be able to restrain himself and not interrupt because my time is limited. He will have heard Mr. Tony O'Reilly, a famous Irish wing-threequarter who went on to become a world man of business and headed the Heinz corporation. What did Mr. O'Reilly have to say as recently as last week? It was quite time that the United Kingdom Government raised taxes on business. Where? In Northern Ireland, so that taxes would be in step with those in the south of Ireland. Fascinating. Thus the tax regime on business would be the same throughout the United Kingdom.

1051
That is one element of the great success that might have been evident in the Republic of Ireland, but it shows that the United Kingdom and Scotland are still in the lead.
My noble friend Lady Saltoun spelt out excellently her sums in the economics of independence. The point on the Republic of Ireland being a major beneficiary in the European scene was raised by my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton. I am reminded of my activities across the water in Northern Ireland and the cry of many farmers, "Act fast while grants last". That is the motto of some nations who are looking for inward investment.
The second item that was and still is on offer in Scottish politics is devolution— what I call the Labour option. I was fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and look forward even more to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, to see whether there is unity in the Labour Party. The West Lothian question is still with us. The parallel has been proposed with the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament before 1971, but it is not strictly relevant since the numbers were very different from those with a devolved Scottish Parliament.
The third option that was evident during the 1992 general election was the Liberal Democrat option of a federal system. I wonder whether it would be a serious problem to many of us in Scotland as long as it was acceptable throughout the United Kingdom. The trouble is that people, particularly the Liberal Democrats, know that regional assemblies on the lines of, for example, the federal German system are not popular and are not high on the list of demands for England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, also knows that parallels are to be seen in Switzerland; but perhaps we will not go too far down that road. He will know of the problems with the referenda on the Alpen Initiative.
The fourth option which was and still is on offer as regards politics and the constitutional position in Scotland is the Conservative option: leave well alone; "it ain't broke, don't fix it", but you can certainly improve it. On Sunday at a party meeting in my area of Scotland it was mentioned to me that the Conservatives have, according to the polls, 11 per cent. of the support of the electorate in Scotland. That is most interesting; but I wonder where, on the basis of the same polls, devolution stands in the priorities of all those who expressed dislike or hatred of the Conservative Government. The point was well made by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin.
Whenever I watch television or listen to the radio in Scotland, I hear the same arguments, the same quotes and the same views, the same happy word lines as I have been hearing over the past 20 years. I am reminded of the former Member for Berwick and East Lothian, the late John Mackintosh. Twenty years ago in another place he spoke of a devolved system for Scotland and whether it would improve government. A young colleague to whom he was speaking gazed up at the sky and said that he had no idea. It seems to me that we have not advanced much in the past 20 years. Any noble Lords who come north of the Border and turn on the television or radio will hear that devolution is the number one item on the agenda.
1052
I was happy when the noble Earl, Lord Perth, recited, "nanny knows best". He was referring to the man in Whitehall; but to any of us who turn on the television or radio in Scotland, it seems that nanny—the media—tells us that it knows best and that constitutional reform will bring about exactly what I suggested: 2 + 2 =5—an outburst of joy. I hear, "It won't go away". As a cynical accountant, I wonder why, with both Radio Scotland and BBC television in Scotland, instead of being told what is coming, we are continually asked, "Please watch BBC Scotland or listen to the radio". That makes me, as an accountant, mildly suspicious. I ask why they are doing it. Is it anything to do with the enormous boost in satellite television that I see around Scotland?
Looking around the Chamber today, I see that there are still the Angus five; it was six when my noble friend Lord Strathmore was here earlier. My noble friend and neighbour Lady Carnegy made a notable speech, and we are lucky to have my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser to reply at the end of the debate. There is also my noble neighbour Lord Mackie. Many of your Lordships will not know that my noble friend Lady Elles is a former Angus resident, she used to go there 26 or 27 years ago, so she speaks with considerable experience of what we want in Scotland. My noble friend Lady Carnegy used three figures which are particularly relevant: 8.8 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom is in Scotland. The taxpayers of Scotland contribute 8.3 per cent. of the tax. We draw out 10.3 per cent. I have two words to say: "Hush, hush!". Do not disturb the status quo; we have a new single tier of government; please let it settle down. But with all the improvements that we might make, let us not disturb the Carnegy formula.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too must thank the noble Lady for initiating this debate. I sympathise with her greatly in that the first time she tried to hold this debate a former Prime Minister died and it was cancelled. I am afraid that on this occasion the hordes of pressmen outside this palace and inside it are not waiting for news of the debate on Scottish devolution. Nevertheless, it is important and has generated a large response from the opposite Benches.
The noble Lady said that there were three possibilities: devolution, separation and the status quo. She proceeded to give a fair account of devolution and separation and went on to demolish them with savage argument. I suspect that when she rises to reply, she will come down in favour of the status quo.
We have heard much about the status quo and how splendid it is. The Secretary of State has immense power in the Cabinet and there are 5,000 civil servants in Scotland. I must say that we have admirable Ministers. They are representative of an older and more pleasant breed of Tory than the Thatcherite ones. They are amiable indeed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, on the Bench opposite is one of them. There is the admirable Sir Hector Monro, and the Secretary of State is a very nice man, as is Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. They fight for Scotland. But whom do they fight? They fight their colleagues in England.

1053
Occasionally they lose. Indeed, we have in the Chamber another good former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who also protects the status quo.
However, they failed to stop the imposition of the poll tax first on Scotland. They have so far been reasonably successful in stopping the privatisation of the Forestry Commission, which every landlord in Scotland who grows trees knows to be an absolute nonsense. They have succeeded in fighting off the Thatcherites enough not immediately to privatise water in Scotland. So I suppose that one could say that they do a good job. But they have no mandate at all. Why they object to PR, I do not know. That would give reasonable representation in Scotland of the Tory point of view. There ought to be representatives of the Tory point of view, although they would not be in much of a majority, if at all. I do not believe that the evidence shows that the people of Scotland are satisfied with a system that refuses any real democratic representation because it is settled by the situation in the country as a whole, though only narrowly.
Let me say at once that I am a unionist to the extent that I believe in a United Kingdom. I believe that the United Kingdom has worked reasonably well. Certainly Scotland benefited from the extension of trade after the union of the parliaments. The tobacco trade in Glasgow, for instance, built Glasgow to a large extent. I suppose that the benefits of union have been considerable. Whether a better arrangement could have been reached or we could have had the benefits without the snags is another question.
Of course we need an equalisation fund. Scotland comprises a third of the whole area of the United Kingdom. It is nonsense to expect it to maintain the same decent services throughout Scotland without an equalisation fund. That we accept. Indeed, we must do. I cannot believe that anyone who wants to preserve the United Kingdom would deny to Scotland that advantage, if indeed there is a Scottish parliament for Scottish affairs.
Many people have said that there is no future in a devolved parliament for Scottish affairs. They have said, with varying degrees of intensity, that it would lead inevitably to an independent Scotland. With respect, that is rubbish. I can think of no case in which granting of reasonable independence in a federal system has led to separation. For example, the situation in Ireland was quite clear. There was no feeling that Britain would give them any independence. It was not on offer. The result was that eventually there was a rebellion and a completely separate nation. The situation in Slovakia was interesting in that there was no genuine devolution of power there and they made the foolish decision to separate. It was not a case of refusing power or local power. So that argument must go by the board.
Southern Ireland, which was the example of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was not apt to the situation. It is of course independent. But the situation in Northern Ireland—in Ulster—when they had a parliament in Stormont is extremely interesting.
Many years ago, just after the war, I went to Northern Ireland and did a tour. I was struck by the fact that the contact between the Government, the university and the officials was very tight. They understood perfectly the
1054
problems of the Province. For example, long before this country had thought of silage and giving grants for the construction of silos, they were on to it there because of Professor Morrison and his close contact with the Government. There are many other examples in agriculture, and certainly in transport. They had an excellent transport system—again, because of the fact that in a small tightly knit community they knew what was going on and had the power to act. The other item which stands out was its attraction of industry. There they were doing things that we only started to do with Locate in Scotland in the early 1980s. They looked after people who wanted to locate in a proper way because they knew of its great importance to the Province. That is the kind of example to which we need to look.
Certainly the whole point about Stormont was that it broke down because of the appalling neglect of minorities and human rights. No one would defend Stormont on that ground. But on technical efficiency, the attraction of industry and all the things that noble Lords opposite say would disappear under a devolved parliament, they were doing very well at that time, until the whole system broke down owing ultimately to the lack of a democratic attitude to minorities.
So there is no question. We can dispose of the argument that devolution of power inevitably leads to separation. I cannot think of examples and I do not believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, will think of any either. The advantages are plain to see. The fact that there is a centre of genuine power in Scotland leads to many advantages. It leads to people staying in Scotland and to Scottish initiatives. What we need now in Scotland, since the Empire has disappeared—every one of us can give examples of relations who have gone to make their money planting tea or, if they were graduates, to join the Indian Civil Service and so on; all that has gone—is to retain our native energy there.
The arguments about tax are complicated by the fact that many companies have their headquarters outside Scotland. It is very difficult, although examples have been used and guesses made to try to say exactly what is the tax position.
I agree that the macro-economic factors must stay within the United Kingdom, and indeed within Europe. The essence of the matter is whether a Scottish parliament, with a democratic background, could produce the sort of people who would make Scotland a better place to live—more prosperous. I believe it could. When one looked at the people elected to Parliament and one looked at Northern Ireland, it was found that the people with real power and ability stayed at home and those who came to Westminster were not of the same quality as the people who stood for the local parliament. I believe that that would happen in Scotland.
The West Lothian question can be settled. Everyone talks about it. Enormous harm has been done by Tam Dalyell in producing a phrase which everyone knows, but nobody quite understands how to overcome the problem. In my view it can be overcome quite simply, even without regional government, by restricting the voting powers of Scottish MPs to the affairs of the nation. I know that the Labour Party does not like that idea; it wonders about the Scottish element in its

1055
majority. But it must learn that if it does not have a majority in England, it will need to adjust its policies to the wishes of the people of England; that is what democracy is all about. That is what I should like to see applied in Scotland.
The Motion of the noble Lady is interesting, but the first alternative of a devolved parliament is the right one for Scotland.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I can ask him something. I believe he came in on my speech. Can he say whether he is in favour of identical powers being devolved to the regions of England, as I thought was his party's policy?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is extremely unfair to attach party policy to one. In our party policy we say that the regions of England will need to want it.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I join with all those who contributed to this debate in a word of thanks to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for initiating what is a very important debate, though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the press—the media—are hardly waiting on every word that has dropped from your Lordships' mouths this afternoon. Somehow or other I have the feeling that there is something else—I do not know what—taking up their attention this evening!
This issue has been on the Scottish political agenda for a long time. Those Members of your Lordships' House who argue that it is not at the top of the list of priorities of the people of Scotland may be astonished to find that I agree with them. When one talks to the people of Scotland, one finds that at the top of their list of priorities are housing problems, education, schools, the difficulty in making ends meet, their mortgage repayments and their negative equity.
I agree with all that, but it is only an excuse for not doing something about devolution rather than a reason. The most dangerous thing your Lordships' House can do is to lull itself into a false sense of security that because this subject is not at the top of the list of priorities we ought not to do something about it. If we wait to the last minute, until it comes to the top—as surely it will—and then try to deal with it, we shall only produce panic measures. That is why I value the opportunity provided to us today by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in this debate.
The matter has been on the agenda for a long time and I have been involved with it for 25 years. During that 25 years I have been joined by some interesting people. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, was an enthusiastic devolutionist at one time during that 25-year period; the noble Lord, Lord Younger of Prestwick, wisely absented himself from our debate today; a good feast of one's own words always gives one indigestion, and he was certainly right not to take that risk. Malcolm Rifkind, the Defence Secretary, was another supporter. At one time one could not get into the discussion room to discuss devolution for Scottish Conservatives.
1056
I can give your Lordships one of the reasons why. In the 1974 Conservative Party manifesto—on which John Major himself stood—it was said,
"We want to give the people in Scotland the opportunity to decide their own spending priorities".
That is a noble ideal and one that I am sad that the Conservative Party departed from for, in my view, purely party political reasons. But I want to deal with the substantive points raised in the debate and unfortunately I shall be addressing some points raised by noble Lords in their absence and I apologise for that.
First, both the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy and Lady Elles, raised the question of grants to Scotland at the present time; the per capita grants. It is almost as though the only criteria used to calculate expenditure is "per capita"; per head of population. Noble Lords know perfectly well that that is not the only criterion. For example, Scotland has one-third of the land mass of Great Britain; it has much larger rural communities; it has more rural schools per head of the population than England or Wales, and rural schools are much more expensive to run than large city schools.
A whole host of other criteria have to be used when deciding how expenditure should be distributed. The basis is not purely on the 8.5 per cent. of the population and the 8 per cent. contribution in tax. A whole host of criteria should be used and I want if I may to lay that issue to rest. There is no question of an incoming Labour Government abolishing equalisation. In any case only a Labour Government will give the people of Scotland a devolved parliament.
The West Lothian Question is another substantive point raised by many noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. The West Lothian Question has been conceded in principle by the present Government. Built into the framework document dealing with Northern Ireland is a specific pledge that the Northern Irish MPs can come to Westminster and vote on English and Scottish matters. It is not good enough to say that they are small in number compared with the number of MPs coming from Scotland; it is the principle that is at issue. The principle has been conceded. The noble Lord who mentioned the Irish scene and said that it stripped the Government of some of their credibility had a point, because the argument on the West Lothian Question has now been conceded in principle in the framework document for Northern Ireland.
I turn quickly to the whole question of inward investment. For a number of years I regarded the way in which that debate was conducted, particularly by those—I say this with respect—who do not want any change in Scotland, as the politics of fear. Those who do not want change say that, if we go down this road of devolution, it will, first, lead to separation and, secondly, denude Scotland of inward investment. Neither of those things is true.
Let me put on record a strange phenomenon in regard to the Scottish National Party. Those who have addressed their comments to the SNP this afternoon have been addressing the wrong audience. There is nobody—but nobody—in your Lordships' House who has fought the SNP on its separatist policies more fiercely than I have, and those comments were

1057
addressed to the wrong audience. But the SNP's popularity has not risen or fallen in line with the rise or fall in the popularity of the Labour Party in Scotland; it has risen or fallen in line with the rise or fall in the popularity of the Conservative Party.
There is evidence of that. In 1979, when the outgoing Labour Government, in which I was a Minister, were heavily defeated in a general election, the SNP lost 10 of its 11 seats in Scotland. Three months after the referendum had failed to produce the 40 per cent. under the George Cunningham amendment, the SNP lost 10 of its 11 seats. The four seats which the SNP holds in Scotland at the present time are four Conservative seats. The SNP's popularity rises and falls in line with the fall and rise of the popularity of the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party will have to come to terms with that. On inward investment, it simply cannot be shown that Scotland will suffer in inward investment terms if we have our own parliament.
Perhaps I may leave your Lordships with one or two facts. The noble Lord, Lord Younger, who will read this for himself, is chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland. I saw with interest the comment from a document which the noble Lord, Lord Younger, had produced. I think it passing strange that the chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland should say such things about the Scottish economy when the Royal Bank itself invests in the quasi-autonomous regions of Spain. It is not afraid of devolution in Spain, but it is afraid of it in Scotland. What kind of Scotsman is that? United Distillers has investments and joint ventures in the quasi-autonomous regions of Spain, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred. British Steel disinvested in Scotland, a part of the Union. Where did British Steel invest? In the quasi-autonomous regions of Spain. Marks & Spencer, which is well-known for investing in devolved regions, has also invested in those quasi-autonomous regions in Spain. It simply cannot be shown in any economic evidence that devolved parts of a country suffer from a lack of inward investment purely and simply because they have their own parliament, and it will not happen in Scotland either.
The proposals coming from the Scottish Constitutional Convention, of which I am proud to have been the joint chairman and still am—with Sir David Steel—are well worked out. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, suggested that we ought to have a Royal Commission. I have to say to your Lordships that if there is any suggestion that a Royal Commission should he appointed, the people of Scotland will throw up their hands in horror and say, "Not again. We have been through this time and again. The time is not now for talking. The time is now for acting".
These proposals for an assembly are well thought out. There will be 112 members. It will not be a carbon copy or a mirror image of the Westminster Parliament. It will have pre-legislative committees. I accept—I argued this when the proposals were formulated—that Orkney and the Shetland Islands are just as remote from Edinburgh as they are from London. Indeed, in the last devolution Bill Orkney and the Shetland Islands were opted out in Clause 83 because of the referendum that they
1058
themselves had had. In order to avoid this question of remoteness, the pre-legislative committees is where the legislation will be discussed as it is being drafted and not after it has been drafted. The maximum degree of agreement can thereby be reached before the legislation comes to the Floor of the House. The pre-legislative committees will be a valuable asset of the democratic process in the Scottish parliament.
I wish to make two final points. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pleaded for all parties to get together. It is a plea that I have often made myself. The reason that the Conservative Party in Scotland is not in the Scottish Constitutional Convention discussing the issues with us is that it will not join. It does not want to discuss or consider the possibility of change—and from its point of view I understand that. If I thought for a single minute that anything I was doing was endangering the Union, I would stop tomorrow. But I do not believe that for a minute. Indeed, I believe that the process I am following will strengthen the Union.
The Government will not admit that they have lost the argument with the Labour Party, that they have lost the argument with the Liberal Democrat Party and that they have lost the argument with a lot of the communities in Scotland. They have lost the argument with the people of Scotland. That is the most dangerous thing that faces Scotland and the United Kingdom. In order to respond to the argument they have lost, there can be no shadow of doubt that the creation of a Scottish parliament is the answer.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has made a very interesting speech. But can he answer the question I specifically asked him? Does his party still intend to allow the Scottish parliament, should it ever be created, to vary tax by 3p, up or down?
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, in the last Scottish devolution Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Pym, who was with us at the beginning of the debate, shadowed the late John Smith and myself on the Bill in another place—the great criticism coming from the Conservative Opposition was that the Bill lacked teeth—it had no tax raising powers. Having tax raising powers in the present proposals is actually our response to that Conservative Party criticism.
6.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, it falls to me to wind up this extremely interesting and positive debate. Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on introducing it and on setting out so fully the important questions that have to be addressed. In congratulating her and thanking all those who have contributed to the debate, perhaps I may particularly single out the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Cooke. They have no cause to apologise for participating in a debate that is to do with the governance of Scotland. Those of us who are Scottish and Unionist appreciate all too clearly that others within the United Kingdom have a very real right to participate in a debate on the government of Scotland because any

1059
changes can affect them just as much. I regret that I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that I cannot tell him immediately what might be the proposals in a devolved assembly to deal with the issue of the time standard.
It is now some 16 years since the Scotland Act 1978 was repealed. In this detailed matter of constitutional change—important as it is—we are no further forward. For that reason it has been useful to have this debate. I do not often quote the words of Mr. Alex Salmond, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, will recall, he absolutely floored his colleague George Robertson when he asked him repeatedly in the course of a televised debate, "Where is the Bill, George?" There is no detailed set of proposals. I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, was in charge of the bringing together of the detailed proposals. But it would also appear that Mr. George Robertson was to set those out. Your Lordships will be aware that were a Labour Government to be returned, it would be a central pillar of their first Session in Parliament that there should be a Scotland Bill, and that the matter should be settled within the first year. But, above all, there is no resolution of the West Lothian question, and there is no analysis of the financial arrangements and problems that would follow from such a change.
With a typically intellectually rigorous approach, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, in the course of the debate on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill on 28th June last year, had this to say when the West Lothian question was raised:
"The situation now is different. A Labour government intend to establish regional assemblies as well as a Scottish Parliament and a Parliament for Wales. So the West Lothian question will not arise. There is now an answer to the question which I freely admit did not exist in 1978. I wish that it had existed, but it did not".—[Official Report, 28/6/94; col. 668.]
That is a perfectly intellectually sound approach to take. But what do we now have from the leader of his party? An expression that there is an anomaly there but the more he has looked at the issue in England, he has appreciated that there is absolutely no desire on the part of any of the English to have regional assemblies which would have to have, if the West Lothian question is to be answered, precisely the same powers that a Scottish Parliament would have. That would mean, for instance, that the great English common law would be fragmented so that those who lived in Wales, Liverpool, Bristol and Newcastle would, as is the case in the United States of America, be subjected to different criminal laws. I have yet to find a single English person who believes that that is a desirable outcome of constitutional change.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, and I apologise for asking him to do so. The answer that I gave to the question on 28th June 1994 was an absolutely brilliant one. But there is an even better answer now provided by Her Majesty's Government in their framework document on Northern Ireland. It has taken the Minister to 4th July 1995 to respond. We have an even better answer now and that is why I used that better answer today. Wait until next year!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, Northern Ireland is a delicate and difficult situation. We want to see what comes out of the discussions that are going on at the moment. The noble Lord can rest assured that I have been using that quotation by him the length and breadth of England. Lest he feels that I shall forget about him, I promise him that in the next year I shall continue to rely on his useful and honest answer. Even George Robertson admits that there was an anomaly. He said that it was a "temporary" anomaly. What is not clear to me is that if he regards it as temporary, what is it that he proposes to do to eliminate that in the longer term?
Apart from the West Lothian question, which has not begun to be settled, there has been no proper examination of the implications of this particular form of constitutional change being promoted by the Labour Party, to look to see what is the financial framework under which the new arrangements would operate.
As in all government, finance has to be at the heart of the debate. The proposals of the Labour Party will stand or fall very largely on the quality and durability of the financial arrangements. I say very clearly and deliberately that their present proposals fail any test of durability by a wide margin.
The present system that determines expenditure for Scotland is a block and a formula with which many noble Lords will be familiar. Over most of his programme the Secretary of State receives a proportion of the changes to comparable programmes agreed for England; but then he has full discretion within his block to allocate his total resources to meet the needs of Scotland. He remains the Secretary of State and a key member of the Cabinet team—and never more keen than today !—and, secondly, the freedom which he has is important to allocate his resources to meet Scotland's needs.
What that means is that while the changes in aggregate expenditure in Scotland reflect the overall strategy of the United Kingdom Government, their distribution is determined for Scotland by the Secretary of State. If a new system is to be proposed, we have to ask what benefits it would bring beyond the very substantial benefits which we already have.
So far as it can be identified, in Scotland in 1992–93, the total expenditure by Government was something like £27 billion. The total revenues coming out of Scotland were something like £19 billion. As noble Lords opposite will appreciate—because they will have heard it frequently—the Scottish National Party would plead their alibi at this stage and say, "Look at the great resources we would get from North Sea oil". Let us not get into an international league dispute about this. For the sake of this argument let us assume that the totality of the revenue to come from the North Sea is to be given to Scotland. In that same year it amounted to something like £1.2 billion to £1.3 billion. So there would he a budget deficit for Scotland, even with the totality of the North Sea oil revenue, of something like £6 billion to £7 billion. That is half of the Scottish Office's present budget.
We are told that the parliament will have at its disposal the proceeds of value added tax and income tax in Scotland. That is nothing more than a cosmetic exercise since on current estimates those two components would add up to just one-third of the total

1061
of identifiable public expenditure in Scotland. Massive top-up funding would be needed to bridge the gap to produce a total which will require negotiation with the United Kingdom Treasury and for mechanisms to be put in place to determine such matters. All in all, a Scottish parliament's income would be determined almost totally by the decisions of the Westminster Parliament.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy raised this point. We are told that the Scottish parliament would have powers to vary the income tax paid in Scotland by 3p over the English rate. Let us put that in proportion. As the Health Minister in Scotland, I spend over £4 billion a year. That 3p would raise only something like £450 million. It would be equivalent to only about 3 per cent. of the present total of the Scottish Office budget.
My noble friend's question was a good one. It is an open secret in Scotland that there is a paper now circulating before the Scottish executive of the Labour Party which indicates that that particular proposal should be abandoned. I do not know the author of that paper, but I am aware that there is a Mr. Jim Stevens on the Scottish executive. When it was suggested that this Scottish parliament might vary income tax downwards, he had this to say as regards the equalisation payment coming from England:
"It beggars belief that English MPs would approve subsidies aimed at allowing Scots to allow tax rates to be lower than those for their own constituents".
It really is a fanciful proposition to believe that any such arrangement could ever be introduced.
The figures I have given should be compared with the additional identifiable expenditure per head in Scotland over and above the UK average. At present that is worth an extra £3.1 billion. An increase of 3p in the pound would therefore raise something like one-seventh of the money needed to keep Scotland's additional identifiable expenditure where it is today.
I am not suggesting that that adjustment should be made. It is right and part of the benefits of the Union that, where it is needed, expenditure is used. That is the position in Scotland. But to believe that this 3p would be sufficient to make the adjustment is complete and utter fiction. The proposed financial arrangements for a Scottish parliament are both superficial and potentially damaging.
There is one issue that has been constant as we have debated this matter over the years in Scotland. That is that there should be no reduction in the number of MPs. Is there then some constitutionally sacred feature about the number of MPs in Scotland? I believe that the answer to that is quickly given. No, of course there is not. The only reason why the Labour Party would want to keep the number of MPs in Scotland at 72 rather than reducing them to 56 or possibly even as low as 44, is not because they believe that it will achieve the better governance of Scotland, but because they want to secure a majority within the Westminster Parliament. That is the basis for that approach; it has nothing to do with constitutional propriety.
A particular proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, in answer to the suggestion that we could have some arrangements under which Scottish MPs did not
1062
vote on matters relating exclusively to England would, if he cares to reflect on it for a moment, bring about the extraordinarily curious effect that there would be potentially two governments within the Westminster Parliament at any time. There would be one dealing with matters for England alone. For example, there would be no Secretary of State for the Environment within a Labour Government: a Conservative politician would head up that department. That is clearly nonsense. What worries me is that, if England begins to appreciate that what is behind those proposals for constitutional change is a cynical manipulation to hold one party in power, any strain on the Union will be brought about by just that.
Of course, the federalist arrangements which operate in some very mature democracies are perfectly acceptable. It is a sound way to run a country, as we know from the United States, Canada and Germany. Indeed, the examples are endless. However, as I have already said, so far as I am aware there is no desire in England to break up the Union into regional parts. That point has been well made during the debate.
I also query whether there is anything worth while in seeking to draw parallels with other federal countries. After all, if a Scottish parliament were to be established, it would want to legislate on the criminal law of Scotland because our criminal legal system is distinctive. That is not the case in Germany, which is proud of having a single code. Bavaria would no more think of trying to change the criminal law than of doing anything else like that. It is a distinctive part of the arrangements there. I observe in passing our dislike of national police forces. Can any noble Lord tell me a federal country that does not have a national police force?
A particular parallel has been drawn with Spain. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, referred to that, as did a number of Liberal Democrat Peers. It surprises me that the Spanish system is in fashion at the moment. That may be because there is some idea that you can blur the edges by moving gradually towards a form of federalism. However, I wonder how keen those who live in the United Kingdom would be if they fully appreciated that, in the 10 years since the federal structure was introduced in Spain, there has been an increase of some 300,000 civil servants. I doubt whether those who believe that the advantage of self-government in Scotland is that it would be simpler and less bureaucratic would be much persuaded by that parallel. Indeed, the parallel becomes even weaker when one considers the tax-raising powers of various parts of Spain away from central government.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, accused my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland of blurring the edges between separatism and devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said that he has fought separatism as hard as anybody. The noble Lord might find that a few people wish to challenge him for that particular role. I detest separatism and believe it to be entirely wrong. I do not seek to confuse separatism and devolution, but it is important to point out that the particular problems that are spelt out in relation to the financial arrangements (given that there would be a

1063
massive deficit) would be even greater with separatism because there would then be no question of an equalisation formula between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I am confident that if we were to go down that route there would be serious job losses in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, seemed to disagree with that point, but if the noble Lord were to go round Edinburgh again—I know that he knows it well—I am sure that he would find that insurance companies there which do 80 per cent. of their business this side of the Border would, if there were any question of separation, do as happened in Canada—they would quietly and stealthily move their head offices from Scotland to England, just as Canadian companies moved from Quebec to Ontario.
I propose to leave the issue of separatism with one final point. Although my noble friends Lord Sanderson, Lord Weir and Lord Gray have referred to the matter, I have yet to hear of any significant proportion of people working in any single sector of the Scottish economy who would advocate that their part of the Scottish economy would do that much better if the countries were separate.
I am sure that it will not surprise your Lordships if I conclude on the line that the Union should be maintained because it has been particularly good for Scotland. As my noble friend Lord Balfour pointed out, it offered us access to job markets and resources and that helped us to improve. It has also brought us a political and financial stability that we had not enjoyed previously. We do not operate within an absolutely static constitution. There are opportunities within it to improve. I believe that our recent White Paper Scotland in the Union— a Partnership for Good spelt out a number of proposals which have improved government in Scotland. I am certainly prepared to acknowledge the contribution that was made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy before we put that White Paper together.
Tomorrow evening we shall be dealing with the Children (Scotland) Bill on Report. The progress of that Bill has followed a unique set of arrangements. Perhaps I may briefly take your Lordships through them. The Bill received its Second Reading after a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh. Before that Committee, evidence was taken from interested bodies not only in Edinburgh, but also in Glasgow. The Bill then went to a Special Scottish Standing Committee. It has now been before your Lordships' House and I think that it is generally agreed that we had a useful, constructive and even-tempered discussion of it in a Committee of the Whole House off the Floor of the House.
Other arrangements are now in place which are equally successful. Recently, for the first time as a Minister in your Lordships' House, I went before the Scottish Grand Committee to make a Statement and to answer questions. All 72 MPs from Scotland can attend the Scottish Grand Committee if they wish. We envisage that in the autumn the committee will meet in Aberdeen to debate Scottish affairs. There is no reason why the Scottish Grand Committee should not meet in Inverness—or in many other places in Scotland.
1064
I believe that such positive changes, which do not put strains on the Union and which are not damaging to the supremacy of this United Kingdom Parliament, are indeed appropriate. As both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have said, we would be perfectly prepared to look further at any other changes that might be made, subject to one clear proviso: we simply are not prepared to countenance anything that would put at risk the Union between Scotland and England.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister is detailing some sensible arrangements, but he has not addressed the fact that, although the Secretary of State has the power, he says, to spend money, I do not doubt that the Treasury has the control. The fact is that the Government, represented by the Secretary of State and his Ministers, represent a very small minority of the electorate of Scotland. That is the essential issue.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not think that that has put the Labour Party off being the Government of the United Kingdom when it could not command a majority in England. I suspect that the Liberal Party would not have been averse to that arrangement either if it found that it did not have a majority in a particular part of the United Kingdom. I acknowledge that we are clearly in a minority in Scotland. I should like to be in the majority in Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is wrong because during his lifetime we were in the majority in Scotland in terms of both the number of seats and the popular vote. We believe it to be appropriate that the Government are formed of the party which commands the majority in the House of Commons for the whole of the United Kingdom.
It would be wholly wrong if, as a matter of short-term expediency, we were to introduce constitutional changes in order to meet short-term problems that arose from time to time: in other words, they have not proved to be positions of such long standing that they are irreversible. On a political note, I am confident that we shall do very well in Scotland, in particular after the settling of the Conservative Party's internal affairs only this afternoon.
I am delighted to have had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that I have my doubts about going to a Royal Commission again. It would not be a matter merely of kicking the ball into touch, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. It would be a matter of trying to kick it over the grandstand and well into the next century. I also doubt whether there is much to be said for the desirability of a referendum, other than in the context of putting to the people a specific proposal when the advantages and disadvantages can be clearly argued.
I conclude by saying that most Scottish schoolboys know that in 1320 the Scottish barons wrote to the Pope demanding that their independence be preserved. That is now known as the Declaration of Arbroath. What is less well known is that the Pope had the courtesy to reply. He replied from Avignon in the same year. Pope John XXII had this to say:
"Wherefore we ask, advise and exhort all of you, in the Lord Jesus Christ, that you take into the most careful consideration the countless dangers and the losses of lives and goods which have been

1065
caused by the strife of the said king and Robert in time past and which, it is to be feared, will arise likewise from it in future unless it be bound up by union and concord; that you turn your minds to the profit of this unity and peace".
As a Presbyterian Scot, I am delighted to invoke the Pope in my pursuit of the goal of a union between Scotland and England.
7.21 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, thanks to the admirable brevity with which so many noble Lords have spoken and to the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which I very much regret, I could now bore your Lordships for the best part of 40 minutes. But there is no need to look troubled; I shall refrain.
We have heard many interesting contributions. I shall not comment on any individual speech because that would take too long. We still need answers to many of the questions that I posed. That was emphasised by many of the speeches, although in some cases we have had several answers—all different. There is much work to be done.
It only remains for me to thank all noble Lords for their admirable speeches and for their kind remarks about my opening speech. Some have spoken at considerable personal inconvenience and at shorter notice than I should have liked. I am most grateful to all noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Asylum Seekers
7.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review their policy on the detention of asylum seekers.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the detention of asylum seekers is a practice which, in principle, I do not oppose. There are circumstances in which it is right. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has outlined what those circumstances might be. They include verification of identity and false or missing travel documents with intent to mislead the authorities of the state in which they claim asylum. It is generally recognised that the likelihood of an asylum seeker absconding is also grounds for detention.
However, it is also the case that detention should be used only where necessary and where there is clear and convincing evidence to support a decision to detain. Behind my Question tonight is the suspicion that such clear and convincing evidence is, in most cases of detention, not to be found and that the detention of some, rather than others, is arbitrary. In order to overcome that suspicion a number of measures would need to be in place. Those would not be difficult or costly but they would provide some rights for people detained and serve as a reassurance that detention is used only where it can be shown to he necessary.
The first requirement, I suggest, is that written reasons for detention should be given to each detainee. I am aware that policy in this area has altered and that every detainee is now given a verbal statement of the reasons for detention in a language which he or she understands. I commend the Government for that policy but ask why such a statement cannot also be in writing. It would be a simple matter to transcribe the verbal statement so that a written account was available for the detainee and for any legal representative. A verbal statement requires accurate memory. Who, among us, in the circumstances of detention, would be able to give an accurate account of a statement made verbally to us? It would seem a straightforward matter for a written statement to be provided as a matter of routine. Is that possible?
The second measure which would give reassurance is that a written explanation of rights and how to exercise them should be given to each detainee. It is clear that at the moment that does not happen as a matter of routine. Detainees are not informed of their right to seek bail nor of how to set about making an application for bail. The Amnesty report, Prisoners without a Voice, based on an analysis of 50 detainees, showed that none of them was given such written information; not at the time of detention and not during the course of detention. International standards require that such written information should be provided. Again, it would seem a fairly straightforward matter for such information, available in translation, to be given to detainees. The information should include information about legal representation. I wish to ask the noble Baroness about such legal representation. There is anxiety that the legal refugee centre is not able to provide representation for all asylum seekers. There are said to be a number of cowboy firms in that area. Has any progress been made on compiling a register of legal advisers who can give proper advice to asylum seekers?
The third measure that I suggest is necessary is more complex and far-reaching. Yet it is also the measure that would give greatest reassurance. It is the availability of a prompt review of each case of detention before an independent court or tribunal. The lack of such a review as a matter of course for all detainees is a cause for grave concern. The Government argue that such a review is available either by application for a writ of habeas corpus or by application for hail. The first of those is not a case review. It depends upon showing that the detention is unlawful not in a particular case but in general. The recent case of four asylum seekers who were granted writs by the High Court illustrates the point. The Court of Appeal overturned the ruling on the grounds that immigration officers had power to detain.
Application for bail is, of course, on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty is that it is not available to all asylum seekers who are detained. It is not, for instance, available to illegal entrants and to those who are detained following a deportation order until they have been refused asylum and have lodged an appeal against that refusal. Some detainees spend months in detention before they become eligible to apply for bail.
A further difficulty is that bail is granted only when there are two people who are usually required to stand surety in the sum of £2,000 each. It is not easy for a

1067
detainee to find two people willing to stand surety for such sums. Therefore, it is clear that neither applications for a writ of habeas corpus nor applications for bail provide that regular review of all cases.
Again, it would seem fairly straightforward to provide a prompt review conducted as a routine for all detainees. The instrument exists already in the immigration appeals authority which hears bail applications. That body clearly meets the criteria of independence, impartiality and competence which are required by international standards. Such a review could take place automatically and need not depend on an application being made by the detainee. That would be the clearest possible guarantee of consistency in relation to decisions to detain. Of course, a cost would be created by the holding of such routine hearings but if they resulted in a reduction in the number of detainees there would surely be a considerable cost saving.
Until such measures are in place, there will continue to be suspicion that detention of asylum seekers is a lottery with no clear and consistent criteria indicating why a minority are detained while a majority have temporary admission. Therefore, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she is satisfied that immigration officers, who have little knowledge of the countries from which asylum seekers come, have the necessary skills and information to make the judgments required. If she is satisfied about that, is she satisfied also that there is consistency between one immigration officer and another and one port of entry and another?
It is extremely difficult to understand why some are in detention and others are not when there is very little difference in their circumstances. Of the 50 cases analysed by Amnesty, 23 were released in due course on bail or temporary admission without there being any apparent change in their situation. Why, then, was it necessary to detain them at all? Of those 23, one absconded. Is that proportion any different from the proportion of those who abscond from among the majority given temporary admission?
The Government put forward the possibility of absconding as the chief reason for the necessity of detention. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the size of the problem and how many asylum seekers abscond in a year. It does not seem immediately apparent that those detained and then released are any more likely to abscond than those who are admitted. Why, then, are they detained in the first place?
Finally, there is the suspicion that asylum seekers are treated in the way I have described to deter them from coming to this country and perhaps to give the impression that they are in some way bogus. Of the 50 cases to which I have referred, seven have been granted asylum and a number of other cases are still awaiting the outcome of an appeal. Therefore, it is clear that a proportion of those who are detained are genuine. Why, then, should they be detained?
The matter is made worse when they are detained in prisons alongside those accused of criminal offences. A large proportion of those detained continue to be inside such institutions. The March 1995 report of Judge Stephen Tumim recommended that those detained for
1068
immigration purposes should not be held at Wandsworth Prison. That recommendation surely applies also to other prisons.
Asylum seekers come to this country fleeing from persecution and fear of death. They are not criminals and are entitled to proper treatment. Of course, their cases must be examined properly and those which are not well founded must be rejected. But that does not mean that asylum seekers should be treated as bogus, or even worse as criminals. The measures I have suggested would give some reassurance that detention is used only in cases where there is clear evidence of it being necessary. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some indication of the Government's willingness to review their practice in this matter.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon for the calm and balanced way in which he has introduced this debate. In my view, it is both timely and urgent. We look forward to the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, although I know that she is not the departmental Minister within the Home Office who has responsibility for those matters. Nevertheless, we hope that she will be able to give us a very sympathetic reply.
I submit that the Government need to review not only their policy but also their attitudes to asylum seekers. Before 1971 I doubt whether any such people were detained for more than perhaps a very short time. One regrets that recently the practice of detention has increased. As has been mentioned, prisons have been used, which should be available for those convicted of crimes, and new detention centres have been built.
If that is not bad enough, the Government appear to be quite misinformed about the psychology of asylum seekers. Someone who comes here to ask for asylum either immediately on arrival or soon afterwards is seeking a new and special status. He is saying, "I am here and I would like to stay". Such a person has the strongest possible incentive to appear when required to do so and to present his own case. I suggest that he will not willingly annoy those who must decide his status. Therefore, he should not normally be detained. He is quite unlike a person who has overstayed, perhaps as a student or a visitor. He is even more unlike an offender who has been convicted and sentenced to deportation. Both overstayers and offenders may have to be sent home and should be detained if they are likely to abscond prior to deportation.
Quite naturally, members of the public dislike those who have committed serious offences while in Britain or who have no right in any event to be here. On the other hand, there is strong public sympathy for the victims of persecution and torture and for those whose homes, families and livelihoods have been suddenly shattered by a vicious war, whether civil or otherwise. Many people believe that Her Majesty's Government should be more generous to refugees and displaced people and, in particular, those from Bosnia and especially for the wounded and those who already have relatives living in Britain. The Home Secretary should not ride roughshod over the kind and charitable instincts

1069
of the people of Britain. He should avoid carefully tarring the genuine asylum seeker with the same brush as the illegal immigrant.
There are many practical steps which could be taken to prevent the detention of asylum seekers. For example, the question of bail has been mentioned already by the right reverend Prelate. It is ridiculous to ask someone with no money and few friends to stand surety for bail in the sum of £4,000. If bail is to be used at all, it should be limited to sums which are practically possible for the applicants to pay. One or two personal sureties or third parties would be greatly preferable.
The second practical step would be to make greatly increased use of the services and facilities of voluntary and non-governmental bodies. Asylum seekers should be discharged into their care and they should be made responsible for ensuring that applicants turn up when required to do so. There are a large number of NGOs which come under the umbrella of the British Refugee Council. That council has long experience in dealing with refugees.
In addition, there are several thousand housing associations in all parts of Britain, a number of which also manage hostels for short-stay, short-life accommodation. In addition, many churches in London and elsewhere have experience of refugees within their congregations. In the past they have welcomed them and assisted their integration into local life. As your Lordships will recall, during the crises of Hungary, Uganda, and again in 1988 when many Kurds fled from Turkey, church halls were pressed into service to accommodate refugees who might otherwise have been totally homeless. All those traditions could be built upon and I am sure that there are voluntary organisations, over and above those already mentioned, which would be willing to help if they were properly approached. None of those organisations, of which we can be proud, wishes to see asylum seekers treated as if they were criminals.
The Home Office needs to revise its practice on detaining asylum seekers. It should remind itself daily of its often-repeated claim that,
"detention is used sparingly and as a last resort".
In my view it should never be used as a first resort, when an exhausted and probably disoriented applicant makes an inconsistent statement. It should not be used just because an asylum seeker has arrived with forged, false or incomplete documents. How else can some people escape from Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollahs, or other equally unacceptable regimes?
The Home Office should also review its notion that any old place will do for locking up asylum seekers. I recall the disused ferry boats near Felixstowe which were used to intern Tamil refugees, until they were wrecked by a hurricane. I also recall Haslar, near Portsmouth, where access was, for a long time, difficult for visiting solicitors and friends and where facilities were inadequate.
I have myself visited Campsfield House near Oxford. It was a former young offenders' centre situated on a cramped and claustrophobic site. There detainees were handed over to the mercies of private enterprise, in the
1070
form of the untested and undertrained employees of Group 4 Total Security. The result was, first, hunger strikes and then, later on, a riot. I trust that conditions have now improved following a visit by the Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Detention has been costing well over £4 million each year. I believe that it is likely to cost over £5 million for this year, although the figure could be higher. A great deal of that is wasted money, as about half of all detainees are released on bail or given temporary admission after they have been initially detained. The practice of detaining makes the assessment of cases longer and more complicated. One-third of detainees were recently being held for more than six months; indeed, some had committed suicide during that time.
The right reverend Prelate was entirely right to call for review of something that is seriously wrong. I believe that the review needs to be a fundamental one, embracing attitudes, policy and practices. I support the right reverend Prelate with all my strength and I urge Her Majesty's Government to listen to the independent sources that have examined the situation and in particular to those who are in daily contact with asylum seekers. I ask them not to succumb to the siren voices of prejudice. It is, I believe, high time that this country complied in full with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and with Article 9 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights; and, in general, with the standards laid down by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I too very greatly welcome the choice of the right reverend Prelate of the matter for a short debate tonight. The right reverend Prelate raised most important issues on behalf of an easily dismissed or ignored minority which I believe is very appropriate on occasions of this kind. He summarised his case this evening by asking for clear and convincing evidence as regards the reasons for detention, because they are not easy to find. I believe that the theme of the right reverend Prelate, which I strongly endorse, is that detention must be exceptional and that there should be a review of the way that detention is conducted at present and of the numbers of people who are subject to it.
I shall try to avoid adding to the list of questions raised by the right reverend Prelate. Indeed, I shall be most happy to listen to the Minister's response, except in one respect. I would he grateful if the noble Baroness could confirm the total annual cost of detention. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the figure of £4 million rising to £5 million. However, that seems to me to be a rather low figure when one takes into account the fact that something like 650 people are detained at any one time and that there is a need to use prison accommodation in the way that has been described. Therefore, because of the very high cost of keeping anyone in detention, I would assume that the total cost is much above £4 million or £5 million. I should be grateful if the Minister can give us that information and for any further details that she may have as regards how the figure is broken down.

1071
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was absolutely right to say that it is not only a matter of policy and procedures but also one of attitudes. He said that we should never forget that people seeking asylum are the victims of persecution and torture and that they come into this country with that in mind. I believe that we should be more than ever sympathetic to the problems that they are faced with in detention and when explaining their cases to those who need to hear.
This country's reputation and record in matters of dealing with refugees is indeed a very mixed one. I was brought up on the stories of Victorian England from Palmerston to Gladstone, when we were very tolerant of all victims of persecution. I greatly welcomed that fact. However, our record on the eve of World War II was not so good. I recently read an article by Sir Martin Gilbert—who, as noble Lords will know, is the biographer of Sir Winston Churchill and, I understand, an occasional adviser to the Prime Minister—on British government policy towards Jewish refugees from November 1938 until the outbreak of war. The article is based on Cabinet Office and Foreign Office papers which have only recently been made available.
I must say that I am deeply ashamed at the attitude of the government at that time which is revealed by their own papers. We must not be in a position in, say, 10, 20, 30 or 50 years' time of looking back at today's policy and its implementation and discovering what, as I say, Sir Martin Gilbert discovered about our policy on the eve of World War II. In common humanity—despite what I said about policy at that time—and because of our own long tradition of political tolerance, we should always lean towards accepting those seeking asylum and avoid temporary detention whenever possible. I believe that that ought to be our policy. I do not believe for a moment that the Minister would in fact dissent from that view.
The right reverend Prelate set out a number of safeguards—as I believe one might call them—which he thought ought to apply in cases of detention. I have some of my own and perhaps I may mention them very briefly, although they do not necessarily, if at all, differ from those of the right reverend Prelate. First, the Home Office should enforce its own instructions that asylum seekers should not be detained on mere suspicion. Secondly, following on from what the right reverend Prelate said in particular, all detainees should be provided with written explanations in English, and in due course in their own language, outlining the reasons for their detention. Thirdly, detainees should not be held in ordinary prisons but elsewhere in humane conditions. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say about steps to provide accommodation other than that at Campsfield and also as regards what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said about present conditions at Campsfield House.
Fourthly—this follows—immigration detention centres, wherever they may he and whatever may be their further purpose, should be professionally staffed, managed and equipped to provide a sympathetic environment for all cultures. Fifthly, there should be a fully independent and impartial body to review decisions to detain and the conditions of detention.
1072
Those are my five principles, but, as I say, I shall be happy to accept the longer and rather fuller list of the right reverend Prelate. I particularly noted what he said about legal representation.
If—can the Minister confirm this?—about 650 people are being held at any one time, it seems to me that that is far too many. If 650 people are being held and Campsfield takes only 215, is it indeed the case that the remaining number—this is an average number, but it would be helpful to know if there is another figure for today—are being held in prison accommodation of one kind or another?
Also, are any children being held at the present time? I understand and appreciate that the number of children detained is very few and there are circumstances in which it may be necessary to detain an unaccompanied child overnight, but that is the most that could be done. It would be indefensible if children were held on their own for any period of time, or any period comparable to the time detainees would normally expect to be held in detention.
I do not pretend that matters of judgment do not arise and I am quite prepared to accept, as the House will do, that not quite all asylum seekers are fleeing from persecution. However, I believe that we should have a generous and not a restrictive policy and it should be based upon giving refugees the benefit of the doubt. I believe it was Amnesty which published a booklet about some of these matters which was entitled Prisoners Without a Voice. This is precisely what they are and, for that reason if for no other, I greatly welcome the right reverend Prelate's decision to give them one this evening.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, may I first thank the right reverend Prelate, as others have done, for raising this Question in the House today. We have already had three powerful speeches, and I agree with the central thrust of the points made.
The issues the right reverend Prelate has raised are of vital importance. The deprivation of liberty is one of the greatest misfortunes that can befall an individual and to deprive a person of liberty is one of the most powerful instruments which the state has in its control. It is therefore vital that the exercise of such power is always kept under review so that it can be made accountable to Parliament. It must also always be made consistent with British ideas about the rule of law—a commitment of which, as the Evening Standard said in a slightly different context last night, we can be extremely proud. I believe that current policy and practice in relation to asylum seekers falls quite a long way below the standard set by some notion of the rule of law.
It seems to me that there are two issues at stake in the detention of asylum seekers. The first is the justification of the policy of detention itself. The second concerns the terms and conditions of detention. As I shall argue, the first makes a big impact on the second. On 10th May, I understand, there were 646 detained asylum seekers. I would be most grateful if the Minister can give the House the current number. The Refugee Council estimates that during 1994 between 3,000 and

1073
4,000 people were detained. Since July 1993 the Government have been increasing detention facilities and at the moment there appear to be about 800 places for the detention of immigration and asylum cases, the vast majority of them for asylum cases.
My party fully accepts that in individual cases detention may be justified, but the crucial difference we have with the Government is that it should be justified on individual grounds and this sort of detention should be made much more transparent and compatible with general ideas about the rule of law. It would be wrong to use large scale detention, or the prospect of it, as a matter of policy to deter asylum seekers, although this seems to have been the interpretation given to the policy by Mr. Peter Tomkin, who retired as head of the Immigration Service in 1991, when he recently suggested that if people knew their cases would drag on for months while they lived in spartan surroundings they simply would not come unless their claim was legitimate. It seems to me that if there is any element of using detention as a policy of that sort it is illegitimate.
There are a number of ways in which I believe the existing arrangements are not compatible with the idea of the rule of law, and other speakers have made the point as well as I am likely to do. However, I shall mention them briefly. First, the matter of who is to be detained seems largely a lottery. Asylum seekers are liable to detention at any point in the asylum determination process and a large number seem to be detained on entry. The decision to detain on entry is made by an immigration officer following a short interview with no legal representation on the grounds that the asylum seeker may not comply with conditions of admission. That is a highly subjective judgment, and it is not subject to any kind of judicial appeal or review. It is made at a time of maximum disorientation for the claimant and may involve difficulties with language.
It seems to me wrong that such a draconian power can be used in such a discretionary way. It is compounded by the fact that detention is for an indefinite period. It is no doubt true that, as the Home Office says, asylum seekers have their cases reviewed on a monthly basis by a senior immigration officer. When, however, continued detention is authorised no reasons have to be given other than that it has been authorised. Again, it seems that the power is discretionary. The individual concerned is given no detailed reasons for continued detention and it cannot be challenged in the courts. If, as we believe, detention can he justified in individual cases, it is vital that, first of all, the individual is given, as the right reverend Prelate said, a written set of reasons for detention and that these should be based on proper investigation. The reasons should not be based on a short interview at a rather inappropriate moment in the process when the person concerned may be rather disoriented.
Secondly, the individual should have access to legal representation and to help to secure it, including, as the right reverend Prelate said, written details of rights and the procedures relating to those rights. Thirdly, a review of detention should also involve giving reasons to the
1074
detainee and this should be open to legal review and/or challenge. Fourthly, there must surely be a case for an upper time limit to the period of detention.
Given the growth of numbers of places in detention centres, the way in which discretionary power is entrenched at the heart of the process, and the lack of opportunity for legal challenge, it is difficult not to believe that detention of large numbers is not a matter of policy. That interpretation is supported by the suggestion of various refugee organisations that the Home Office appears to target certain nationalities for detention. In 1994 it appears to have been Angolans and Zaireans; at the moment it appears to be Algerians and Nigerians.
If detention is justified, it is justified on individual grounds. If that is so, there is every reason to expect that the decision to detain can be justified in each case and this requires reasons to be given to the detainee and for the decision to be subject to review and challenge. I am sure that all Members of the House have a strong commitment to the idea of the rule of law. Yet it is difficult to see how existing arrangements with such a large reliance on discretion are compatible with the idea of the rule of law and natural justice.
I am also concerned about the differences in the conditions in which individuals are detained. While I accept the negative points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, Campsfield Detention Centre nevertheless runs a reasonably relaxed regime with rooms rather than cells, recreational facilities, in-house medical facilities and the possibility of incoming phone calls. In Rochester Prison, by contrast, where there are 200 places for asylum seekers, the regime is much more like that of a remand prison. Having visited Reading Prison—which is a renowned prison—last week I can see that it is certainly not an easy life. People are locked up for 14 hours a day. They cannot receive incoming calls, although they can make telephone calls out. Their capacity to earn money is limited. As I understand it, it is limited to 60 pence a day in return for work such as cleaning of the cell. It is not clear to me why regimes for the same group of people have to differ so fundamentally. Obviously, the ideal would be to move those who have to be detained out of prisons and into other kinds of centres.
I am also concerned about the training of private security guards taking a role in riot control at Campsfield, a form of training involving the use of batons, shields and restraining apparatus. This is not the place for a major philosophical debate about private prisons which would replicate what has been said from the Opposition Benches before; I merely wish to record our dislike of the current developments and the objection to that in principle.
Overall, therefore, I am very concerned about the use of arbitrary power and discretionary power in the detention of asylum seekers. We may need to detain individuals, but we need to do it in terms of transparent standards of law and justice of which we can be proud.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Ripon for the opportunity to discuss a subject which is

1075
inclined, I suspect, to arouse an emotional response rather than a rational one. I am also indebted to other noble Lords for the measured way in which they have expressed what I know are very real concerns about an important subject which strikes at a fundamental right—the liberty of the individual.
I should begin by assuring noble Lords that the Government take this question very seriously, and we are concerned to respond positively to constructive criticism in this area. I shall go on to explain what that means in terms of positive action on our part. However, we should begin by recognising the broader context within which this issue needs to be addressed—the need to maintain an effective immigration control and the fact that it is necessary to detain some people with no entitlement to remain here if they are to be removed.
It may be helpful if I provide the House with some facts. At present there are some 58,000 applications for asylum outstanding. There are some 870 people detained under powers contained in Schedules 2 and 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. These are not new powers; they have been on the statute book for over 22 years. Some 690 of those in detention have claimed asylum at some stage, but the great majority of these have already had their applications considered by the Home Office and have had their claims rejected. Of those in long-term detention—for more than one month—90 per cent. have already had their asylum claims rejected and are either pursuing appeals or are awaiting deportation or removal. Only 4 per cent. of all asylum applications are granted and of those who appeal, which is the majority, only 4 per cent. are currently successful before the independent appellate authorities. That does not suggest to me a picture of a large number of genuine refugees being detained unjustifiably.
That brings me to the nature of the problem that we are addressing tonight. In 1988 there were some 4,000 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, and that figure had been constant for some years. In 1991 there were 44,800 asylum applications, and there was widespread evidence of growing abuse of these arrangements. The Government have addressed the issue in a number of ways. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 gave every refused asylum seeker a right of appeal before removal. At the same time we introduced measures aimed at speeding up the process of resolving applications and reducing the numbers of applications for judicial review which were building up in the courts. The Act also introduced powers to take fingerprints to prevent multiple applications. In one case a man was found to have applied for asylum in over 40 different identities, using those identities to apply for DSS benefits. I am pleased to say that he was convicted of defrauding the department and sentenced to 2½years imprisonment.
In 1994 the United Kingdom had 32,800 asylum applications, excluding dependants. That figure is over 10,000 more than in 1993 and still over eight times the level in 1988. Much remains to be done, therefore. The 1993 Act has reduced decision times—from over 18 to about eight months in new cases—and streamlined
1076
procedures, but the high levels of applications have eroded the improved decision times and added to backlogs.
The Government have therefore announced the investment of an extra £37 million in the machinery for determining asylum claims and hearing appeals on the "spend to save" principle. This will pay for an additional 170 staff in the Asylum Division. There were 640 staff in post in May 1995.
The Government have also announced the wider use of the power to curtail existing leave when refusing asylum. Each case can still be considered on its merits and the powers will not be used automatically or punitively. But making an undeserving asylum claim is likely to cast doubt on an applicant's intention to leave the United Kingdom at the end of their stay, as visitors and students are required to do. A new "short procedure" is currently being piloted under which the intervals between application, interview, further representations and a decision are shortened. The initial pilot scheme is on a limited basis but we hope to expand this if successful. All those measures are aimed to ensure that claims are still given full individual consideration but that the whole process is accelerated.
Against that background, the Government's policy on the use of detention has been clearly stated on a number of occasions. The policy is that the powers of detention contained in the Immigration Act 1971 should be used only where there is no alternative. The overriding consideration is whether the person is likely to comply voluntarily with any restrictions imposed on him, including any arrangements for removal from the United Kingdom. Temporary admission is granted wherever possible, with account being taken of the full circumstances of the case, including the person's immigration history, length of residence and any ties with the United Kingdom. Special consideration is always given to the release of people who have brought themselves to the attention of the authorities by seeking asylum, and that approach has been underlined recently by further instructions to the Immigration Service.
The decision to detain is taken at no lower than chief immigration officer level and is reviewed within 24 hours by an Immigration Service inspector. Thereafter all detention is reviewed locally by an inspector at least weekly, and after one month further reviews are carried out and at an increasingly senior level so that all detention in excess of six months is reviewed by a director of the Immigration Service.
I accept that that is not the same as an independent review of detention, which has been proposed by the right reverend Prelate; but there are opportunities to apply for bail for all those detainees who are pursuing appeals. Those opportunities have been substantially extended by the new rights of appeal introduced by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Opportunities to apply for habeas corpus and to apply for bail in context of any application for judicial review are also available. Against that background the Government do not believe that the case for an independent review of detention is justified.

1077
The other issue that is frequently raised is the need to explain to the detainee the reasons for the initial detention. In practice, the detainee is told of the reason for detention at the time, in a language he or she understands, through an interpreter if necessary. If the object is to explain the position to the detainee, then I am sure that this is the best way to do it, because only in that way can these matters be talked through and explained where that seems necessary. If the object is to produce a document for the purposes of a bail hearing at some time in the future, then that is done as and when it is required. Again, I can see no justification for creating a further layer of bureaucracy by providing a written explanation in each case. What is absolutely crucial is that there is proper understanding on the part of the detainee.
Where I think it is important to produce written notifications for detainees is in terms of keeping them in touch with developments in resolving their position. Since 1991 we have had arrangements for providing detainees monthly with a written explanation of the state of play in resolving their immigration position, including any extant asylum claim. That is done in the context of the monthly detention review which is conducted in consultation with the Asylum Division. These arrangements have recently been reviewed and improved—for example, by having the review conducted on the monthly "anniversary" of the date of detention—thus ensuring that no one has to wait nearly two months before receiving such a notification at the beginning of each calendar month; and by faxing the notification to ensure that the information which it contains is up to date.
I know that there has been some criticism of the detention of those held under the Immigration Act in Prison Service establishments. I think we need to be clear about distinguishing between convicted prisoners who are to be deported at the end of their sentence and others who are held pending removal. I agree that those held pending removal should be accommodated separately from convicted prisoners and, indeed, this is what we are working towards.
It has been agreed that in future all Immigration Act detainees will be held in only five Prison Service establishments: Haslar, Rochester, Birmingham, Holloway and one other in the north which remains to be decided.
The programme of transfers into these establishments is now virtually complete, subject to the identification of a further prison in the north of England and this will enable both the Prison Service and the Immigration Service better to meet the particular needs of these detainees. It will also give us an opportunity to co-ordinate the way in which we deal with immigration detainees wherever they are held. This will be facilitated by a "detention management co-ordinating committee" with representatives of all the main places of detention, which has been established already.
As I have said, there will be a continuing need to accommodate a number of immigration detainees in Prison Service establishments. However, the extent to which we rely on the Prison Service for accommodation
1078
of this sort should be reduced in due course as we expand the places available in purpose-built Immigration Service detention centres.
The first step down this road was taken by the opening of Campsfield House in November 1993 which provided an additional 200 places. This was followed by the opening of the Gatwick temporary detention centre with 45 places in January this year. This, in itself, will be replaced by the end of 1995 by a new Gatwick permanent detention centre providing some 125 beds.
The other major project is the replacement of the current detention centre at Harmondsworth by a new building in 1997 to provide some 125 beds, an addition of 30 places. This represents a challenging programme aimed at providing the very best facilities available for immigration detainees up to the same high standards as those now available at Campsfield House and Gatwick.
I recognise that some people are currently detained for longer than any of us would wish. The measures which the Government have already taken to accelerate the process of considering asylum applications and any subsequent appeals will go a long way towards resolving these difficulties. The Immigration Service itself is also looking at ways in which the process of allocating scarce detention places can be better organised. The periods of detention should therefore be reduced and, indeed, it is our intention that they should be.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the right of bail and where it should be made available to detainees. Any person who is detained and who has an appeal pending is entitled to appeal to the independent appellate authorities for bail under provisions contained in the Immigration Act 1971. Also, a passenger who is detained for longer than seven days pending further examination may also apply for bail to the appellate authorities. Detention can also be challenged in the courts. We do not believe, as I said earlier, that there is any justification for a separate, independent review of detention. The rights which detainees have to apply for bail, and their ability to challenge detention through the courts, provide proper safeguards. In addition, internal reviews provide safeguards against unnecessary detention.
All detention is reviewed locally at least every seven days. After a month a case is reviewed at an Immigration Service headquarters monthly, and at an increasingly senior level. Those reviews are conducted in close consultation with the Asylum Division; and monthly notifications are sent to detainees, as I explained earlier.
The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 supplements the appeals system and, as a result, bail provisions in the Immigration Act 1971. In effect, any person refused asylum who is detained, and who has an appeal outstanding, may apply to the independent appellate authorities for bail.
Conditions of bail are set by adjudicators on a case-by-case basis. An over-stayer served with a notice of intention to deport, and detained, may apply for bail once an appeal is made. An illegal entrant may similarly apply for bail if exercising a right of appeal against removal directions following refusal of asylum. For over-stayers, it is the serving of notice of intention to

1079
deport which triggers the right of appeal. No entitlement to bail exists while an asylum claim is under consideration for illegal entrants.
We acknowledge that a small number of detainees do not have the right to apply for bail. Those fall into two categories: illegal entrants who have applied for asylum and have no right of appeal until the asylum application has been refused; and those detainees whose appeals have been dismissed but whose removal has been delayed. I can say that an approach has therefore been made to the department of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to see what might be done to provide all detainees with the right to apply for bail.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was concerned about obligations under the international conventions. First, the United Kingdom accepts all its obligations under various international conventions in respect of detaining asylum seekers. Detention is used only exceptionally and in accordance with powers under the Immigration Act. Only 1.5 per cent. of people who have sought asylum are currently detained. Many of those have already had their application refused. But it would not be possible to dispense with the use of detention for all people who have sought asylum. Some 5 per cent. of the claims made are found on convention terms to be genuine; and to have no power of detention would invite unfounded claims.
We do all we can to avoid the detention of asylum seekers in prisons. But there are circumstances—for example, the person's behaviour or where medical reasons make detention in an immigration detention centre undesirable—where that cannot be avoided. There are four main conventions which, although they are not legally binding, are accepted by the United Kingdom. Under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953, everyone has the right to liberty, but detention is acceptable if it is to prevent an asylum seeker effecting an unauthorised entry or against whom deportation action is being taken.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Executive Committee Conclusion 1986 stated that detention should normally, if possible, be avoided. We accept that. Under Article 9—it was mentioned, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, no one should be subjected to arbitrary detention. We abide by that, too. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 states that no one should be subjected to arbitrary detention except where the procedures are established by law. We abide by that too.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked about costs and quite rightly queried those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The cost of running the immigration detention centres at Campsfield House, Harmondsworth and Gatwick were some £7.5 million in 1993–94. Overall expenditure on detention, including escorting, short-term detention, accommodation and other items such as maintenance, cleaning, etc. brings the total to some £11.35 million, so it is rather higher than the £5 million mentioned. In addition there is the notional cost of detention in Prison Service establishments of some £400 a week per detainee. That
1080
equates to some £9 million a year. The estimated average cost of detention in establishments managed by the Immigration Service is £540 per week per detainee. The estimated total expenditure on detention at Campsfield House in 1993–94 was some £4.5 million. Again, that equates to £432 per week per detainee.
Reference has been made to places and accommodation. Perhaps I may run through the figures again. There are 499 places available specifically for immigration detentions; 369 places are provided at Immigration Service secure hostels and 130 at the holding centre, Haslar, which is provided by the Prison Service almost exclusively for this use. In addition, the Immigration Service detains people for short periods at ports and in police cells and it uses Prison Service accommodation primarily for those immigration detainees who require a greater measure of security and control.
As to plans for new accommodation, the 200-bed Campsfield House immigration detention centre has been opened and a 45-bed temporary immigration detention centre at Gatwick Airport has also been opened and is due to expand. Plans for additional immigration detention places to be provided in phases in new immigration secure hostels are: at Gatwick Airport, a 125-bed centre; at Manchester Airport, a new 16-bed centre to replace the existing 7-bed facility; at Stansted Airport, a new 20-bed centre to replace the existing seven-bed temporary facility and at Heathrow Airport a new 150-bed centre to replace Harmondsworth and possibly the Queen's Building facility at Heathrow by 1997.
The vexed issue of children was mentioned. My understanding is that young persons under the age of 18 are detained only as a very last resort. Again, my understanding is that it is usually when the family is being prepared for deportation that the family is put together in accommodation at the last minute. Temporary admission is normally granted into the care of a suitable sponsor, preferably a relative or a close family friend or the social services department. Authority at a minimum of inspector level is required for the detention of children under 18, whether accompanied or not, and is reviewed by an assistant director within 24 hours. I asked whether any children were detained at the moment and I understand that the number is about five. If I am able to give more details to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I shall do so.
The right reverend Prelate was concerned about access to legal advice. It is made clear to all detainees that they have access to free legal advice from the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service, both of which are funded by the Home Office.
One or two other points were raised by the right reverend Prelate. Consistency between immigration officers is an important one. There are detailed guidelines on detention to try to ensure consistency. Detention is also reviewed by senior officers on the basis of the same criteria. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that pressure as regards the need for consistency is important and therefore that we should not relax our attempts to ensure that that is brought about.

1081
On absconding, in the past rates of absconding were low, less than 5 per cent. However, as the numbers have inexorably risen, so too have the trends. Recent trends suggest that the numbers are increasing as we seek to remove those who become removable; that is, those who have exhausted all their rights of appeal.
The last point to which I shall refer was raised either by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, or the noble Lord, Lord Plant, and it concerned Wandsworth. Immigration detainees who were held at Wandsworth have all been transferred to another establishment and there are no immigration detainees currently held there.
It is not the Government's intention to detain genuine refugees. Detention is closely monitored and as soon as there is any indication that any detainee might conceivably have a prima facie claim for asylum in this country, then that person would be released immediately.
The issue of detention raises very real concerns and I understand the reasons for this. But I ask noble Lords not to lose sight of the broader picture. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom, like its European partners, is experiencing the effects of a worldwide pressure to emigrate. The framework of our immigration controls provides a very necessary defence and enables us to address this phenomenon in a coherent way. Detention is an integral part of this overall picture; there will always be those who are determined to circumvent the control and who will have to be detained if they are to be removed.
The United Kingdom will continue to honour both its national and its international obligations; in particular the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the
1082
status of refugees. But the Government are also committed to providing a firm but fair immigration control. It is important to keep the issue of detention in perspective. There are some 58,000 asylum applications outstanding and new applications are being received at the rate of some 3,000 a month. To set against that, 690 people in detention is evidence that the Government are operating the policy in a firm but fair way.
Over 80 per cent. of the applicants will have no entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom, and only a tiny proportion will qualify for asylum. At present we have some 690 people detained who have claimed asylum at some stage; the great majority of these have had their claims rejected already. I do not accept the suggestion that we are detaining genuine refugees. There are too many abusive applications for asylum in the United Kingdom and the ability to detain in a small number of cases is necessary if we are to retain an effective immigration control.
There is always room for improvement in the way in which we deal with the detainees in our care and the Immigration Service is keen to pursue such issues constructively in consultation with any interested organisations which have a contribution to make in this area. But I would ask noble Lords to recognise the scale and nature of the problem that the Government seek to address and the need to support this with adequate and appropriate arrangements for detention.

Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.

  Serbia: Alleged Forcible Repatriation of Refugees
  Serbia: Alleged Forcible Repatriation of Refugees
  UN Conference on Women, Beijing: Agenda
  UN Conference on Women, Beijing: Agenda
  Granny Flats: Council Tax
  Granny Flats: Council Tax
  MoD: Political Forecasting
  MoD: Political Forecasting
  Counter-Proliferation Initiative
  Counter-Proliferation Initiative
  US Joint Advanced Strike Technology Programme
  US Joint Advanced Strike Technology Programme
  ABM Treaty
  ABM Treaty
  Barristers' Fees
  Barristers' Fees
  Dr. Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
  Dr. Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
  Conditional Fee Agreements, Scotland
  Conditional Fee Agreements, Scotland
  Radioactive Waste Management: White Paper
  Radioactive Waste Management: White Paper