Sitting of 14 March 1995

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

    Multiple Sclerosis
    Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further research her Department will be conducting in 1995 into the possible causes of multiple sclerosis; and if she will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to you, Madam Speaker, and to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), to explain that today she is leading a trade mission to Japan and Korea to boost British medical exports and to bring inward investment and jobs to Britain.
    To my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel), I reply that such research is mainly commissioned by the Medical Research Council and is the responsibilty of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Department of Health does, however, have a programme of research which includes work on service delivery for people with multiple sclerosis.
    Sir David Madel: In view of successful trials in the United States and completion of trials in the United Kingdom, will the drug beta interferon be available for multiple sclerosis sufferers on the national health service in the autumn and will trials on the drug rolipram begin in Britain this year?
    Mr. Bowis: As my hon. Friend knows, the cause of multiple sclerosis is not known, so as yet there is no cure. The research and clinical trials to which he refers have been on drugs to alleviate symptoms of the disease. Beta interferon, as a biotechnology product, now comes under the European Medicines Evaluation Agency and I cannot say whether, when or in what form a licence will be granted by it. The Medicines Control Agency in Britain has not yet approved any clinical trials on rolipram because no such proposals have yet been put to it.

    GP Fundholders
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions apply to GP fundholders in respect of using public money to improve their property portfolio.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): General practitioner fundholders may, with the agreement
    676
    of their regional health authority, use audited savings for the benefit of their patients. This includes improving their surgeries to provide a wide range of services.
    Mr. MacShane: Is there not growing concern among medical practitioners that some—not all—fundholders are not treating a required number of patients in order to improve the value of their property so that at the end of their practice they can sell it and make a large personal profit? If a doctor approaching retirement has a choice between 10 hip operations or adding £100,000 to the value of his property, that is a choice introduced by the Government to allow fundholding doctors to turn themselves into small businesses and put profit before patients.
    Mr. Malone: I hope that every general practitioner fundholder across the land will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, which is a slur on most of them, on those whom he was mentioning, and noted his tendentious use of the words "property portfolio" in his question when what he should have said was surgery premises. It is not unusual for public funds to be made available for the improvement of premises. That was always the case when grants were made available before to improve the capital asset with precisely the same effect as if GP fundholders use their savings now. I just wish that the hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the additional services that are being provided for patients—the improvements, the physiotherapy and the capital equipment that is brought into the premises. Fundholding is a great success and it does doctors no good when the hon. Gentleman denigrates them in that way.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact that more and more GP practices are opting for fundholding with clear benefits to patients throughout the country, is my hon. Friend aware that the Opposition are now in as much of a muddle about the future of health care as they are on education? Will he give some help to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to sort that out?
    Mr. Malone: Not only am I keen to help the right hon. Lady; I have already done so. I wrote to her yesterday asking whether she might now be prepared to clarify her party's position on this important point. Perhaps she will have an opportunity to say whether she agrees with the Leader of the Opposition, and reveal that yet another layer of veneer is to be added to left-wing policies.

    Residential Care
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she intends to take to improve residential care for the elderly.
    Mr. Bowis: Our inspection regime ensures that local authority-run homes are inspected against the same standards as are expected of independent sector homes, and we have now applied citizens charter principles to both. Standards also of course benefit from the statutory direction on choice, which gives residents the right to choose their home.
    Mr. Denham: Is the Minister aware of the anger and fear felt by elderly people whose homes, life savings and partners' pensions are confiscated to pay for residential care? Is he aware that, as the Southern Daily Echo has pointed out, those who can plan ahead and pay legal fees

    677
    can avoid high charges, while others cannot? Is it not clear that residential care is now a national lottery in which frail elderly people are losing control of the type, quality and cost of the care that they need?
    Mr. Bowis: What is certainly clear is that such comments do nothing but undermine elderly people's confidence in the excellent care provided by residential care and nursing homes throughout the country—and, indeed, by social services departments and health authorities working together.
    If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the matter, he will know that there have been no changes in the principles of charging for social care since the founding of the welfare state in 1948. What was good enough for Beveridge and Aneurin Bevan—and, more recently, for Sir Gordon Borne in the Labour party's own Commission on Social Justice—should be good enough for the hon. Gentleman: while of course people must look to the costs of their own social care, their health care will continue to be free at the point of delivery. That includes residential care.
    No one, but no one, risks the eviction of his or her spouse from the home because of charging policy, as some have suggested. That is specifically excluded, as is the eviction of any dependent relative, and the spouse's normal standard of living will also be taken into account.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware of the admirable plan of Kent's director of social services to involve local communities much more closely in residential homes? Does he agree that such a clear use of the voluntary spirit should be encouraged, and will he do his utmost to encourage those admirable ideas?
    Mr. Bowis: Yes. We should involve all the relevant agencies in the planning of social care, including social services departments, health authorities, GPs and the voluntary sector—and, of course, users and carers themeselves. My hon. Friend is right to point out that volunteers can play an important part in the provision of services: they can back up the statutory agencies, and many can gain great benefits themselves from supporting others.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Given that the Government have cut 50,000 local authority care home beds, and the Department of the Environment's current proposal to remove the statutory requirement for local councils to provide their own care homes, will the Minister explain how his concept of choice applies to elderly people who choose to enter local authority care homes?
    Mr. Bowis: Would that some of the local authorities that are run by the hon. Gentleman's party gave individual residents and potential residents real choice. Real choice is informed choice, not just the choice between two local authority homes.
    If a local authority believes, as many do, that it can secure better quality at a better price from the independent sector, that will be good for residents and taxpayers. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have the grace to welcome it.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lancashire has many excellent county and privately run residential homes? Is he further aware that it costs £93 a week or, in total, £10.8 million more to
    678
    keep people in county-run rather than private sector homes? Should that matter not be looked into so that that £10.8 million could be spent in other ways?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. As I go around the country and see the excellent provision by the independent sector, which is scorned and spurned by some local authorities for ideological reasons, I consider the cost of that provision and I notice, as my hon. Friend says, the savings that could be made. That could provide better quality and, very often, better comfort for individuals, and leave more money to be spent on people in need. Where hon. Members see such a waste of money, I hope that they will unfailingly send the details of it to the district auditor so that it can be considered in his assessment of value for money in local government.

    GP Fundholders
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about GP fundholders' savings.
    Mr. Malone: Fundholders have achieved efficiency savings of nearly £110 million over the first three years of the scheme. That is about 3.5 to 4 per cent. of budgets set. That money is being reinvested in health services for the benefit of patients. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for example, it has been reinvested in physiotherapy services, the purchase of electro-cardiogram equipment machines, more space for doctors to practise and additional nursing cover. I am sure that he will welcome all that.
    Mr. Milburn: Why should a minority of family doctors be allowed to sit on what amounts to a huge public subsidy when more than 1 million people are waiting for hospital treatment? What action is the Minister prepared to take to ensure that public resources are made available now for all members of the public, or is he content merely to see the further development of a two-tier NHS?
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters seems to extend no further than Essex, where he finds woks for sale in GP fundholders' premises. I am glad that he has treated the House to something slightly more serious than that. As he knows, those savings are spent on a rolling basis. Plans are not only agreed with the regional health authority but audited on an on-going basis. The money is spent on a year-on-year basis on patient care. I should have thought that, because much of that has happened in his constituency, he might have welcomed it.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability to make savings that can then be spent on more and better patient care is one of the main benefits that GP fundholding has been shown to have? Does he further agree that one of the places where that message has been heard loudest and clearest is the region represented by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), where nearly three quarters of the population have a GP fundholder—twice the national average?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is quite right. I had the pleasure of visiting the regional health authority that covers that area. It explained how enthusiastic GP fundholders in the right hon. Lady's constituency were in taking up the challenge that the policy offers, and in

    679
    bringing benefits to their patients. They will understand that it is a policy that, at least until yesterday, we understood that the Opposition were going to abolish.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that any benefits available to the patients of GP fundholders should be at least equally available to patients of non-fundholders who join joint commissioning arrangements, such as those that exist in Nottingham? Will he commend joint commissioning arrangements? If any savings are achieved from fundholding, will he consider applying them to the nearly 900,000 people who have been struck off dentists' NHS lists since the previous general election?
    Mr. Malone: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises an interesting point about people who will not join GP fundholding practices, but who provide the benefits by other means. Of course, GP fundholding is voluntary. That is the preferred way of moving forward in a primary care-led NHS. That will continue to be the case, but, if others choose another means and manage to learn from the best practice that has been made available by GP fundholders, I welcome that.

    Administrative Posts
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which administrative posts in the NHS are normally filled by nurses, doctors or other medically qualified persons; which are normally filled by people with other than medical qualifications; and if she will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): All NHS trust boards. must have a qualified medical director and a suitably qualified nurse as director of nursing. Otherwise, it is a matter for individual NHS bodies to decide what skills, expertise and experience are required.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that medical people are best placed to understand the medical needs of hospitals and other facilities in the NHS? Will he make it a priority to appoint them to administrative posts, where their medical experience can be used, and please can we have the matron back in hospitals?
    Mr. Sackville: On the last point, many of my hon. Friends used to show a marked predilection for a strong woman in charge. I have no objection to the person in charge of nursing, or of any other responsibilities, being styled as matron or, indeed, patron.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Under-Secretary recognise that not only has the number of those described as general and senior managers quadrupled since the Government's changes were introduced but the pay bill for those posts has trebled? Has the Under-Secretary seen the recent figures produced by the National Health Service Consultants Association, which show that, overall, the administrative costs of the health service are twice what they were before the Government introduced their so-called reforms? At a time when we are constantly being told that there is not enough money to provide essential care, does that not show how the Government waste public money?
    Mr. Sackville: I remind the right hon. Lady that a large proportion of the additional managers have been reclassified from their previous posts and the hon.
    680
    Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has admitted as much. I remind her also that half all managers come from a clinical background. If the right hon. Lady is worried about this, she should look to see that activity in hospitals has increased enormously. Outcomes have improved and waiting lists are down as a result of good management of hospitals. Hospitals do not manage themselves; they need good, committed managers.
    Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend's response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was tinged with a certain amount of humour, which is always the case when matron's name is raised in the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that the matron was probably the most important and effective post in hospitals throughout their history? It was a sad day when the post of matron was abandoned. If the Minister wants to do something that will have a major effect on the way our hospitals are run, he could go back to his office this afternoon and write a letter to every hospital in the country, recommending that they reintroduce the post of matron without delay. Will he consider doing that?
    Mr. Sackville: Every hospital has the opportunity to recreate the post of matron, and some are doing so.

    Specialist Appointments
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she proposes to ensure early specialist appointments following GP referrals.
    Mr. Sackville: For the first time, we have introduced a national waiting time standard for out-patient appointments.
    Mr. Lewis: After that unsatisfactory reply, will the Under-Secretary consider the effect of the 18-month demand on consultants which is required by the patients charter? Will he look at Withington hospital in south Manchester, where consultants are now writing to GPs saying that, because of that demand, they cannot accept further referrals? That is another hidden waiting list and it is time that the Minister got off his fat backside and started to tackle the problem properly.
    Mr. Sackville: The history of waiting lists and waiting times has been a major success of the NHS reforms. All the unacceptably long waits have been removed. Guarantees are being offered for out-patient appointments as well as for in-patients and for those waiting for operations, and the average waiting time has come down from nine to five months. That is a very real achievement.
    Mr. Garnier: Is my hon. Friend aware of the re-engineering project that has been carried out at Leicester Royal infirmary, which has enabled out-patients to see specialists and technicians at one place and during one appointment so that GPs receive the answers to their referrals within hours rather than weeks, which was previously the case? Is that not an example that should be followed by other NHS trusts and hospitals?
    Mr. Sackville: Yes, I congratulate Leicestershire on its achievement. We hope to encourage exactly that sort of initiative everywhere.

    Mental Health Care
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals she has to improve mental health care.
    Mr. Bowis: A large range of measures for in-patient and community services is being implemented, and our new Mental Health Bill is being considered in another place.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that not only are mixed-sex wards unacceptable and distressing to patients, but so are wards which have an unacceptable range of mental ill health? A 22-year-old young woman constituent of mine, who had suffered a nervous breakdown, found herself sharing a ward with people who were deeply psychotic and she was assaulted twice by a young male patient. Is it not utterly unacceptable that our mental hospitals, as a result of the Government's changes, have been turned into places which increase anxiety and stress to staff and patients?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman refers to a hospital which is in his constituency in Wales and, therefore, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I understand that Welsh questions were yesterday. I shall, however, answer in the general sense, since the matter applies to English health questions as well. It is appropriate that every health authority in the country should look at its range of provision and ensure that it meets what it assesses locally as being its need. That is what we have been encouraging them to do and that is what they are doing. We are looking for the right mix of acute beds, long-term beds, medium-term beds, low, medium and high-secure beds and a range of facilities in the community. They are being provided in most parts of the country and we are determined that they will be provided in all parts of the country.
    Mr. Sims: My hon. Friend will recall that about 12 months ago, the Select Committee on Health issued a report on these matters, in which it criticised the Government for the delay in implementing the homeless mentally ill initiative and for the lack of co-operation between his Department and the Department of the Environment. Will he assure me that those problems have been addressed and that the provision of housing for the mentally ill under that initiative is proceeding?
    Mr. Bowis: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He will also recall that the homeless mentally ill initiative has been a remarkable success story, not least because of the outreach teams which have been reaching increasing numbers of homeless mentally ill people. The initiative has also been a tremendous success in providing accommodation, the first stage of which has been hostel accommodation. I have opened a number of hostels around London and I am due to open another one shortly.
    My hon. Friend is also right to point to the need for a good system of agreed move-on accommodation. In the past, lack of that has caused delays. That is why we have been working closely with our colleagues in the Department of the Environment and why we have also
    682
    been working closely with the inner London boroughs especially. I am pleased to say that some helpful progress has been made by those boroughs for future provision.
    Mr. Illsley: Is it not the case that the Government are bringing forward controversial, unpopular and piecemeal initiatives on mental health rather than addressing the real issues such as the diversion of resources away from mental health into other parts of the national health service, the closure of long-stay institutions, the lack of a comprehensive strategy for mental health and the relationship between mental health and homelessness, unemployment and sexual and racial discrimination? Is it not time that the Government addressed the whole matter of mental health and perhaps committed themselves to a complete review of the Mental Health Act 1983?
    Mr. Bowis: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been. One of the five key parts of "The Health of the Nation" strategy is mental illness. We have been working hard with all the agencies involved to improve the standing of people with mental health problems. He will also know that we have been implementing our 10-point plan over the past 18 months, which has ranged from supervision registers and hospital discharge guidance through the training of key workers to supervised discharge, which is in the Mental Health Bill that is before Parliament.
    Resources to the tune of £2.3 billion have been put into mental health this year. Through social services, we have been putting money into local government provision to the tune of some £180 million and our mental illness specific grant has supported 1,000 schemes and 100,000 people. The missing link to which the Blom-Cooper and other reports have referred was partly supervised discharge and partly medium-secure beds. Those were missing because, during the previous Labour Government, not a single bed was provided, whereas we shall be providing some 1,300 beds by 1996.

    Health Authorities Bill
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by her Department of the likely savings to be made for the health services as a result of the Health Authorities Bill; and what savings will be made.
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates have been made of the savings resulting from the abolition of the regional health authorities.
    Mr. Malone: The provisions of the Health Authorities Bill, which will abolish regional health authorities and require district health authorities and family health services authorities to merge, will result in annual savings approaching £150 million by 1997-98. Some £100 million of the total savings will result from the abolition of the RHAs and the consequent reduction in the overlap of work between the national health service executive and the regions. All those savings will be retained by the NHS and reinvested in patient care.
    Mr. Thomason: I welcome that answer. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the changes will mean that there will be more money available for patient care, whereas Labour's proposals to create strategic health planning would take money away? Does my hon. Friend agree that

    683
    this is another case in which the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should tell the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that she has got it wrong again?
    Mr. Malone: I would never presume to tell the right hon. Member for Sedgefield what messages he should give to the right hon. Member for Derby, South. All I notice occasionally is that, when he gives them, she does not pay a blind bit of notice to them; but never mind that. The position set out by my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course those funds will be available for patient care. I noted, when the Health Authorities Bill was in Committee, that the Labour party wanted to reimpose bureaucracy and to take the money that would be available for patients away.
    Mr. Martin: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the welcome abolition of Wessex regional health authority is part of a general and consistent assault on bureaucracy throughout the national health service, not least in hospitals themselves? Can he confirm that the savings created from this will go not only to patient care, but to ensuring that consultants working in hospitals can get on with treating patients rather than worrying about paperwork?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have a consistent record of cutting bureaucracy not only in administering the NHS and the country, but within the Department of Health, in Whitehall and in the NHS executive. Constantly paring away bureaucracy means that funds are released for patient care. That is a proud record, which the Labour party tries to interfere with and upset.
    Mr. Barry Jones: How many additional nurses will result from the savings?
    Mr. Malone: The sum of £100 million a year is substantial. When it is redirected into the purchasing process, it will allow a substantial increase in activity. That figure would represent something approaching—this is a top-of-my-head calculation at the Dispatch Box to which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not hold me—20,000 cardiac bypass operations. The hon. Gentleman wants to put the figure in the scale of things and to know what it will mean for patients; that is a pretty good try.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: This is a refinement of the way in which the Minister answered the question in Committee. As he says that there is extra money to invest in the national health service, will he now explain to the House what the Prime Minister meant last Thursday when he said that there was available in Leeds
    "a highly specialised form of treatment"?— [Official Report, 9 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 454.]
    By implication, such treatment was not available in Greater London. Is such a facility to be made available in Greater London? What exactly is available in Leeds and not available in Greater London?
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman will know that he is distorting my right hon. Friend's words in a ridiculous way. First-class health services are available across the country, not least because the Government have put into place policies that mean that more money is directed straight to patient care than is absorbed by the rest of the
    684
    service. That is why first-class services are available across the land. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to treat my right hon. Friend's remark in that way.

    Human Embryos
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority about the freezing of human embryos.
    Mr. Sackville: Officials of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are in close contact with those of my Department on the matter. When the authority has reported and submitted its review of current arrangements we shall consider whether further action is appropriate.
    Mr. Alton: In how many cases has contact been lost with the parents of the 30,000 human embryos that have been frozen in the past decade? Will an amendment to the law to prevent those embryos from being destroyed when their shelf-life expires next year be among the proposed courses of action that the Minister has said will be considered? What account is being taken of the evidence published in The Lancet in the past month or so showing that the freezing of mouse embryos has led to mutations occurring in the mice subsequently born?
    Mr. Sackville: Clearly there will be many such cases, but the hon. Gentleman must remember that Parliament decided that treatment involving the implantation of embryos should go ahead, and that a feature of such treatment is storage.
    Mr. Foulkes: Speak up.
    Mr. Sackville: Parliament agreed a maximum period of five years for the storage of embryos. That raises many sensitive issues, which is why the authority is now considering the matter.
    Madam Speaker: If the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) did not talk so much he might be able to hear the Minister.
    Dr. Spink: Has my hon. Friend had time yet to review the accounts of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that were published yesterday? If so, did he note that it will receive about 70 per cent. of its income next year from licence fees? Does he not think that that puts the gamekeeper a little too close to the poacher? Is there not an inconsistency here? Can he tell me how many licences have been revoked or withheld in the past year?
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend's use of the word "poacher" is inappropriate, if I may say so. I have the highest regard for the people who work for the authority and for the way in which they carry out a very sensitive job. I believe that we are respected throughout the world for having set up an authority to regulate this difficult area, and I know of no reason for any suspicion of a conflict of interests of the sort that my hon. Friend alleges.

    GP Fundholding
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend general practitioner fundholding; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Malone: In October 1994 we announced a major extension of the options for general practitioner

    685
    fundholding, the development of a community option and the expansion of standard fundholding. In addition we continue to look at other services and other ways to develop the benefits that can be achieved through fundholding. Our aim is to extend the benefits for patients as widely as possible.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that although 30 per cent. of my constituents enjoy the excellent services of GP fundholders, none the less that percentage is below the national average? What steps will he take to ensure that my constituents in Sutton and Cheam enjoy the same benefits as other people who are patients of GP fundholders?
    Mr. Malone: I am sure that my hon. Friend will take her own steps, as she regularly does, to ensure that all general practitioners in her constituency are aware that fundholding status is available to them. Under the new scheme, about 85 per cent. of GPs are now eligible for fundholding status, and we fully expect the percentage of the population covered to increase dramatically over the next year or so. We are seeing progress to that end, and we expect that progress to be maintained.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Before extending GP fundholding, will the Minister look back at the answers to the questions that I have asked about it? He replied that he did not hold the information centrally and referred me to the regional health authority and the family health services authority. Is he aware that the regional health authority has given me two different figures covering the constituency of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), which in terms of underspending are more than £100,000 apart? For Camden and Islington, the figure given by the regional health authority is almost twice that given by the FHSA. Does the Minister agree that until he can get his house in order, monitor the figures and find out what is happening to the underspend, he should not extend the practice further?
    Mr. Malone: Again, the hon. Gentleman is simply trying to deny the fact that fundholding brings additional benefits for patients, and I am surprised that Opposition Members have not caught up with the news.
    Mr. Olner: It is a fiddle.
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Member had better not say that to the Leader of the Opposition, as the Labour party has now changed its policy on the subject.
    The figures taken over time from family health services authorities and the regions will give different snapshots, but they will be consistent once they have worked through the system. I reiterate that funds that are made available for patient care according to plans approved by the region and by fundholding practices have been passed by the Audit Commission. I could not suggest anything to the hon. Gentleman that could be more stringent than that. It is a quite proper use of public funds for patient care.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: As more than 90 per cent. of my constituents will soon be enjoying the benefits of being treated by GP fundholders, does my hon. Friend agree that they will find the remarks of Opposition Members—particularly the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—deeply offensive? Does he agree that total fundholding as practised originally in Bromsgrove and now being extended to Bewdley in my constituency
    686
    is a way forward to make GP fundholders the real gatekeeper of health services and to ensure that those services reach ever-higher standards for patients?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. I have visited a number of total fundholding pilot projects, including one in Bath last week which will get under way on 1 April. They are exciting projects that must be evaluated, but remarkable achievements have already been recorded by projects that are under way. Progress to date has been extremely good.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Minister aware that we receive literally dozens of letters from GPs protesting that, under instructions from Ministers, managers in their areas are attempting to browbeat them into becoming fundholders whether they wish to or not? That view is reflected in a survey in Pulse, which shows that 71 per cent. of GPs do not wish to become fundholders. Has the Minister seen the advertisement that has been placed in East Anglian newspapers by 32 GPs in Suffolk who are not fundholders? The advertisement states that the GPs are saving the Treasury more than £200,000 a year, and that not one penny of that money is available for patient care. Why is the Minister trying to force people to become fundholders when the practice is unproven, inequitable and very expensive?
    Mr. Malone: That is marvellous, because the Leader of the Opposition is trying to force the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to support fundholding practices. We did not hear the right hon. Lady say today whether she agrees with the change in Labour party policy.
    There is no question of forcing anybody to become a GP fundholder. Of course, GPs are encouraged to do so because it is the way forward in a primary care-led NHS. The vast majority of GPs who become fundholders—sometimes, I concede to the right hon. Lady, reluctantly—usually end up being in the vanguard of those praising the system and the benefits it can bring, which include an extension of clinical expertise that GPs are able to deploy directly to patients. They are enthusiastic about it, but it is still a voluntary process. I still wish to see more people join the scheme.
    Mr. Hayes: In my hon. Friend's busy day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the applause. Will my hon. Friend take time to be magnanimous and act as a mediator between the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the Leader of the Opposition and, I suspect, the deputy leader of the Labour party—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question that relates to ministerial responsibility.
    Mr. Hayes: This is precisely to do with GP fundholders and NHS trusts, because the right hon. Lady wants to get rid of them while the Leader of the Opposition wants to keep them. Will my hon. Friend help the right hon. Lady out?
    Mr. Malone: I am always prepared to be magnanimous, but I am afraid that I am not prepared to be quite as magnanimous as that.

    Performance-related Pay
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how performance-related pay will be calculated for NHS employees; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Sackville: These are matters for local determination by national health service employers, having regard to the contributions made by staff to high-quality patient care.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister realise that performance-related pay is totally inappropriate to the health service and that the practices of the supermarket and the office floor cannot be applied to doctors and nurses, whose jobs are to care for patients and to save lives? Whatever happened to the promise made by the then Minister of State on 23 November 1994 that the Government had no intention of introducing performance-related pay into the health service?
    Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are plenty of precedents in the health service, such as merit awards for senior medical staff. It is absolutely right that local employers should have the maximum freedom in how they spend the larger part of their resources, which is for salaries. We have given trusts the freedom to make decisions. One of those decisions is on pay.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister compares merit awards with performance-related pay. The former is based on comparison with peers and we can understand why it is done, but may we have some definitive, objective guidelines on how performance-related pay can operate in the health service? Will it mean that the more patients a trust gets through the door the more people will be paid? Is that performance-related pay?
    Mr. Sackville: It is up to each trust to make those decisions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that some 60 trusts have already published offers between 1.5 per cent. and 3 per cent., as recommended by the pay review body. The majority of offers are at the higher level. I expect that trend to continue.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Liddell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently on an official visit to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan. He is accompanied by a large delegation of British business people.
    Mrs. Liddell: The visit of the Prime Minister to the Gaza strip and the donation of equipment and aid are to be welcomed, but why have the Government chosen to donate police equipment when the entire community could have benefited from the excellence of British manufacturing facilities to provide clean water facilities, better health facilities and educational facilities?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady clearly was not listening. I said that a large delegation of British business people
    688
    was with the Prime Minister precisely to see whether we can help with the kind of opportunities to which she refers.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend share my disgust at the blatant and continued misrepresentation by press and media of the case of the 10-year-old leukaemia sufferer? Is he aware that Cambridge health authority's decision to refuse treatment had nothing to do with money but was taken because the overwhelming number of doctors and specialists were not prepared to inflict further suffering on that poor little girl?
    Mr. Newton: It certainly has been made clear by the health authority that funds would have been available if the view of the doctors responsible had been that treatment would have been in the best interests of the child. It is first and foremost a matter of clinical judgment. I think that, however sad, that should be acknowledged. The other thing that should be said is that the whole House will want to wish the girl well in the treatment that she is undertaking today.
    Mr. Prescott rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is a warm enough welcome.
    Mr. Prescott: Can the Leader of the House confirm the leaks that are emerging from the Prime Minister's tour of the middle east that the Greenbury committee proposes to recommend absolutely nothing to curb the greed of the bosses in the privatised utilities?
    Mr. Newton: What I can confirm is that the Prime Minister and, indeed, all my right hon. Friends have made it clear that they attach importance to the work of the Greenbury committee and that they will want to study its conclusions with care and then consider whether it would be appropriate to make any legislative change.
    Mr. Prescott: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, is not the Prime Minister's support for legislation against pay excesses a sham? Only yesterday the President of the Board of Trade once again defended boardroom greed. When will the Government realise that people in Britain want a fundamental shift so that power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many and not the few?
    Mr. Newton: It sounds to me as though the right hon. Gentleman will need to undertake another rewrite of clause IV before the ink on this one is dry.
    Mr. Wilshire: Last December, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated that Ministers would not talk to Sinn Fein-IRA before huge amounts of weapons were surrendered. This morning, I received a letter from our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stating that talks would take place with Sinn Fein-IRA before weapons were handed in. Which is current Government policy?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has indeed received a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend today. I have a copy of it before me. It makes it absolutely clear that, before Ministers will engage in talks in the way that Sinn Fein currently seeks, there must be a clear and reliable assurance from Sinn Fein that constructive discussion,

    689
    especially in achieving substantial progress on decommissioning arms, would be facilitated and accelerated by Ministers joining that dialogue. No such assurance has been received, and I think that what is being said and done is entirely consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have said before and, indeed, with what is sensible and practicable in seeking a way forward in Northern Ireland.
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Eagle: On executive pay, will the Leader of the House admit that the public know that the Greenbury committee is a con, because it is full of the very fat cats who are earning millions of pounds, who are protecting their own pay and positions? Does he not realise that asking that bunch to legislate to curb excesses of executive pay is like asking Dracula to guard the blood bank?
    Mr. Newton: The answers to the hon. Lady's questions are no, no and no, in that order.
    Mr. Elletson: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on the possible reasons why the historic commitment to full employment, endorsed by generations of Labour party members, has now been abandoned by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?
    Mr. Newton: It is perhaps not for me to speculate about the causes of Opposition policy changes, but, if I were driven to do so, I would venture the opinion that the penny has finally dropped that their commitment to a minimum wage, a social chapter and a further renewal of trade union powers is incompatible with full employment.
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the Minister note that the former and the present Secretary of State for National Heritage have not replied to the Select Committee on National Heritage report, "Privacy and Media Intrusion"? As it is now exactly two years since the Select Committee presented its report, why have the Government have failed to respond to it? What is he afraid of, and will he apologise to the House for the delay?
    Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will seek to reply as soon as the very difficult issues involved have been thoroughly considered and studied.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that the rewritten clause IV is 400 words of waffle—(Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant today, but I remind hon. Members that we holding the Executive to account for their policies, not for the policies
    690
    or the activities of any other party. If the hon. Lady can rephrase that question, I will give her an opportunity to do so, but she must seek to bring the Government to account.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we were ever to have a clause IV, it would not contain 400 words of waffle?
    Mr. Newton: I am afraid that my hon. Friend's question was slightly lost in Opposition Members' baying. I am certainly aware that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has described the new clause IV as 400 hundred words of waffle. It is absolutely clear that it takes us no nearer to what we really need: some clarification of Labour's policies.
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilson: We can understand the reluctance of the Leader of the House to answer questions about executive pay and share options, so perhaps we can move the debate forward a little. Do the Government intend to devolve other areas of Government policy to sub-committees of millionaires appointed by the CBI? Will the recommendations of those committees be final and, if so, is that what is meant by the "smack of firm leadership" from the Government?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that I have shown any reluctance to answer the questions—it is just that Opposition Members do not like my answers. As the main thrust of the question refers to a matter that is principally for shareholders to decide, it seems entirely correct to consult and to take the views of such a committee.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news that prizes from the national lottery now amount to almost £500 million? Is it not excellent news that a substantial amount of money has been allocated to the good causes supported by the lottery?
    Mr. Newton: Indeed it is very good news. The national lottery is certainly giving pleasure to many people and it is yielding both large prizes for the winners and large amounts of additional money for the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the Millennium Commission. It has been a huge success, which is very much to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I think that that success will continue and will grow.
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fisher: On executive pay, will the Leader of the House answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and explain what the Government intend to do about it? What sort of Prime Minister says that he finds something distasteful but then says that he does not have the first

    691
    idea of what he wants to do about it and simply leaves it to the CBI to tell him what Government policy should be? What sort of Government do that?
    Mr. Newton: What the Government are going to do is what I have said at least twice this afternoon and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on many other occasions: we will study the recommendations of the Greenbury committee with care and we will then decide what action to take, including the possibility of legislation if that seems appropriate.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that President Clinton's decision to meet Mr. Adams on Thursday and to allow Mr. Adams to raise funds on behalf of Sinn Fein-IRA is a grave blow to the United States' special relationship with this country, and indeed to the cherished links with the Republic of Ireland and the majority of the Irish people who are opposed to Mr. Adams's violence and terrorism?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made his views very clear to the President. The United States Administration are in no doubt about our views. I hope that everyone will now acknowledge that it is important to maintain pressure on Sinn Fein from all sides to engage in substantive constructive discussions along the lines that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has indicated. I hope that the need for Mr. Adams to engage in such constructive and substantive discussions will be emphasised firmly and vigorously in any meetings with the United States Administration.
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacShane: In view of the fact that most independent jurists do not consider the courts of Singapore to be independent of the Executive and in view
    692
    of the desire for a full judicial spotlight on the Barings affair in London, will the Leader of the House assure us that every effort is being made to extradite Mr. Nick Leeson from Germany so that he can stand trial in London?
    Mr. Newton: The House will understand that I do not think it right to get drawn into commenting from the Dispatch Box on the legal position in other Commonwealth countries. The Government are determined to make every effort to ensure that the Barings events are properly and thoroughly investigated and that appropriate action is taken in the appropriate courts.
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a letter of appreciation that I recently received from an Anglican clergyman in my constituency, who does not often support the Government's policies but who greatly appreciates the education that his daughter has received as a result of the assisted places scheme? He knows of many other low-income families in his parish whose children have benefited in the same way. How shall I respond to my constituent's request to learn whether the assisted places scheme has a future and whether it is safe?
    Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that not only his constituent but many thousands of other parents throughout the country welcome the assisted places scheme, which has provided an excellent education in independent schools to many able pupils from low-income families. It has been outstandingly successful. The assurance I can give my hon. Friend and his constituent is that the assisted places scheme is safe under us. It is certainly not safe under the Opposition.

Madam Speaker's Statement
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make. I must acquaint the House with the fact that I have received the following letter from Sir Alan Urwick, the Serjeant at Arms.
"I am writing to confirm to you my decision to retire on 31 July 1995 shortly after my 65th birthday. Following 37 years in the Diplomatic Service, I have been uniquely privileged to spend a further 6 years in the service of the House of Commons. It has been a period of far-reaching change, as the House has taken control of its own administration and finance and also embarked on the rapid expansion of the accommodation available for Members and their staff. I owe a very great debt of gratitude to all who work in the Serjeant at Arms' Department, incIuding the Parliamentary Works Directorate, without whom none of the achievements of these years would have been possible. I would also wish to pay special tribute to the Metropolitan Police, on whom we rely so heavily for the safety of these buildings and of all those who work here.
Finally I wish to record my deep appreciation of the kindness and consideration shown to me by all Members of the House which have made my tour of duty such a happy and rewarding one."
There will be an occasion later to pay formal tributes. Meanwhile, consultations on the recommendation for a successor to Sir Alan Urwick are taking place through the House of Commons Commission.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has there been any request from the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House this afternoon to make a statement about the Transport Research Laboratory? A written question is being put into the Library of the House at this moment, the contents of which are not known to me, but it concerns a highly important and quite unique research facility which has contributed over many years to the protection of many of our citizens, and if it is to be privatised or abandoned without the House getting the chance to debate it, it will be a crying and unacceptable shame.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Lady is aware, provided that an announcement is made to the House, it is for the Minister concerned to determine the met, of that announcement, and I have not been informed by any Minister that the Government are seeking to make a statement on the matter raised by the hon. Lady.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time, the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) of sitting on his fat backside. Given the implication that there is something superior about having a thin backside, is that not so politically incorrect as to constitute unparliamentary language?
Madam Speaker: The entire House knows what I feel about the custom of our exchanges. I have cautioned Members on this from time to time, but I get weary of repeating my views. All hon. Members know that good language is the essence of our exchanges here.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you advise me whether the Secretary of State for the Environment has requested to make a statement to the House about the astonishing cuts in the environmental protection budget published yesterday—£16 million next year and then £32 million? In view of the constant statements to the House and our Select Committee about increasing concern for air pollution and the environment, it would be proper for him to explain that matter to the House.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order but a question about next week's business, which the hon. Lady might put to the Leader of the House. In case any other hon. Members wish to ask me whether a Minister will give a statement today, let me tell them that the answer is no. If a statement were to be made, it would he shown on the Annunciator.
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do not the workings of the House and its reputation outside depend to a large measure on the assumption of personal trustworthiness and honour between hon. Members? Were not those principles seriously threatened yesterday when one hon. Member appeared to have purloined papers belonging to another and read extracts from them to the House? Will you launch an investigation into the matter or assure us

695
that it will not happen again? If not, none of us will ever be able to assume the security of our papers, briefcases or offices in future.
Madam Speaker: I am not aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If such a case occurs, it is as well to come directly to my office rather than wait a day and raise it on the Floor of the House. My office is always open; I live here, work 16 hours a day and am always willing to see hon. Members about any issue as serious as that.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the Secretary of State for Education would like to make a statement on nursery education expansion, but I am told that the Prime Minister wants a different statement—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Column 583 of yesterday's Hansard shows that an hon. Member admitted to handling the stolen property of a Minister of the Crown. It is an incredible state of affairs in which an hon. Member stole papers from a civil servant, admitted that he did so and then used the papers in a debate.
Madam Speaker: I have no knowledge of the case that the hon. Gentleman raises with me. The copy of Hansard has just been passed to me. I shall look immediately at the matter as soon as I leave the Chair.
Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, yesterday, the chief executive of the Student Loans Company was sacked because of financial irregularities in that company which have caused students great hardship. That is in direct contravention to evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee two years ago and I .feel that the House has been misled. May we have that matter brought to the Floor of the House?
Madam Speaker: This is a matter for the Leader of the House and the Opposition through the usual channels. I am sure that hon. Members who came in at the last election are well aware of how the usual channels in the House operate. I advise the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter with the shadow Leader in the first place so that arrangements might be made with the Government for such business to take place.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Further to the point of order on column 583—
Madam Speaker: Order. There is no point of order. I need to carry out a thorough investigation into this matter before I can do anything about it.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall that, some time ago, I asked you whether oral statements could be made following important meetings overseas so that Ministers would be directly accountable to the House. Last week, the world summit on social development was held in Copenhagen and a statement has been made by means of written answer No. 122 to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). It is a matter of great importance to this country and the third world. Will you take the opportunity to talk to Ministers to get those statements made orally to the House instead of being hidden away in written answers?
Madam Speaker: I dislike repeating myself and taking up the time of the House, but I shall do so and inform the hon. Gentleman and the House that, provided that an announcement is made to the House, it is up to the Minister making that announcement to determine whether it is done by written answer or oral statement. I have no authority in such matters.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether this matter has been drawn to your attention, but this morning there appeared to be some rather loud activity on the Thames, in close proximity to the Terrace wall. I have the honour and privilege to be chairing the Standing Committee that is considering the Finance Bill, and the proceedings of our Committee were inconvenienced. Indeed, Members raised points of order with me to say that they could not hear what was going on because of the activity of speedboats and, apparently, water-skiers, in close proximity to the Terrace wall. Not only because of the inconvenience to the Committee's sitting but because of the security of this place, I wonder whether you had been told about it, and if not whether you will investigate it.
Madam Speaker: I shall certainly investigate it. The hon. Gentleman knows where Speaker's House is. I had all the windows open on this beautiful morning, and I thought that it was a wonderful sight to see those speedboats on the Thames; in fact, I was rather envious. I thought that I should have been in one of them—but not on the skis. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels that it was damaging to the fabric of this building, I will examine the suggestion that they may have been too close to the wall.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It was Tony Blair walking on water.
Madam Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Bolsover was the only one who could do that.

Civil Aviation (Air Transport Licences) Amendment
3.40 pm
Mr. Michael Stern: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the publication to local planning authorities by the Civil Aviation Authority of the receipt of applications for the grant, revocation, suspension or variation of air transport licences and of any decision made by the Civil Aviation Authority in relation thereto.
My interest in the area arises indirectly from events in my constituency that led to a public inquiry into the proposals by British Aerospace plc to turn an airstrip into a full commercial airport, but I am not here today to debate those particular matters, which await a decision jointly by the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment.
In preparing the evidence that I gave to the public inquiry, it transpired that the company concerned had perfectly legally and properly been applying to the CAA for various licences to operate an airport since 11 October 1988, but the first opportunity that any member of the public had to learn of those proposals was not until 5 February 1993, when the company announced that it had obtained various licences. My objection to the procedure is not that the company was doing what it considered proper for its own business but that the whole procedure of discussion and documentation of activities, which might conceivably have a great bearing on the lives and environment of my constituents, was going on in entire secrecy.
It transpired, when I investigated the matter, that the only requirement on the CAA—it is, of course, an agency set up by Government—in connection with the publication of any grant revocation, suspension or variation of an air transport licence, is to publish the granting of the licence in a number of highly obscure publications, which are, by and large, received only by airlines and others who are directly connected with the operation of civil aviation. I do not believe that that is sufficient and my Bill therefore proposes one modest additional requirement on the CAA, on any occasion when a licence is granted, revoked, suspended or, indeed, applied for—that it should notify the local planning
698
authority of the area in which the airfield or site of the proposed activity is situated, so that the local planning authority can decide what, if anything, it needs to do to publicise the application that it has received or granted.
Such a measure would not involve any public sector cost, but would involve notifying earlier the people who would be intimately affected by any proposed airport operations, to consider what effect those operations would have on their lives, their environment and their property, and if necessary to make representations to the CAA on that matter.
At the moment there is no such requirement to publish and, in allowing such a situation to continue, the Government are not fulfilling the requirement that they have set out on many occasions that our society should become more open. My constituents should be able to comment on any decisions taken behind closed doors in the privacy of the Civil Aviation Authority which affect or can affect their lives.
This modest measure will create more openness in the work of the Civil Aviation Authority without any detriment to its operations because it will be up to the local planning authority to decide how much publicity to give to the information that it receives.
The measure would be a modest step towards replacing the secrecy or opacity of the Civil Aviation Authority with rather more public scrutiny of the important operations that it conducts on behalf of the Government. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Stern, Sir Geoffrey Pattie, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. Phil Gallie, Mr. David Wilshire, Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva.

Civil Aviation (Air Transport Licences) Amendment
  CIVIL AVIATION (AIR TRANSPORT LICENCES) AMENDMENT
  Mr. Michael Stern accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the publication to local planning authorities by the Civil Aviation Authority of the receipt of applications for the grant, revocation, suspension or variation of air transport licences and of any decision made by the Civil Aviation Authority in relation thereto: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

Atomic Energy Authority Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
3.46 pm
The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill will enable the privatisation of the commercial activities of the Atomic Energy Authority known as AEA Technology. It is designed to permit the sale of AEA Technology, but it is not designed to lead to nuclear privatisation. AEA Technology is not a nuclear operator. The Bill will not take any nuclear facilities into the private sector. It will allow AEA Technology to realise its full potential and it will enhance overall United Kingdom competitiveness. It will provide staff with new opportunities and new horizons.
It may help the House if I explain something of the background. AEA Technology is an operating division of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The authority started life in the 1950s as a nuclear research and development organisation. In those days, the authority was the UK nuclear industry. It designed and operated the first nuclear power stations in the country. It manufactured and reprocessed fuel. It undertook a wide range of nuclear activities. But it was primarily a research organisation. As the nuclear programme developed, it became the practice to transfer out functions which could be run commercially.
For example, fuel manufacture was transferred out to the company which subsequently became British Nuclear Fuels plc. Radioisotope production was transferred out to what is now Amersham International. Amersham has been successfully privatised. Both it and BNFL have become successful companies in their own right.
In the 1960s, it became clear that nuclear research was producing ideas and technologies which could be applied in non-nuclear fields.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Before the Minister moves away from the history of some of the changes, will he outline the structural differences between companies such as Amersham International, particularly in the context of employee rights that exist post-privatisation?
Mr. Eggar: I shall address some of those issues, particularly pensions, which I think that the hon. Gentleman had in mind. I understand that the overwhelming majority of Amersham International employees have now voluntarily left the state pension scheme and have opted into the company pension scheme. I shall return to that issue and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, I shall gladly extend the debate.
In 1965, the authority was authorised to begin work on non-nuclear research and development. From the outset, non-nuclear work was done on a commercial basis. The importance of that work has grown steadily since then.
In the past decade or so, nuclear technology has become a mature technology. New power stations world wide are being ordered at a slower rate, if at all; the pace of work on new reactor designs has slowed. Demand for the authority's traditional nuclear research and development services has declined with the decline in the overall
700
activity of the nuclear generating side. The authority has therefore had to place ever-increasing emphasis on the growing non-nuclear business.
In 1986, an important change occurred. The Atomic Energy Authority Act 1986 put the organisation on to a trading fund basis. From then on it was no longer Vote-funded, but was expected to secure all its income from contracts with customers. Since then the focus has been on how to assure the authority's commercial performance. The Bill now builds on the progress that was made as a result of those changes.
The authority is now smaller than it was in the 1960s, but it remains a substantial organisation, employing more than 7,000 staff at six main UK sites. The largest is at Harwell in Oxfordshire: it has more than 2,300 authority staff. Harwell concentrates mainly on research and development. Culham is nearby in the same county; that site was originally developed for the UK fusion programme, and is host to the joint European Torus project. Fusion still accounts for the work of a significant proportion of the existing work force, but the site is now much more diversified. Last April it became the headquarters of the National Environmental Technology Centre, one of the world's leading centres of environmental expertise. About 900 authority staff work on the Culham site.
Risley is near Warrington. It consists mainly of office and laboratory buildings, and has no nuclear facilities. About 1,000 staff work there. Dounreay, near Thurso in Caithness, was the site for the development of experimental fast reactors. The main task there now is the decommissioning of the site's closed reactors. Dounreay has about 1,000 authority staff. Winfrith in Dorset was the site for several prototype reactors, most of which have now been shut down. About 900 staff work there. Windscale is an enclave within the BNFL site at Sellafield, and has about 400 staff.
Let me say a little more about why we are introducing the Bill. In recent years, a great deal of thought has been given to the question of the authority's future. In 1992, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reviewed the services that it provided; it concluded that the authority's business activities rested uneasily in the public sector, and should be removed from it as far as practicable.
Mr. Llew Smith: On a rough count, the word "liability" is used 75 times in the Bill. The biggest Atomic Energy Authority liability relates to nuclear waste and radioactive contamination. Do the Government think it fair to sell off the profitable parts of the authority, on the basis of its high-tech engineering and environmental expertise, while leaving the taxpayer with the bill for cleaning up the nuclear waste left behind?
Mr. Eggar: Liability for the treatment of nuclear waste rests, of course, with the Government. The Bill makes no difference to that. Liability rests with Government division of AEA Technology, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. It is the view and the experience of Government Division that an increasing arms length relationship with the various companies—including AEA Technology—that have the necessary expertise to deal with liabilities is the best way forward.
The latest estimate is that, in, I think, the next three years, the move towards an increasing arms length contractual relationship with companies that undertake decommissioning work will lead to a significant saving of

701
public money of about £50 million. Liabilities rest with the Government, but they must do everything possible to ensure that those liabilities are managed not only safely, in accordance with the necessary conditions that are laid down, but cost effectively, from the point of view of doing the utmost to safeguard taxpayers' money.
In 1993, we asked Barclays de Zoete Wedd to consider the scope for privatisation. It advised us that the great majority of AEA's irradiated facilities should remain publicly owned—they should remain in what is now AEA Government division. But it also said that certain commercial activities were capable of being and should be privatised.
In September 1993, the authority's management announced a structural reorganisation, which reflected the themes emerging from the review work. Three separate divisions would result. UKAEA Government division would be responsible for managing UKAEA's sites and its nuclear liabilities. Commercial division, now known as AEA Technology, would take over the authority's commercial activities. The new services division would cover facilities management services.
The authority saw the creation of the services division as a temporary phase. Facilities services did not represent a core part of its business. It believed that those services could be offered more cheaply and efficiently by outside contractors. Agreement has been reached in principle for the sale of facilities services division. The intended buyer—Procord Ltd.—is a leading facilities management company. Its core business is facilities management. Its purchase of FSD will improve quality of service for FSD's customers. It will also create new career opportunities for current employees because they will be part of a much larger organisation that—this is important for their future—is committed to growing the facilities service operation. It is a good deal for all concerned, not least the taxpayer.
In my reply on 17 February 1994 to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), I said that ownership of and responsibility for the safe management of AEA's nuclear liabilities, as well as certain other functions more appropriate to Government, would remain in the public sector. I can now confirm that those liabilities and other functions will remain with UKAEA Government division, which will remain in the public sector.
Government division's mission is to manage down the cost of the nuclear liabilities, consistent always with the health, safety and environmental requirements that are laid down. I want to underline and emphasise the importance of safety. Safety is and will remain the highest priority both for the Government and for all those involved in the nuclear industry.
The nuclear site licences at AEA sites will continue to be held by UKAEA Government division. It will, therefore, retain ultimate responsibility for safety at all UKAEA sites. Where AEA Technology operates from those sites, it will have to comply with UKAEA safety requirements. Privatisation will not compromise safety in any way.
Government division's focus on liabilities management has already achieved significant savings. Further savings will flow from increased competition and the injection of private sector expertise.
702
Government division announced yesterday that it has decided to appoint a site managing agent at Dounreay. That managing agency will consist of a management team seconded to Government division. Government division will retain ownership and overall control of the site. Government division will continue to be the site licence holder and will continue, therefore, to have full responsibility for safety.
Dounreay staff currently in Government division will continue to be UKAEA employees. They will not—I repeat not—become the employees of the managing agent. That arrangement will provide additional project management and commercial expertise. It will ensure that decommissioning and environmental restoration work at Dounreay is carried out effectively. It will also help in future development of the site, including the exploitation of non-nuclear opportunities.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: This arrangement transfers practical managerial responsibility from managers who have been part of Government division to a firm or group of individuals who are apparently to be employed as a result of outside tendering. Does not that make somewhat fictional this concept of the responsibility for safety remaining with Government division?
Mr. Eggar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and the importance of Dounreay to the economy in Thurso and all the far north of Scotland. Obviously, Government division has considered the matter carefully. It will not compromise safety in any way. The division recognises that the nuclear site licence rests with it and that ultimate responsibility for the site and for safety matters must continue to lie with the director of the site, as it does at present. The hon. Gentleman recognises that there is, at present, a need to look at Dounreay's role and, in particular, at the opportunities for other work that might come in as a result of the well-known and understandable rundown—although it is a gradual rundown—in the level of activity there.
Government division has come to the view that it does not currently have the expertise necessary to act as managing agent and, therefore, to look at diversification opportunities. It feels that the best way to obtain that expertise is to appoint a managing agent that will bring with it the necessary mix of skills, but remembering always that the managing agent answers to Government division and the director.
Mr. Maclennan rose—
Mr. Eggar: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes, but I am sure that he will make a contribution later in the debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Industry and Energy will be able to take up his point.
Mr. Maclennan: I will not trouble the Minister again, but I hope to come back to some of the points later if I succeed in catching Madam Speaker's eye.
It is important to have the Minister's answer on this point. My question related to the responsibility for safety. The Minister said that that lies with Government division and the director of the site. It appears that that responsibility is effectively being transferred to managers who are being brought in as part of a site management agency team and that the practical work involving safety

703
and the environment, which is crucial to the success of the establishment, is passing away from those who have experience of managing the site safely and in an environmentally non-hazardous way. It is true that, ultimately, the Minister is responsible for safety at the site and I would have thought that he would be unhappy to see such sensitive matters pass from those engaged in the nuclear industry to those whose objectives, even from his own description, are apparently quite different.
Mr. Eggar: This is a sensitive matter to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy and I have given considerable thought. Clearly, safety is paramount. It cannot be compromised in ah, way. If Government division were proposing an outside contractor coming in to take over all management responsibility for the site and, therefore, inevitably taking on the safety role, I would understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns and, frankly, I would express them. I am quite satisfied, however, that it will be possible to enable the managing agent to manage the site and bring his company's particular expertise to what is needed to be done, while ensuring that safety standards are maintained. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if the Government come to the conclusion that that is not happening, we will revert immediately to the holder of the nuclear site licence—Government Division—and satisfy ourselves that the necessary safeguards are in place.
We have looked at the matter in considerable detail because, whatever our political views, we cannot afford to compromise the very high safety standards which have been a feature of the AEA. I would not do anything that in any way imperilled those standards. The system works and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider it carefully and explore the implications in full detail. I hope that over the coming months before the managing agents are appointed—I understand that it is likely to be around October—he will have found that his concerns have been met.
Let me now turn to describe AEA Technology. AEA Technology is the trading name, as I have said, for the authority's commercial activities. It is an international science and engineering services business, it employs some 4,000 people and has a turnover of £250 million. AEA Technology is represented on all six of the authority's sites, but the largest concentration of staff is at Harwell. Some 1,700 of the total 2,300 employees there work for AEA technology, but, as hon. Members will know, considerable numbers of staff also work at Risley, Culham and Winfrith.
AEA Technology serves a wide range of markets in, for example, manufacturing, transport, oil and gas, defence energy supply, chemicals and health care. It operates in four closely related areas: plant and process performance optimisation, product improvement, safety and risk management and environmental and waste management. Its business, in short, is identifying problems and finding solutions based on the know-how that has been built up over the past 40 years, during which it has been involved in leading-edge science and engineering.
Some 40 per cent. of AEA Technology's business now comes from Government and a further 18 per cent. from the UK public sector. In volume terms, however, the UK domestic Government markets are of diminishing importance.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend intend to say anything about the nuclear review? Many of my constituents are worried that the whole privatisation is a sell-off of the liabilities of the nuclear industry and that the Government may believe that there are no future nuclear requirements. I and many of my hon. Friends believe that there is a great future for the nuclear industry. We would like to hear from the Government that the nuclear review will be published and that the results will be available to us before any sell-off. I hope that Labour Members will tell us what the Labour party will do to assure the future of the nuclear industry.
Mr. Eggar: I recognise the concern about the issue felt by my hon. Friend and by his constituents. He raises a number of different strands and I shall address them in turn. His first point relates to liabilities. AEA's liabilities have been calculated to be in the range of £8 billion, on a discounted basis, in a range from £6 billion to £12 billion depending on a number of assumptions. Those liabilities remain with the Government division and, therefore, with the Government.
The question that a number of people are getting at is how the nuclear review, when it is completed, is likely to affect the demand for the nuclear services that AEA Technology can provide. An assumption seems to have developed that if the nuclear review decided that new nuclear stations should be built, that would automatically be good news for AEA Technology. The reality is that almost whatever the decisions of the nuclear review, considerable work is likely to be available to AEA Technology, if it competes effectively for it.
AEA Technology has more expertise than any other entity in the world in the older nuclear stations because the Magnox stations were the first commercial stations in the world. Naturally, the issue of decommissioning and the issues raised towards the end of a station's life have been faced first by the United Kingdom. AEA Technology has undoubtedly developed considerable expertise in those matters. Regardless of whether the nuclear review comes up with a decision to build new nuclear stations or not, there will be a continuing work load. Any decisions taken on the future of the Magnox stations may have a bearing on the work load, although issues relating to the life of the Magnox stations will, of course, be essentially a matter for the nuclear installations inspectorate rather than for the nuclear review.
All that is a rather long way in which to say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that at the moment, I cannot tell him when the nuclear review will be published—
Dr. Lewis Moonie: In the fullness of time.
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman says that it will be published in the fullness of time. I am much blunter than that. I have made a number of predictions previously on the timing of issues related to the nuclear review and I have never yet been right. This time, I shall not give any idea of the timing of the publication of the nuclear review because that would be tempting fate and my fate is already too near for me to risk any further estimates.
The concern of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset is noted. It will take some time for the Bill to go through the House. It is only an enabling measure for

705
privatisation. It is unlikely—I go no further than that—that full privatisation will take place before we have had some idea of the outcome of the nuclear review.
Mr. Miller: Before the Minister leaves that issue, does he not think that, given the quite proper overlap between some of the work undertaken by AEA and by Berkeley technology centre, which I know that he has visited, it would be better to hold back the Bill until after the nuclear review, so that we can properly determine, in a rational debate covering the whole spectrum, which issues should fall into which camp?
Mr. Eggar: The short answer is no, it would not. But since the House seems to want long answers, I shall expand somewhat on that.
Clearly, if we were talking about a direct relationship between the management of AEA's nuclear liabilities and the nuclear review—which we are not—there would be a case for linkage. But of course the Bill has nothing to do with the liabilities; they are clearly put on one side. The Bill is about AEA's commercial activities, and we must remember that roughly 50 per cent. of all AEAT's present activities are not nuclear related. Everybody agrees that the future of AEA rests with a determination to expand and to compete effectively in the non-nuclear aspects of its activities.
That is nothing new. I pay tribute to the 1965 Labour Government—
Mr. Miller: Will the Minister repeat that, please?
Mr. Eggar: I am talking about 1965. The Labour Government recognised at that stage that there had to be some diversification away from the core nuclear business into non-nuclear business. That has been a continuing trend, and no serious commentator who knows and is involved with AEAT fails to recognise that its future lies in developing the extraordinary expertise that it has accumulated over the past 40 years and reorienting that to more commercial activities.
One of the more interesting aspects of my connection with AEA over the past two or three years has been the extent to which other United Kingdom companies have not recognised the full extent of its expertise, and the way in which those that have worked with AEAT have been excited by the level of that expertise and the opportunities that have arisen as a result of joint ventures of one kind or another. That is not merely a domestic United Kingdom view; several interesting joint ventures have taken place between Japanese companies and AEAT, and the company has a good reputation throughout the world in the nuclear sphere, too.
That is where the emphasis should lie. However neat and tidy it may seem, it would not be in the interests of AEAT, nor even relevant to the nuclear review, to delay the Bill and wait for the results of that review.
As I said, AEA's growth markets are the United Kingdom private sector and the overseas market, also largely private sector. The United Kingdom private sector already accounts for 18 per cent. of its turnover and overseas markets for 23 per cent. Both those markets are expected to grow this year by no less than 40 per cent.,
706
and further substantial growth is expected next year. Privatisation will of course provide further impetus for that process.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I hope that while my right hon. Friend is talking about the figures, he will say something about AEA's projected profit of £10 million for this year. I understand that the figures for next year look even better. It is important to re-emphasise the great success and the tremendous potential of the organisation.
Mr. Eggar: The figures mentioned by my hon. Friend are right, and there is no doubt that AEA Technology has come a long way during the past few years and that it has built on the trading fund status that it was given by the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1986. There is a lot of potential out there for additional work, but the work is highly competitive. There is no area in which AEA Technology has an absolute worldwide monopoly. In most sectors, it has competitors within the UK and elsewhere in the world, and it is very much a worldwide business.
AEA Technology will thrive if it can bring to bear the expertise that it has established from the tremendous residual effect of 40 years of high-class science engineering and apply that in a more rigorous way to the commercial opportunities that exist. I re-emphasise to my hon. Friend that the future lies predominantly in the expansion of non-nuclear, rather than nuclear, business.
Mr. Mike Hall: Is the Minister aware that the improvements in AEA Technology's profitability in the past 12 months have been borne on the back of 400 redundancies—some 10 per cent. of the work force? Will he assure us that after privatisation—when the terms and conditions of employees in the current company will be divested—the employees will have their incomes, pensions and entitlement to redundancy payments protected, and that they will get more than just the minimum amounts offered with regard to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations?
Mr. Eggar: I shall address those issues later in what is already quite a long speech, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have been involved in a number of privatisations and I can say as a matter of principle that the Government seek to protect the rights of public sector employees who move to the private sector. We shall certainly do everything we can in terms of TUPE and with regard to pensions, to make sure that a fair and just arrangement is reached. I shall refer at a later stage to those matters, and I shall willingly give way again to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
AEA Technology has profited by its experience and expertise in the nuclear field. It has won significant contracts for work at Chernobyl. AEA Technology scientists are currently working on plans for the decommissioning of Chernobyl units 1, 2 and 3. AEA Technology is also a leading member of an international consortium carrying out a feasibility study for a new shelter over unit 4.
Other significant export contracts include a study for the European Commission on the safety of Chernobyl-type RBMK reactors in the former Soviet Union. AEA Technology is also involved in work to clean up the Maralinga test site in Australia.

707
AEA Technology has successfully exploited its nuclear-derived skills in non-nuclear markets. That has involved, for example, the development of non-destructive testing techniques using X-rays and ultrasonics.
AEA Technology developed the original robot used by bomb disposal teams in Northern Ireland. It developed power fluidics, which permits the design of pumps, mixer valves and precipitators without moving parts. That technology has particular advantages in industries such as pharmaceuticals and fine chemicals that involve the production and handling of delicate preparations with minimal damage.
AEA Technology scientists have used their skills in the development of advanced battery technology. Their lithium-ion cathode technology is now being sold to battery manufacturers throughout the world. In health care, AEA Technology has developed a unique three-dimensional laparoscope. That piece of equipment enables a conventional endoscope to give a 3-D picture. It offers major advances for keyhole surgery.
AEA Technology is currently developing a carbon fibre hip implant. It uses filament winding techniques originally used in the aerospace industry. The new implant will be less rigid than currently available metal implants. It will reduce the need for patients to return for second or third operations.
AEA Technology's safety skills have found a significant market in the North sea. Its experts assist operators by producing safety cases for offshore installations. It is a leading safety consultancy in the North sea.
AEA Technology also helped in the search for the causes of the King's Cross fire. Software developed by AEA was used to simulate the spread of fire up the escalator. The model was subsequently validated in scale-model trials at the fire research station. That input helped in the understanding of how the disaster happened. The same technology is now being used to ensure that new underground stations and tunnels are designed to minimise the risk of a similar accident.
AEA Technology's National Environmental Technology Centre was formed last summer by the merger of its environmental operations with those of the Warren Spring laboratory. The centre carries out a vast range of environmental consultancy work. It helps customers meet increasingly demanding environmental standards.
The centre also runs the national air pollution monitoring network for the Department of the Environment, and the National Chemical Emergency Centre, which is on duty 24 hours a day. It helps to sort out chemical accidents throughout the world.
Let me now explain our plans for the future of AEA Technology. In my statement of 17 February 1994, I announced my intention to privatise AEA Technology. I explained that decisions on the form of privatisation would be based on AEA Technology's performance in the marketplace and on the extent to which the various options met customer requirements, enhanced competition, helped to improve UK competitiveness, and maximised the return to the taxpayer.
The chairman of the authority and senior management of AEA Technology have made it clear that, in their view, those criteria would best be satisfied by selling the
708
business as a single whole. Employee representatives have also made it clear that they would wish to see the business kept together as far as possible. I naturally attach a great deal of weight to the views of management and staff. They are the people who know the business and whose commitment is crucial to realising its potential.
The immediate task for management must be to drive forward the commercial development of the business. It must continue the process of focusing the business on its core activities. A good deal has already been achieved in that direction, but there is more to be done. Management recognise that and is committed to the task of carrying it through.
The range of AEA Technology's activities will no doubt continue to change as the business develops.
Mr. George Mudie: Does the Minister think that there is anything strange in those in the management of a public sector concern wishing to go private, particularly in view of the examples of their predecessors in the public sector getting their noses in the trough in terms of share options and six-figure salaries?
Mr. Eggar: I am sorry that, in a sensible, serious debate about the way forward for AEA Technology and how to ensure that that excellent group of people has a prosperous future, the hon. Gentleman should lower the tone in that way. I will not indulge in party political spats of that nature. If the hon. Gentleman wants to lower the tone, that is entirely up to him. In every aspect of its business, AEA Technology is fully competitive. It has competitors in all aspects. Therefore, it has to keep tight control of its costs. It is inevitable that salary costs at all levels in the organisation will be a major factor in its ability to obtain business. What is more, the Government, as vendors of AEA Technology, whether directly or indirectly under the provisions of the Bill, will make sure that the best possible practice is followed and will take account of any Greenbury recommendations, whether or not those recommendations have by that time found their way into legislation, because that has been felt appropriate.
Mr. Robert Jackson: I am following with close attention what my right hon. Friend says about the issue of unitary privatisation, because that is probably the critical issue. He talks about the core business of AEA Technology. What is the core business of a research organisation with a great range of customers, with synergies that run across a variety of activities? I warn my right hon. Friend to be very cautious when using the concept of a core business.
Mr. Eggar: It is for management to decide where its focus should be. The implication of what my hon. Friend has said is that whatever AEA Technology does now is automatically the core business for ever.
Mr. Jackson indicated dissent.
Mr. Eggar: I see that my hon. Friend disagrees with my assessment of what he said. I think that he fully understands that, because it is a human skills business, because it is a business that will have to pursue the various scientific and engineering opportunities and other consultancy opportunities that are out there, because those opportunities are global and because they vary from time to time and from region to region, it will have to follow

709
the opportunities. The core is likely to change over time, therefore, but I think that it is undoubted and uncontroverted that the management will need to concentrate on specific aspects.
Mr. Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend. I notice that in his answer, which I think was correct except that he made the wrong deduction from my remark, he emphasises the role of the management in deciding what constitutes the core business. I agree with him, and I very much hope that he will give great weight to the opinions of the management in deciding what the structure of the company is to be, whether it will be fragmented and what the core business will be, so that the management will not find itself overruled by the Department, as it might be.
Mr. Eggar: We attach a great deal of importance to the attitude of management and, when the time comes for us to decide on privatisation and the structure of privatisation, we shall of course pay attention to the opinions of management. However, as the owner, as the Government protecting the rights of the taxpayers, we must also take account of other considerations.
As I said in response to an intervention, the range of AEA Technology's activities will no doubt continue to change as the business develops.
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Mr. Eggar: Will my hon. Friend allow me to complete this? It is a rather important part of my speech, and I want it on the record.
Mr. Miller: The civil servants do.
Mr. Eggar: I would not want to say that. At least the hon. Gentleman does not have a copy today of what they wrote.
The range of AEA Technology's activities will no doubt continue to change as the business develops. It is inherent in the nature of a high-tech business such as AEA Technology that over time it should move out of some areas and into new ones, but, consistent with that, the Government agree that AEA Technology should continue to be managed as a single, integrated whole, focused on the goal of building an increasingly competitive and successful international business.
However, final decisions about the form of privatisation must depend on AEA Technology's performance in the months ahead, on the needs and requirements of customers and on confirmation from the market that a unitary sale will secure best overall value for money for the taxpayer. Decisions about the method and timing of the sale can similarly be taken only in the light of market circumstances at the time.
Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Minister for giving way. Further to the point made by Opposition Members, as AEA Technology's key resource is its people, does he consider that an element of employee ownership may be particularly appropriate in this case?
Mr. Eggar: A fundamental part of the Government's strategy is that when we move towards privatisation, we should seek to involve employees in one way or another. I added that caveat because we have not yet decided how we shall privatise the company—whether it will be by way of a flotation, a trade sale and so on.
710
I do not want to give a firm commitment about employee ownership at this stage. However, I attach a great deal of importance to it and the Government are committed to that strategy. I will be surprised if the final outcome does not involve an element of employee participation in the future success of the privatised entity.
Mr. Robert Jackson: I am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend again, but I am sure that he will appreciate that this is an important matter, which concerns my constituency. He said that the Government want to keep their options open—although I welcome his comments about a single, integrated whole—and that we must review the position in the light of developments. Does he propose to return to the House to gain its approval of the Government's decisions on those points? I do not believe that the Bill makes provision for that and I wonder whether it should be included in the legislation.
Mr. Eggar: The Bill is an enabling Bill. It enables the Government to proceed to privatise AEA Technology—although, as I have indicated, not the rest of its activities. Given my hon. Friend's assiduity, I am sure that he will have the opportunity to call us to account using the various avenues that are open to him during the privatisation process.
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: there is no process within the Bill by which the Government's decisions are automatically the subject of further debate in the House. Following the discussions that we have had over a number of years, I am well aware of my hon. Friend's close interest not just in this matter but in whether the sale should proceed on a unitary basis. The words that I used were chosen very carefully and I think that they will repay careful study by the staff of AEA Technology in his constituency and elsewhere.
Let me say something more about the Bill. It provides scheme-making powers that will facilitate the sale of AEA Technology. It consists, in the main, of standard privatisation provisions, adapted to the specific conditions of AEA Technology.
As I said, the Bill leaves open options as to how the privatisation may take place. It provides for the business to be sold as a whole or in parts. It provides for the sale or sales to be carried out by the authority or by the Secretary of State. It leaves open the possibility of more than one transfer, and for the transfers to be carried out on more than one date.
The Bill specifically excludes the transfer by scheme of freehold land subject to a nuclear site licence. It also excludes the transfer of the nuclear site licence itself. As I emphasised, it is not a nuclear privatisation.
The Bill provides for the financial structure and control of the successor companies after vesting and while they are publicly owned. We shall also bring forward tax provisions in due course. As is customary, they will provide for the tax neutrality of any transfer to successors. We propose to introduce those tax provisions by way of an amendment for consideration in Committee in the House.
Finally on pensions, powers are taken so that all employees transferred to a publicly owned successor company can remain in the authority's schemes until privatisation. The powers also permit us to allow new employees to join the schemes until privatisation. In order to maintain maximum flexibility, there might be a

711
publicly owned successor company and during that time employees would stay with public sector pension provision. In other words, the terms will be exactly the same as they are now.
When privatisation takes place, the Bill will place a statutory duty on the seller—us or the publicly owned company—to be satisfied that employees can join a pension scheme that is no less favourable than the authority's schemes. That means that the new scheme must offer benefits which are at least equivalent to the authority's schemes, although the mix of benefits may be different.
The duty reflects the Government's long-standing practice when public sector employees are transferred to the private sector, but we have set it out expressly in the Bill so that employees know exactly where they stand.
Mr. Miller: If the Minister is prepared to give that guarantee, why is he not prepared to give the same guarantees that were given to Amersham International at the time of its flotation? Would it not be more sensible in the interests of the employees and the employer to follow that course of action?
Mr. Eggar: The privatisation of Amersham International was 13 or 14 years ago. At the time, employees were offered the choice of staying in the existing scheme or joining a new scheme. I understand that since then, the vast majority of Amersham employees have opted for the new scheme. That shows that it is possible for the private sector to offer more than equivalent pension entitlements and pension schemes to those in the public sector. So that there is no misunderstanding, the rights that have been accumulated in the AEA public sector scheme will remain in place if the employees so wish.
On the question whether the new scheme that is provided by the purchaser is at least equivalent to the authority's schemes, that will be audited by the Government Actuary. In other words, we shall have the advice of the Government Actuary as to whether that undertaking is made. That assurance is coupled with the experience of privatisations over the past 10 or 12 years, when there have always been scare stories about pension entitlements, but when the final settlement has been recognised by all parties to be fair to the employees and to the contributors to the schemes. That seems to me to be the appropriate way forward.
Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Eggar: I shall be criticised for breaking the spirit of Jopling if I continue giving way, but I am always ready to oblige.
Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister, but will he answer the question? If the Government believe in choice, why does he not give these particular employees the choice in these circumstances? Is there a single technical reason that he is hiding away from the House for denying those employees that particular choice?
Mr. Eggar: The way in which all privatisation pension issues have been tackled since the Amersham precedent is that new schemes have been provided for the employees who have left the public sector. The Government, having considered all the options, believe that that is the best way forward, subject to the absolute assurance that the new
712
scheme must offer benefits that are at least equivalent to the existing authority's schemes, although the mix of those benefits may be different.
Employees are AEA Technology's greatest asset. Without the skills of its employees, AEA would be nothing. We have no intention of selling employees short, and I am sure that the House will welcome the statutory reassurance that we are proposing.
Privatisation has been one of the Government's greatest success stories because it encourages efficiency and improves competitiveness. Companies flourish when they are removed from state control. They perform better and they respond better to customers.
We believe that privatisation is the only way to enable AEA Technology to realise the full potential of its scientific and engineering activities. There are enormous opportunities in the market. A fully competitive AEA Technology would be well placed to exploit those issues to the benefit of its staff and the United Kingdom. The Bill provides the key to unlocking that potential and I commend it to the House.
4.44 pm
Dr. Lewis Moonie: In a long and at times interesting speech, the Minister has tried to persuade us to give the Bill a Second Reading. In our opinion, if the Bill ever reaches the Statute Book it could do great harm to one of the few enterprises of which the Department of Trade and Industry can still be proud. I therefore regret to inform the Minister that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I intend to vote against the Bill today, for the many reasons that I shall outline later in my speech.
The Bill is not the privatisation measure that the President of the Board of Trade really meant to bring before the House during this parliamentary Session. As was mentioned yesterday, that was meant to be the fate of the Post Office, but alas, he and the Minister have been unable to convince sufficient numbers of their colleagues of the sterling merits of that proposal—in other words, to persuade them to vote for political suicide—hence the inclusion of the present measure in the Queen's speech last November. How unfortunate for the President of the Board of Trade to be treated so badly by his party in the autumn of a distinguished career—
Mr. Mudie: Winter.
Dr. Moonie: No, winter implies that there is a spring.
I am more than a little surprised to see the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of State still in their places after the debacle attendant on the sale of the electricity generating companies last week. So far, with indifferent success, they have managed to dodge the charge of double dealing levelled at them by my hon. Friends and outraged investors in the city. I fear, however, that they may have seen their last donation from Trafalgar House. They will find it rather more difficult to avoid the only alternative explanation, which is that they are grossly incompetent. Sadly, incompetence has never been grounds for dismissal or resignation in the Tory party. If it were, I suspect that the Conservative Benches would be even more sparsely occupied than they are today.
The Bill is unnecessary and ill timed and may well operate against the national interest. It will certainly be a great source of concern to many of the 4,000 employees of AEA Technology, whose jobs, pensions and terms and

713
conditions of employment will be affected to their detriment. As the Minister has told us, the Bill is a paving measure allowing AEA management to set up a company or companies which can be sold off without further effective parliamentary scrutiny. In other words, Ministers are asking to us write them a blank cheque—so much for open Government.
Besides that point of principle, which alone would be reason enough to vote against Second Reading tonight, I have listed four areas of general concern in the Bill which Ministers would do well to heed as they epitomise the failure of Government over the past 15 years.
First, we believe that the Bill is ill timed. We are currently awaiting publication of the long overdue nuclear review. In addition to making proposals about present and future power generation, the review will be obliged to look at other elements in the nuclear equation such as BNFL, the future of the Government division of AEA, practical problems concerning decommissioning, storage and processing of nuclear waste, and the future of Dounreay which is of great concern to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
Many of the arguments advanced by the Minister on behalf of the sell-off could apply equally to any of those agencies and services, in some cases with greater justification. For example, BNFL has secured world-wide markets for its services, including the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.
I am sure that the Minister has noted an article in The Independent on Sunday this weekend under the heading, "Nuclear sell-off planned". It says:
"Plans for an urgent, whole-scale privatisation of Britain's nuclear industry are being drawn up in secret by the Treasury."
I presume that that is why the Minister knows nothing about them.
"They could lead to an attempt to sell off the controversial Thorp reprocessing plant.
"The plans, which would also transfer Britain's oldest and most dangerous nuclear power station to British Nuclear Fuels, are causing a row between Chancellor Kenneth Clarke and…the President of the Board of Trade, who argues that they will lose votes at the next general election.
Mr. Clarke wants to announce the sell-off before the Easter recess and is keen to realise the money to finance tax cuts."
AEA Technology forms part of a seamless organisation, which is why we feel that the Government would be well advised to wait until they see the outcome of their nuclear review before proceeding further. Many of the skills that have been placed in AEA Technology rather than the Government division by the present set-up are acutely relevant to the current and future well-being of nuclear technology. I quote from the recent publications list, which includes
"The Jet neutron emission profile monitor; Application and development of ion chromatography for the analysis of transition metal cations in the primary coolants of light water reactors"—
I understand what those are, even if nobody else except my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) does—
"An efficient 14-M-V neutron detector for use in mixed 2.5- and I4-MeV neutron beams".
714
Need I go on?
Mr. Eggar: Can the hon. Gentleman go on?
Dr. Moonie: I certainly can. I will continue:
"A guide to the measurement of environmental gamma radiation; Operational trials of single- and multi-element CR-39 dosemeters for the DIDO and PLUTO reactors at the Harwell Laboratory".
The list is endless, and shows that AEA Technology is involved in nuclear research. To attempt at this stage, before we have the slightest sniff of what the nuclear review will include, is plain daft.
The division of AEA into so-called "nuclear and non-nuclear agencies" may have the merit of simplicity—always a key point for Ministers—but it lacks any valid justification. The suggestion that the Government division should be restricted eventually to a glorified purchasing agency for largely private decommissioning companies is justifiable only to a Government who have no intention of allowing it to operate profitably in the public sector even though it, too, could easily be a highly succesful operation. The Government division's decommissioning liabilities are the responsibility of the Government, who must provide the necessary resources for an effective programme, but at least some of the costs could be offset by allowing AEA to remain a joint agency covering both nuclear and non-nuclear work, selling its services on a world market which is increasingly desperate for quality of the kind that we can best provide. Why change things now, before those issues have been given proper consideration? It makes no sense.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman rightly described the Government's view as daft, but is it not worse than that? As the Minister has said that the Government have no intention of privatising the nuclear industry and that that is not what the Bill does, in the event of an attempt in the future to privatise the sort of activities that the hon. Gentleman has described it could be argued that what the Minister has said today would render that intention ultra vires. Moreover, he has made it even more difficult to carry out his stated purpose.
Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will return to it when he sums up—given the number of hon. Members present, it will be an extensive summing up—the debate. There are a few things in the world worse than being daft. As a former psychiatrist, I can testify to that from my observation of the Government Benches over the past eight years.
In passing, I should mention a further problem. The facilities management division of AEA, as the Minister has described—the part responsible for providing infrastructure support and general services to all AEA's sites—is currently being flogged off to the highest bidder, despite the pleas of the work force and the Opposition to delay the decision until AEA's future is decided. I understand—the Minister confirmed it today—that the contract is to be awarded to a company called Procord, formerly part of IBM, which was run by the present chairman of AEA, Sir Anthony Cleaver, before taking up his present appointment. The Minister should be well aware of how unwholesome such a position might appear

715
to an impartial observer. However, the Under-Secretary of State may be able to set our minds at rest on that matter when he sums up the debate.
Mr. Eggar: Perhaps I may deal with the matter now, as it is unfair to the current chairman of AEA to allow such a slur to rest, even for a few hours. The current chairman was aware that such a construction could be placed on the matter by Opposition Members. He therefore took no part in the board meeting at which it was decided to allocate the contract to Procord.
Dr. Moonie: I am happy to have that reassurance from the Minister. However, there is a big difference between making slurs and accusations, which I was careful not to do, and raising proper concerns about how Government business is conducted, which is our job even if the right hon. Gentleman does not consider it to be his.
Our second reason for opposing the Bill is that we believe that privatisation is unnecessary. AEA Technology has been operating more than satisfactorily in the public sector as a trading fund for some years. It has been operating successfully, growing and diversifying, and it does not need to be sold off to make a go of things as it is already doing perfectly well in public hands. Unlike Amersham International, which was sold off 12 years ago and had a specialised range of products—a niche market for isotopes—AEA technology provides a wide range of specialist research and technological facilities and expertise. Its value lies entirely in the brains and skills of its employees. Such services might equally well be said to form a legitimate part of the work of a Department of Trade and Industry which took its job seriously.
AEA Technology requires working capital to continue its ambitious programme of expansion. Once again, there is no reason why that could not be sought from banks or investors in the City. The Minister will say that Treasury rules must apply. Why? Why should one Government Department be able to veto such a move? No legal requirement allows it to dictate the pace of expansion of a successful organisation in the public sector. One has only to consider the history of BNFL, before the rules were so conveniently changed a few months ago, the record of the British National Oil Corporation in public hands, or the history of BP following the takeover of Burma Oil in 1974, when the Government had a 70 per cent. stake in that company. None of those companies had any problem operating as plcs within the public sector, and I recall no complaints.
Purely because of the spite of Ministers following their failure over the Post Office, no company can be allowed to operate as a commercial success in public hands. AEA Technology must be sold off and BNFL must come under Treasury rules, purely to ensure that the President of the Board of Trade has an excuse, no matter how pathetic, for saying that nothing can be done for the Post Office either. The rule is that if you are successful you must be sold: there is no alternative—but at least the Department itself is safe enough on the basis of that criterion.
AEA should be allowed to trade commercially as a publicly owned company outside the public sector borrowing requirement. Its profits should be used both to fund future expansion and to defray the cost to the public purse of decommissioning old nuclear facilities and
716
Government reactors. There is no need for a sell-off. AEA is successful and can continue to grow and prosper under public ownership.
The third reason for our opposition to the Bill is our belief that the sale of AEA Technology is not in the national interest. For example, there could be serious consequences for our national research effort. At a stroke, an agency which is the equivalent of the engineering, science and technological faculties of any half dozen of our largest universities will pass out of the Department's hands and we shall lose control of the strategic direction of a highly valuable national asset.
We believe that the vast store of expertise in AEA should be directed towards carrying out work on behalf of the Government. We know that much of the value of AEA to major companies lies in the objectivity that a Government agency brings with it—an objectivity which could no longer be guaranteed if AEA belonged to one of a company's rivals operating in the same area. To get the greatest benefit from AEA technology, we must ensure its independence.
We shall shortly see the first fruits of technology foresight, as the first round of results nears publication. Recommendations as to fruitful areas of investment in 16 distinct technology areas will be made, many of which are currently being studied by AEA. What a golden opportunity for the Department of Trade and Industry to get involved in preparatory research, prior to floating worthwhile projects on the market. Even the Government have admitted that they were rash to withdraw from near-market research in the 1980s.
Here is a chance to put that right, but will the Government take it? I very much doubt it. The Department has cut its support for industry in every year that the Conservative Government have been in office. The Secretary of State abandoned its advanced technology programme on the very day the Science White Paper was published in 1993 by the Office of Science and Technology. I suspect that, once again, we shall see the DTI ducking its responsibilities, behind a glossy smokescreen which promises much and delivers nothing.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how a company which belongs to the Government and the assets of which are held by the Treasury can possibly operate outside the PSBR rules? Either it belongs to the Government or it does not.
Dr. Moonie: BNFL has done just that for the 15 years the Conservative Government have been in existence. It is only in the past few months that the rules have been changed, so I do not need to give any explanation. It is a perfectly legal and normal thing to do. It is a matter of choice whether the Government do it or not. It is not a matter of obligation.
In the past year, we have had a White Paper on competitiveness from the DTI which has been so successful that, without anything having been done about that one, the Department is to publish a second White Paper on competitiveness this summer. Perhaps that one will meet with more success than the former.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Many of my constituents will be listening to the debate and will want to hear, because they know that nuclear research and nuclear building takes decades—and one never knows, even in the next two or

717
three decades, the Labour party may yet get back into Government—what the Labour party's commitment is to the nuclear industry. May we have that clearly on the record, because that is much more important to many of my constituents, who believe that it will be sooner rather than later that the Labour party gets in, and therefore whether they will have a job in the future.
Dr. Moonie: It will certainly be sooner rather than later. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall keep the nuclear industry in the public sector. More than that I cannot say at the present time. I will, however, wait for the publication of the nuclear review—whenever it comes—with great interest, to see what the Government's plans are for the industry and how well they are received.
Mr. Bruce: We have these exchanges across the Floor, but in past Labour party policy documents there was in effect a commitment never to build another nuclear power station, to seek to remove those currently in existence, particularly Magnox, to bring in more coal-fired power stations, and so on. Is there now a change of policy in the Labour party? Will the new Labour party build new nuclear power stations?
Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman has given a garbled and confused description of Labour party policy.
Mr. Eggar: It was very clear.
Dr. Moonie: The Minister of State may wish that it was perfectly clear, but I assure him that it was not. I do not intend to waste the time of the House discussing putative issues such as that. One thing, however, that the Labour party does see clearly is the need for strategic direction in the provision of long-term energy needs—something that is sadly lacking in the present Government's strategy.
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has admitted, therefore, that the Labour party's energy policy will involve strategic direction. Will it or will it not strategically direct the building of new nuclear power stations?
Dr. Moonie: I shall be happy to give the right hon. Gentleman a lesson in strategic planning any time he wishes, but I certainly do not intend to spend any further time on the side road, as I do not know the answer. If I may, I will return to the matter before us.
Hon. Members may think that the situation that I have described is bad enough, but I am afraid that there is worse to come. Last year, AEA absorbed Warren Spring, the Government's own environmental science research laboratory. We were told that their roles were complementary—another excuse for a budget cut, of course. If this privatisation is allowed to proceed, Warren Spring, a next steps agency, will in effect have been privatised with no parliamentary scrutiny of the procedure whatever.
AEA is also rumoured to have been the successful bidder, as part of a consortium, for the national physical laboratory, which is responsible for setting standards of physical measurement for the nation and is an institution that is respected world-wide. Do Ministers really believe that such a function should be sold off into private hands
718
and that any private company should be entrusted with such a national responsibility? Can the Government not see that there are some things that they must do for themselves? Their policy is stupid and short-sighted and they should think again.
My fourth concern is about the fate of AEA Technology's 4,000 employees. Trade unions representing staff have been vociferous in their criticism of the Government's plans—with justification, when one considers the fate of skilled work forces under all previous sell-offs. As I have already mentioned, AEA has some of the most highly skilled staff of any organisation and its concern for the future is about its employees' jobs, their terms and conditions and their pension rights following the sale of their company. I believe that those legitimate anxieties are fully justified, given the reluctance with which the present Government have applied even the limited protection afforded by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.
I know that some steps have been taken to allay fears about pensions, through the introduction of schedule 3, which we shall debate in detail in Committee. I do not intend to go into it in great detail today. The promise of a pension scheme equivalent to that which employees currently have must be backed up in Committee by rather stronger commitments than exist at present before they are acceptable to the work force or to Opposition Members.
On terms and conditions of service, there will be no such guarantees, and there is a strong likelihood of redundancies, as AEA tries to fatten its balance sheet in preparation for privatisation. Activities which are considered to be marginal or of little short-term commercial relevance will be ruthlessly pruned away, and the work force will go with it. The concerns of the trade unions go even further. The Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, in a memorandum submitted to the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, commented on the commercial viability of AEA, saying that
"there is a risk of early business failure for the privatised part of AEA, which would cause extra cost and difficulty for the Government. This is because increasing profit projections for Commercial Division rely on exploitation of monopoly situations that currently exist, for example, in the areas of decommissioning and waste management. Without the guarantee of long term Government contracts after flotation, the future of the Division would be at risk. In addition many of the potentially commercial activities assigned to Commercial Division risk failure since they are based on synergies with part of Government Division that would no longer be available to them. They would be unable on their own to demonstrate profitability at a sufficient level in the early stages and, under private sector criteria, would be closed down. Even if it does survive the privatised commercial division is likely to have to change its character."
That is clear enough. I should have thought that the previous experience of the President of the Board of Trade, when he was Secretary of State for Defence, might have induced a little more caution. Perhaps he has forgotten the fate of Defence Technology Enterprise, set up by himself to exploit defence technology in the civil field. Now, alas, it is no more: it closed down as a result of commercial failure of the kind that I have been describing. There is thus a justified trade union fear for AEA Technology.
I shall now deal with some detailed criticisms of the Bill which reinforce our decision to oppose Second Reading. It is clear that Ministers have absolutely no idea what form the sale of AEA Technology will ultimately

719
take. They just do not know how to do it, only that they must continue with their dogmatic opposition to anything that is good remaining in the public sector. Quite apart from the division of the AEA's business into nuclear and non-nuclear, however specious that may be, a separation which is neither as easy nor as advisable as the Government would have us believe, they do not know when it will be sold, in what manner it will be sold, what size of packages will be involved or who will purchase it.
An editorial in the Financial Times suggests that the ideal solution must be a management buy-out which would create a sense of partnership among the companies' employees and guarantee the AEA the independence to underpin its credibility as a consultancy. The alternative would be flotation as a private company. However, that would not be easy as investors would have to be sure that the company had a worthwhile portfolio of contracts and that its principal assets—people—would not walk out of the door. Only as a last resort should the Government consider the remaining option—sale, in whole or in part, to trade purchasers. That would be highly unsatisfactory. The AEA would lose its independence and, if broken up, its range of skills as well. The Government must make it clear early in the Committee stage exactly what their intentions are. We certainly intend to press them further on that important matter.
So far as I can see—I may have missed it—there is no provision in the Bill for the retention of a golden share in AEA Technology, which I hope that the Government will consider as they have done in other enterprises that they have tried to sell off. If they do retain a golden share, what will it be worth? Previous golden shares have been only a temporary respite for the companies involved. In view of the strategic nature of much of the research involved, will the Government ensure that no foreign buyer will be able to take over the company? After all, where research covers sensitive areas, that is a right even under present EC competition rules. Will the Government give that guarantee to the company if it is to be sold into the private sector? They must answer that question before the Bill proceeds much further.
Clause 3 empowers management to take any action that it sees fit to facilitate privatisation. What on earth does that mean? Does it mean larger salaries, share options, better cars, 1,000 redundancies? Some amplification is surely desirable. One thing of which we can be sure is that the work force will see little benefit from such provision as management fatten up this particular calf for privatisation.
Clause 10 removes an important qualification from the members of the board of the AEA. The Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 stipulated that board members should include people with three particular skills. Clause 1(3) says:
"All the members of the Authority shall be appointed by the Lord President of the Council and of those members—
(a) three shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Lord President of the Council to
be persons who have had wide experience of, and shown capacity in dealing with, problems associated with atomic energy; and
(b) one shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Lord President of the Council to
have had wide experience of, and shown capacity in, administration and finance; and
(c) one shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Lord President of the Council to have had wide experience of, and shown capacity in, the organisation of workers."
720
Those requirements are all being removed from members of the board of AEA which, in addition, is being reduced in size. I can see the advertisements now: "Join the board of AEA; fat salary available to the right man"—they will be men, of course—"No prior experience necessary; only former Tory Ministers need apply".
The real tragedy of the measure is not the fact that it is being brought before us today, but that there are so many other more worthwhile things that the Department of Trade and Industry could and should be doing instead of wasting our time with such a dubious measure. For instance, we could have had the Bill that everyone but the Government agrees that the Post Office requires to become more competitive in an increasingly complex trading environment while remaining where it belongs—in the public sector, as everyone wants. As I have already pointed out, we could have developed detailed plans to take full advantage of the technology foresight exercise—I bet that the Japanese have.
Ministers might care to look at enacting a proper framework of legislation for competition in Britain to raise our standards to those of our competitors in the United States and the EC. They might even take the logic of the nuclear review a stage further and hold the full-scale strategic inquiry into our long-term energy needs that we believe is necessary. But no—instead, the Government bring this stupid measure before us: a Bill that will damage one of the few institutions of which the Department of Trade and Industry can be proud. What an indictment that is of the sorry bunch masquerading as a Government on the Conservative Benches.
5.14 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). I am a great fan of Scottish accents, and his is wonderfully pleasant.
Unfortunately, I had much difficulty discerning what the Labour party is about. Most hon. Members who are present this afternoon are here for the good reason that they have constituency interests, particularly affecting the employment of their constituents. I should have liked to hear from the hon. Gentleman—who believes, I am sure wrongly, that the Labour party will be in government in two years' time—that the Opposition's strategic planning had extended to deciding whether there should be a nuclear industry. I should be grateful to hear what Opposition Members think about the British nuclear industry.
Mr. Miller: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the Minister was unable to tell us—what will be in the nuclear review?
Mr. Bruce: I should be happy to be able to announce today what will be in the nuclear review. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he will be pleased to hear it, that the British nuclear industry is rapidly renationalising electricity supply. I say that because the proportion of electricity being generated by the nationalised industries rather than the privatised industries is going up by leaps and bounds.
One of the problems about privatising the nuclear industry is not that it will not make a profit or succeed, but that it is now so large that it could not be privatised in

721
one lump. It represents too large a proportion of electricity supply and generation and so would have an advantage over conventional power stations.
Like the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I await with bated breath the results of the nuclear review, but I am confident about its outcome because the Government are fully committed to the nuclear industry and to diversity of supply, which has been so valuable for our country, particularly when we were being held to ransom by some hon. Members who support the Labour party.
Knowing that in recent years the nuclear industry has had to contract its research because of the paucity of new orders for new types of nuclear power station and the lack of any assured continuity of the pressurised water reactor stations, my constituents, who have one of the smaller nuclear sites at Winfrith, are concerned that it might be allowed to wither on the vine.
We had a steam-generating heavy water reactor, which was produced as a demonstrator when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State for Energy. He is a charming and well-respected Member of the House, but he is not well-liked in the nuclear industry in my constituency because it was he who decided to scrap that excellent design in favour of the advanced gas-cooled reactor. It will be a long time before we can fully establish whether the AGR was a success, but my constituents felt that the SGHWR was the right way to go. While it was producing 100 MW for the grid, it was successful, but it has come to the end of its useful life and is being decommissioned. That has meant a reduction in production workers in my constituency. The research side of AEA Technology has been reduced and that too has meant a loss of employment.
My constituents, however, are always thinking in terms of enterprise and continuity of employment. Rather than simply allowing the site to become less and less occupied, they have already persuaded the Defence Research Agency to consolidate most of its operations in Dorset and beyond, to come on to the site and to take up redundant buildings, as well as constructing new ones. AEA Technology must be congratulated on perceiving that as a forward-looking way of dealing with the difficulties of reduced employment. Several other companies also intend to come on to the site, and the opportunities that that will provide for further employment are important to those who currently work for AEA Technology, and to all the divisions.
The nuclear industry has spawned a number of interesting new technologies. The site at Winfrith, for instance, is very good at oil well logging—deciding how much oil is in a well. I was disappointed that, when the Government decided to move part of the Department of Trade and Industry out of London, they opted for Aberdeen rather than Winfrith. A move to Winfrith would have been much more sensible, because much of the technical work that is done for the DTI—enabling decisions to be made about how an oil company can best exploit a well—is done there. I am sorry that my right hon. and hon. Friends were short-sighted in that regard, not least because of the relative distances involved.
I see smiles on the faces of DTI officials—who are now hiding behind the Box—at the wonderful thought of working in Dorset, which is rather nearer to London than Aberdeen. Aberdeen is a wonderful place, of course, but
722
it has already received a good deal of investment; the Government are already committed to Scotland, Wales and the more distant regions, and should be encouraged to help the south and south-west.
Safety cases have always been a feature of nuclear technology. Everyone has always assumed that nuclear is more dangerous than anything else, which is not true. The safety cases for the nuclear industry, however, have an enormous cross-over benefit: we now realise that oilfield and transport technologies, for instance, need the same detailed provision. AEA Technology should be congratulated on having developed that outside the nuclear industry.
I hope that one of the spin-offs of AEA Technology's privatisation will be an opportunity for it to extend its activities into non-nuclear fields, but the Government must not expect it to lose its nuclear expertise. I am certain that they will require it to be "switched on" for nuclear purposes in future, both in the United Kingdom and—perhaps even more important—overseas. I shall deal with the reorganisation issue shortly: I share the concern expressed by a number of hon. Members about the splitting of AEA Technology, and the possible reduction of its ability to compete in important respects.
We often lose sight of technology transfer. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy suggested that it had not worked particularly well for defence, but I believe that technology transfer in AEA Technology has been constantly held back by the fact that the organisation is Government-owned. Treasury rules have limited what it can profitably or sensibly do: for instance, it is currently not supposed to compete with other private organisations. That has nearly always meant that, when AEA Technology has developed a good idea, it has had to license it to another company rather than pursue it for itself. When it has been unable to find a private sector partner, despite believing that its idea has great potential, it has been unable to back its own judgment.
There is clearly a limited market for pure research. When AEA Technology can develop that research, manufacture products and provide services without having to worry about whether its activities are in the public interest or would be approved of by Government, it will be much better off. Employment will also benefit. Of course that is a risky strategy, because such activities can fail; but we cannot simply allow the nuclear research organisations to wait for the Government to come forward with research projects. We know that the Government and the generating industries are likely to spend less on research unless more nuclear power stations are built, or decommissioning is speeded up. We must give those organisations freedom to go out and compete.
Dr. Moonie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that research-based organisations are not always good at production? There is a logical distinction between the two. Moreover, spending on research and development is highly elastic, especially in view of the business cycle. There is a considerable risk that, if the AEA is entirely dependent on the market, when there is a downturn—as always happens, with or without Government policy—it will suffer as a consequence.
Mr. Bruce: I have acknowledged the risks of moving into other areas of production. I was interested to note what the hon. Gentleman said about cutting off, as it were, some of the AEA's current arms by decommissioning. It

723
will, of course, suffer as a result of that. But if a management is looking for opportunities and taking a conservative—with a small "c"—view of the future, high technology and technology transfer should be at the forefront of its mind. It should consider how to transfer its technology into production; after all, that is what the United Kingdom will live on in the future. How that is done must be up to management. I agree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that it is important to use those with good production skills, but management must have the freedom to make commercial deals that are in the best interests of AEA Technology and, ultimately, the creation of jobs and UK Ltd.
I hope that I have explained why I think that privatisation is the right course. Let me deal next with the genuine concerns of many of my constituents, which have already featured in the debate and will no doubt be mentioned again. I trust that I have made it plain that my constituents are not Luddites; they are not in the business of saying no for the sake of it. I therefore feel that the Government should listen to them carefully.
The Bill gives some reassurance about pensions. With previous privatisations, Opposition Members have often complained that the Bills involved contained no provision to help with pensions. We must ensure that people feel that their pensions are being properly looked after and that their future well-being is at the forefront of the Government's transfer plans.
Redundancies are also a real worry. Many of my constituents are saying, "I have many skills. The Government and AEA Technology may want to make me redundant; there have been some generous redundancy schemes in the past. Yes please, I will grab the redundancy and then take my place in the job market." As a constituency Member of Parliament, I do not want those people to take redundancy at this stage. I believe that AEA Technology has a great future, but we must reassure people.
In three, four or five years' time, AEA Technology may well be owned by a large multinational company. If people believed that the new employer could give them the minimum statutory redundancy pay and then push them out into the marketplace, they would feel that the Government had betrayed them. In recent years, the Government have rightly looked after employees who have been made redundant. The Government have an excellent record on privatisation and on helping people to move from Government to private sector employment, but I cannot emphasise strongly enough that all constituency Members of Parliament will be keen to ensure that the Government maintain their high standards. I shall certainly be at the forefront of doing so on behalf of my constituents.
I know that Ministers will say that, of course, management knows what is right, that it has a wonderful system of reorganisation and that they will back its ability to make the right decisions. My constituents, however, lack confidence in what management is saying. There is some justification for that feeling because management has reorganised AEA Technology almost annually, perhaps even bi-annually, which has sapped people's morale.
Clearly, we are approaching the point at which the Government will say, "This is the right reorganisation, the management has got it right, we will enshrine it by keeping a Government division, selling off the services
724
and putting AEA Technology's operation and research arms into the private sector." We must be careful to ensure, however, that management has got it right, and even more careful that no evidence exists that the management's suggestion on the way forward has been overruled by Department of Trade and Industry officials, who recommend it to Ministers, who then rubber stamp what they think is the management's decision, but is actually the management decision as modified by the DTI.
It has been suggested to me on a number of occasions that management has agreed a trade-off with the DTI, which has said, "If you get rid of this, we will not hammer you on something else." I do not want to go into detail and embarrass individuals. One must appreciate that, effectively, the organisation's management is now made up of civil servants, who cannot talk publicly about what they want. Ministers should consider carefully what is being said to them and try to get the best deal for the future of AEA Technology.
I have nailed my colours to the mast, unlike the Labour party, which is not in favour of privatisation. Privatisation will he good, but we must ensure that we get it right and that employees are given an assurance that it is not some form of redundancy scheme, with the Government, as an easy way of getting rid of the research side and 4,000 employees, shoving them off into a company. If it failed, no embarrassment would be caused by a Minister having to say what the problem was at the Dispatch Box. That will not happen, but Ministers need to ensure that they are certain that the proposal will have a good chance of flying.
I notice the removal of large amounts of debts and liabilities from all wings of AEA Technology. The Government are doing their best to ensure that they leave a company that has low-cost assets and that could really do something in the market. That is important.
One specific matter confused many of us who were enthusiastic about AEA Technology going into the private sector. Decommissioning work is undertaken in what was known in my constituency as building A59. Such decommissioning is undertaken at a number of AEA Technology sites. The Government division did not need to undertake that decommissioning work—it could have been done in the private sector and was originally left with AEA Technology. I did not disagree with that. Then a deal was struck at the DTI, and decommissioning was promptly transferred from AEA Technology and back to the Government division, so that the Government division could sell it off to another company. I was not totally convinced that that was wrong, but I was concerned about what happened.
The Government and, I think, the DTI said that decommissioning could be undertaken by a number of different companies and that a competitive market should exist for decommissioning companies. I do not disagree with that. But why should not AEA Technology have a decommissioning arm? It knows about the subject. It has a research base and management for that. From day one. management would have been able to bid for decommissioning work in the marketplace. It was not necessary to sell it off to another company, which would

725
then have that facility and which would be able to bid against other private sector companies going for decommissioning work.
Mr. Ken Purchase: Given his diligence as a constituency Member, in the past few months the hon. Gentleman will have made a number of inquiries about those matters. Does not he think that hon. Members will find it extraordinary that he now says that they cause him great puzzlement? Should not they have been sorted out to his satisfaction? He would then not have needed to express his worries to the House. Does that leave the rest of us with any confidence in the Bill?
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for looking after my interests. As I am sure he appreciates as a constituency Member with detailed knowledge of the matter, I have pursued my interests both with Ministers and with different members of the management. [Interruption.] He should listen to my answer. I have explored this matter with a number of members of the senior management in AEA Technology. The answers that I received were not uniform. Some members of the management team, who I greatly respect, believe that this move is in the best interests of all the employees. That, after all, is what the DTI appears to be saying. Other members of the team are troubled by it. I know it is a big troubling factor for employees. They see a sub-plot that has not been fully explained to them. We must move carefully.
My understanding is that the work has already been sent out to companies that might want to take it over. Ministers should ensure that a bid by a new company to undertake the work will be put to the test. We should know whether employees will be better off from that move and what the continuity of the work will be. After all, decommissioning on the Winfrith site will end within the next two years, at which point employees expect to be made redundant. What proposal provides a better chance of them having work, and what are the chances of them having the same redundancy deal that they would have received from the Government? Those are important factors.
If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is not satisfied with hiving off decommissioning work, he should talk to AEA Technology about the possibility of taking it back under its wing and continuing, as part of the privatisation, to keep it together. I rely on my hon. Friend. I notice that he is taking detailed notes of this, as, I am sure, are his officials. I hope that they will consider the matter in great detail. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) suggested, I have unfinished business. I shall keep a close eye on it.
Before AEA Technology is privatised, it is important to have the nuclear review. I heard my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry say that privatisation would have been unlikely without the results of the nuclear review. I take that as an assurance that we will know about that. After all, what company could make a bid for the work without knowing the UK nuclear industry's future? The two Opposition parties are good at criticising Government policy on everything under the sun, but they have failed to tell us their thinking on the nuclear industry. The trade unions in the nuclear industry
726
have quietened some of the more vociferous anti-nuclear protestors who have been screaming about closing down the industry, but that threat is still very real.
The fast breeder reactor programme was put on ice because we know that, in the next 30 years before it will be needed, it is likely that there will be a Government of a different political persuasion. What was the point of this Conservative Government spending taxpayers' money now when the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party have said that they would not build the reactor, even if it was in the market interest to do so. I notice that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East is shaking his head. I hope that he will mention that in his speech. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is wandering around looking rather lost. Perhaps he would care to remain in his seat.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am not lost, particularly not on these matters, my lad.
Mr. Bruce: I am glad to hear that.
I want to talk about the future and the nuclear review. I know that John Collier, the chairman of Nuclear Electric, is keen to see that the great success that has been achieved by himself, his management team and every employee in the nuclear industry is recognised by the Government. They want to know that the Government realise that the nuclear industry is no longer a lame duck. It needs to be given the ability to go out and sell itself to the distributors and those who want to buy electricity in a profitable way. At long last we are starting to see the promise of the nuclear industry being fulfilled.
We need to know about the programme for decommissioning. We need to know whether the Magnox stations will be decommissioned at a faster or a slower rate and we need to know about the life of particular types of power stations. It is important for people to know that before we privatise AEA Technology.
It has been mentioned that Barclay Laboratories may move away from the control of Nuclear Electric and into a possible merger with AEA Technology. That is important and it also needs to be looked at before we sell off AEA Technology.
I am sorry that I am losing the attention of Opposition Members because my notes say that at this point I should deal with the policies of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats on nuclear electricity. However, there is then a blank in my speech. That is because, since the Opposition parties were trounced at the last general election, we have heard very little from them about that subject. Opposition Members may wish to campaign in my constituency, but some of those in my constituency have been in the nuclear industry for 30 years. They want to hear words of comfort from the Opposition parties. They do not want to hear that the Opposition parties are void of policy and fresh thinking. They want to hear that the Opposition know that we need a home nuclear industry to go out and sell our industry overseas. The Opposition are failing their constituents and the few of my constituents who choose to vote for them by not telling us about their policies.
Dr. Moonie rose—
Mr. Bruce: I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman wants to tell us about the Labour party's policy on this.
Dr. Moonie: I am afraid not. The hon. Gentleman can hardly expect any party to come forward with plans for

727
the future of the nuclear industry before the nuclear review is public knowledge. Any future plans for our energy generation must depend on that.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for an assurance that the Labour party will announce its nuclear policy shortly after the Government announce the nuclear review. I shall remind him on 1 January 1996—that should provide a sensible amount time for both those things to happen—that he will be announcing, as soon as is practicable, in a pamphlet or some other form what will happen with the nuclear industry over the next three or four decades when, eventually, the Labour party comes to power.
I have been speaking for more than long enough to give an indication of my feelings on this issue. I entreat the Government to rely upon the staff at all levels within AEA Technology. They should be able to offer a positive view about what they feel should be happening in their own industry. The Government should listen to their concerns and recommendations and do whatever they can to reassure them. Her Majesty's Government owe a debt of gratitude and a duty of care to AEA's employees. I support the Bill enthusiastically, but I can assure Ministers that I will continue to remind the Government of these important matters and ensure that they do not short change this country's nuclear industry in any way.
5.45 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) proclaimed himself a friend of the Government and a supporter of the Bill, but each of his questions was like a dagger being struck through the cloak or toga of the Minister. By the end of his speech, his friendship seemed like the friendship of Brutus for Julius Caesar. There was not a great deal left of the Bill by the time he had finished. Since he felt it necessary to refight the battle of the steam-generating heavy water reactor some years after the event in order to prove a rather arcane point about the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I do not think that I shall follow him very far in his comments.
I thought that the more penetrating question came from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) in his intervention during the Minister's speech. He asked whether the House would have any say about the mode of privatisation. The Minister's reply was oracular and oblique, when it should have been direct and straightforward. If the Minister is not prepared to tell the House today why and in what manner he proposes to privatise the industry, the Bill should never have been brought before us. The Bill leaves more questions unanswered than answered.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission was invited by the Government to make good the deficiencies of their own thinking about the nuclear industry. In 1992, it produced an authoritative report that explicitly said that the privatisation of the commercial parts of the Atomic Energy Authority should be postponed until after the nuclear review was complete. Yet the Government have today brought the Bill before us for Second Reading, not heeding the advice of their own commission.
The Government have had report after report on the future of the AEA and its commercial activities. They have been consistent in their inconsistency. The first of the reports—the McKinsey report—was totally
728
inconsistent with the BZW report. BZW proposed that the whole of AEA Technology should not be privatised as one enterprise and that the commercial division, as it then was, should be made available to any comer to pick off the pieces that it thought it might acquire. That view was cited as support for the argument by the Minister responsible for privatisation, but he has not been clear this afternoon about whether he accepts the logic that, according to BZW, there has not been any evidence of a single purchaser willing or interested in acquiring AEA Technology.
That lack of evidence was in a report published two years ago and there may have been developments since then; but, if there have been, it would have been candid of the Minister to tell the House this afternoon. What are these developments? Who is waiting in the wings to purchase the commercial interests of our British research effort?
We know already who has been picking up the pieces in other areas. It was announced recently that Procord was taking over the facilities service division, of which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) spoke. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, Procord is very closely associated with Sir Anthony Cleaver, the current chairman of AEA Technology. I cast no aspersions whatever on Sir Anthony, but the connection is noted and it inevitably raises questions. It raises similar questions to those raised about the new director of Dounreay, whose association with Hunting-BRAE has also been noted. Questions have been asked about whether he is fattening up his new charge for the picking by someone else with whom he was associated in former commercial activities.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that outside the Chamber?
Mr. Maclennan: As a matter of fact, I have already said that in my constituency. I do not hide behind the shield of parliamentary privilege to make claims of fact.
The Bill seems flawed from the start by its uncertainty. It asks the House to give the Government a blank cheque, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said, and to enable them to choose the moment at which they will flog off however so much they choose of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's commercial activities in a manner unprescribed by the Bill, save for the exclusion of certain responsibilities for nuclear safety and certain freehold property. Such an enabling Bill brings legislation into contempt. It is not the purpose of Parliament to write such broad prescriptions to enable Ministers to do as they like, when they like, for whatever cost or charge they like and with so little explanation of the reasons why.
It is said that it is necessary to capitalise on the commercial activities of UKAEA, especially of AEA Technology. There is a tendency to confuse ends and means and, in particular, to confuse the proper role of the AEA, which has been to provide a research facility for the nuclear industry, to keep this country at the forefront of that industry and to ensure contemporaneously that the decommissioning and waste management work is done with the highest regard for safety and the environment.
That is certainly true and we can take pleasure and pride in the AEA's diversification of its activities on the margin into important areas of research which are not directly related to the nuclear industry. Those opportunities, however, have been ancillary to its core duty and there is some evidence that the Government are

729
losing sight of that core duty and its role: it is to secure a safe nuclear component for energy generation in this country.
It cannot be surprising that emphasis on new commercialism is giving rise to concerns around the country that the core function of the authority is being lost sight of and that it will be put in jeopardy by the approach to privatisation, for the companies involved have commercial ends. They are concerned more with profits and less with service provision.
The hon. Member for Wantage deserved a less obscure answer than that the Minister's words would repay careful study. However one studies the words, if one studies them like the words of a medieval schoolman for meaning or with the ingenuity of Michael Ventris trying to decipher Mycenaean Greek and linear B, the message is clear: the Minister is not prepared to say. It is not that he does not understand that he is asking the House to allow him to do what he wants when he wants. He is simply—transparently—not prepared to declare his purpose today.
Is the outcome to be a management buy-out? Sir Anthony Cleaver says that that has not been seriously considered. Has it been seriously considered by the Department? Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us. From the wreathed smiles of the Minister, we were supposed to divine that, perhaps, that had not been entirely ruled out. Is it to be a trade-sharing approach, which explicitly won the backing of BZW, or the cherry-picking approach, which the hon. Member for South Dorset apparently does not favour? The hon. Gentleman, at least, was not persuaded by the arguments put forward by BZW, but was the Minister persuaded? We are entitled to know. Is there to be a flotation? If so, on what terms and on what time scale?
The industry has suffered too much uncertainty. It is not fair to the people working in the business to reorganise and reorganise as has been done. There has been no Government vision, no direction and no sense. Indeed, I pray in aid what the hon. Member for South Dorset said about that, too, in his concluding remarks. From the date on which the Government established the trading fund basis, to which I did not object, a year has not gone by in which there has not been some fundamental attempt to rearrange the pieces on the chess board.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for constantly referring to my speech. I hope that he will read it because, clearly, he was not listening to it. I wonder whether, on behalf of his party—I am glad to say that he has open house because no other Liberal Democrats are here to listen to him—he could tell us the Liberal Democrats' policy on nuclear power. The hon. Gentleman is a great advocate for his own constituents at Dounreay and is a regular attender of such debates, but one does not seem to get the same message coming from the Liberal Democrats' conclave at their conferences.
Mr. Maclennan: The Liberal Democrats have consistently supported nuclear research in their manifestos. We are concerned, as every party in the House should be, about the careful and safe management of nuclear liabilities. I believe that the Conservatives have done more damage to the nuclear industry than any other party in the House. I do not exclude from that point the party of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, who
730
decided to do down the steam-generating heavy water reactor. He also introduced the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 which has enabled the build-up of commercial activity to take place.
When the Conservative party took office, we heard about the series ordering of nuclear power stations. Where has that series ordering been? In 16 years, we have had only Sizewell B, which has not been a notable success. The rather convoluted suggestion by the hon. Member for South Dorset about the decision in 1988 to close down the prototype fast reactor by Mr. Cecil Parkinson, as he then was, and should have remained, is scarcely credible.
I agree with the argument of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that it is damaging to the national interest to embark on the route of privatisation at this time. It is also conceptually unreal to seek to divide the nuclear from the non-nuclear and the commercial from the non-commercial because the non-commercial has led to the development of the commercial. The close integration of work on what was patently non-profitable allowed the research that has led to the development of skills in descaling and pipelines, which have been a profitable sideline at Dounreay. Such activity did not stem from a determination to go out into the marketplace to find new work. It stemmed from the application of skills that had been developed in the non-commercial field. The same is broadly true of other work done.
Will the Under-Secretary spend a moment trying to understand the risks involved in proceeding as the Government intend? I do not mean him personally, because he is new to the Department and to the Government. The AEA is moving from a site management model to a model that completely fractures the cohesion of the sites and the clearly understood missions of those working on the sites.
What has happened at Dounreay in the past couple of years is appalling, demoralising and disturbing. The facilities service division has been carved out and the whole structure of businesses, which was put in place only a couple of years earlier, has been dismantled. AEA Technology was up for grabs. Another series of provisions are in contemplation for the engineering services and for the decommissioning work of the Dounreay fast reactor which is, apparently, also to be made the work of another outside body brought on to the site.
Only yesterday, it was announced that a site managing agency arrangement will be entered into. That will bring on to the site yet another bunch of strangers who are supposed to pull the different organisations together into a coherent whole and to secure the safety and environmental acceptability of what is being done. They will have to ensure the commercial profitability of the parts of the industry that are commercial and they will have to deal with the core work of decommissioning and reprocessing. It is a pretty tall order, not just for those innocents who are straying abroad on to the site at Dounreay, but for all who have worked there for years trying to follow the latest twists and turns of Government policy and of the authority which has been beaten around so vigorously in recent years. It has been a matchless experience—a visionless waste of opportunity. I hope that something can be retrieved from the wreckage. Not much will be retrieved by the Bill.
6.4 pm
Mr. Robert Jackson: I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to his new position. This is his debut on the Front Bench and we all wish him well in his wind-up speech. He will have many questions to answer and I hope that he will be able to deal with them in the time allotted to him.
I have followed the development of the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell in my constituency for 16 years, first when I became a Member of the European Parliament for the area in 1979 and subsequently as the Member of Parliament for Wantage since 1983. Harwell has been an impressive story of successful adaptation to adverse circumstances. The Bill, which will enable the privatisation of the bulk of the AEA, is a critical step in the process of adaptation and one that should help the authority to continue successfully in the future, if it is handled properly.
I support the Bill in principle, but I have a number of concerns about the way in which privatisation is to be effected and about the details, especially as they affect my constituents who work in the Harwell laboratory, at the AEA headquarters and in the Culham laboratory on the other side of the river in the Henley constituency of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
I offer some general reflections on the background to the Bill. The AEA belongs to a generation of organisations which can be found all over the advanced industrial world, from the United States through western Europe to the former Soviet Union. Almost everywhere, such organisations face considerable difficulties. It is important to bear in mind the fact that the AEA is not unique.
The generation of organisations to which the AEA belongs originated in world war two when science was applied with such success to political purposes in the shape of the atomic bomb. The model for the AEA was developed for scientific research for military purposes in world war two. Among its features were the idea of the crash programme and the total dedication of teams of scientists to a single objective. Economic considerations were largely discounted. The programmes were managed within a military-bureaucratic command structure. There was a marked emphasis on security, leading to the choice of physically remote sites. Harwell was constructed on a disused airfield in the countryside at some distance from Oxford and Reading. The best available young scientific brains were recruited on a permanent civil service basis.
Over the decades, since the establishment of the AEA, there have been many developments, some of which have been mentioned in the debate. They include the separation of the military aspects at an early stage, the spinning off of a number of commercially successful undertakings and the growth of non-nuclear work after the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Yet the basic structures and the basic culture of the post-war period have remained in place and intact at AEA. They still seem to be in place and intact in the thinking of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). It was interesting and ironic to find nostalgia for the world of Clement Attlee on the day after the national executive of the Labour party had voted to do away with clause IV in its traditional form. The hon. Gentleman, who is a psychiatrist, will know how to cope with this schizophrenia.
732
Forty years on, with the benefit of hindsight, when we look back at the construction of AEA and similar organisations after the war, we can pose questions that perhaps were not sufficiently fully considered at the time. What happens when the tenured brains, the scientific civil servants, grow older together? How is that to be managed in institutions relatively isolated from the wider academic community? What happens as science becomes more and more complicated, and there is an increasing need for interaction with other centres of research? What happens as the single-minded dedication of hot war and cold war fades, and economic questions increasingly raise their ugly heads? Above all, what happens when the concept of a single dedicated purpose becomes blurred?
All those question marks and others besides have been raised over many of the wartime and post-war research organisations. I remember vividly a visit that I paid to the German nuclear research centre at JÜlich in the early 1980s. That institution was comparable with Harwell, although slightly smaller, and it had suffered the cancellation of the project to which it had been dedicated and for which it had been established—the German "pebble" reactor, I believe. There was a moribund air about the place—hundreds of highly intelligent men and women with nothing much to do were waiting for something to turn up. In that case the hope was for a new dedicated project, an atom smasher, which was subsequently allocated elsewhere.
I remember thinking at the time that Harwell seemed to be in a much better position. But that was just before the British Government finally decided to go ahead with pressurised water reactors, and also just before the decision to privatise the electricity industry brought to the fore the real economic costs of nuclear power—or, more specifically, the costs of the outstanding nuclear liabilities.
Those developments in the Government's wider energy policy, dethroning the central objective of the UKAEA, for which it had been established, have posed for the authority profound questions about its identity and future. Although that presented huge managerial problems it also constituted a major human problem.
The approach of AEA, which I have followed closely as it has evolved over the years, has been to retain its nuclear strength as far as possible, while expanding its non-nuclear expertise and business. It has sought to internationalise its business and at the same time to become more like a business—a trend that leads from the 1965 Act through the trading fund of the late 1980s to the privatisation that we are considering today.
I believe that that fundamental reorientation has been tackled successfully. If we compare 1986-87 with 1994—roughly a 10-year period—we find that the nuclear business covered by a grant from the Department of Energy has fallen from 50 per cent. to about 27 per cent of AEA activity. That transition covers the end of all reactor development, together with an increase in decommissioning activity.
The non-nuclear business, on the other hand, has increased substantially. In 1986-87 about 5 per cent. of UKAEA activity was contracted to other Government Departments for non-nuclear work. That proportion has now risen to about 15 per cent. There has been a contraction in work done for the United Kingdom public sector as a whole, including what was formerly the Central Electricity Generating Board, from about 30 per cent. of AEA activity to about 20 per cent. On the other

733
hand, sales to the United Kingdom private sector have risen from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. Sales overseas have increased from about 5 per cent. to about 20 per cent. That all constitutes a considerable success against an unpromising background.
There has been some reduction in the size of the organisation. That is sad but inevitable, and it has been well managed in human terms. Speaking as the constituency Member of Parliament for some of the people affected, I have to say that there have been few complaints and that I appreciate the approach of the Government and of the management, which have eased the pain of change.
However, I am not saying that the picture is altogether that of a smooth and easy transition. We got some of the flavour of what has happened, as seen from the perspective of Dounreay, in the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). As he said, there has been much demoralising reorganisation and re-reorganisation. In that respect it might have been better if the Government had set privatisation as a target in the mid-1980s.
Although the trading fund was an important preliminary to privatisation, its introduction was associated with new structures, which have all now been reconstructed again for the purpose of AEA privatisation. But I do not think that we can blame the Government for not making up their mind earlier about that difficult and complex issue. I certainly cannot say that in the mid-1980s I was urging them to rush ahead with a programme of privatisation.
Perhaps the most important development to influence the Government's approach to such matters has been their new thinking on the wider issue of how Departments meet their research and development requirements—new thinking with which I had something to do as a Minister at the Office of Public Service and Science. Among other things, that new thinking has led Government to a clearer sense of the distinction between science for use and science for purely intellectual purposes.
I hope that the other great research institution in my constituency, the Rutherford Appleton laboratory, which is next door to Harwell, will continue to benefit from the Government's refreshed understanding of their special role and responsibility in relation to basic science. The mission of AEA and Harwell as institutions serving science for use has now been more fully clarified, although of course with some difficulties in connection with the former underlying research programme.
It is now much clearer that AEA's role in relation to Government is as a contractor organisation serving a market in which it is no longer tied to any single purchaser. The logic of that development must lead to privatisation, which will help to develop a wider customer base in the private sector and abroad to compensate for its loss of a secure tied customer in the form of the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry.
Before concluding my general observations about the Government's R and D procurement policy I shall make one more comment. For a contractual relationship to work successfully there must be two intelligent partners—an intelligent customer and an intelligent contractor. I am sure that AEA can function as an intelligent and business-like contractor to Government and to other
734
organisations. But I am not so sure that the Government are equally capable of acting in the long term as an intelligent customer.
Each Department has its own research budget, and all are subject to the annual public expenditure cycle. So long as organisations such as AEA contract preponderantly with the Government, their future must be vulnerable to fragmented short-term decisions in purchaser Departments. I see it as a critical role of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Office of Public Service and Science to ensure that we do not waste important national assets by failing to adopt an overall strategic view of the role of the Government as a purchaser of R and D. It seems a pity that there is no Minister from that Department here for this debate on a most important scientific and technological matter.
I shall now deal with what I consider to be the critical issues of detail for the privatisation. First and foremost is the form of the sale, and the way in which that will affect the future integrity of AEA Technology. Like the management of AEAT, the unions there and my constituents who work at Harwell and Culham, I believe that the Government should attempt to privatise AEAT as a single entity, and should adopt a form of sale conducive to that objective. That is to say, AEAT should be privatised by flotation rather than by a trade sale.
There are many reasons why the privatisation should be unitary. First, AEA is already successful as a single company. It currently has sales of about £250 million and profits of £10 million, and the management forecast is that in three years sales will increase to £350 million, with profits of £40 million.
Secondly, much of the value of AEA Technology comes from its breadth of skills and its ability to assemble integrated multi-disciplinary teams of specialists providing a comprehensive range of facilities.
Thirdly, size is vital in winning business in overseas markets, where there is bound to be concern about confidence in continuity. Any suggestion of a break-up would undermine confidence and thus AEAT's ability to win large long-term overseas contracts. I am not sure whether the Government fully understand the way in which customers for services such as those provided by AEAT need to build long-term relationships with suppliers. If customers cannot see a long-term future for AEAT, they will have little incentive to stay loyal to it.
Fourthly, it is also important to recognise that the independence of AEAT from the suppliers of capital goods gives it a significant advantage over many of its competitors, and a break-up and trade sale would threaten that independence.
Fifthly, the Government must recognise that businesses such as AEAT are above all people businesses, and I was pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said about that. The key asset of a business such as AEAT is the skills and ability of its work force, the best of whom will go elsewhere if they feel uncertain about their personal future. Losing contracts and staff will waste a national asset and if that is not a primary concern of the Treasury, it must be said that that would also reduce the sale price of AEAT.
Sixthly, in recognising that this is a people business, it is important that the form of the sale should be such as to facilitate employee participation in the ownership of the new company. The Government believe in that in

735
principle, and I noted my hon. Friend the Minister's personal support for it. Employee participation is particularly important in an organisation such as AEAT, and it should be a major consideration in pointing in the direction of a flotation as a way of dealing with privatisation.
Seventhly, we must also recognise that although the nuclear role of AEAT has diminished, it is still of critical importance in providing the integrated services required by Britain's nuclear generators and by NIREX. If AEAT withers and fragments, the only alternative to customers will be to go overseas, which will lead to the further erosion of the British technology base.
Eighthly, technology transfer is critical to the success of a technologically oriented economy and happens routinely within the present structure of AEAT. Fragmentation would make that more difficult, and in particular it would reduce the impact that AEAT can have in helping small and medium-sized enterprises to benefit from technology transfer.
When the privatisation decision was announced in November, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to press the Government to give assurances about their intentions regarding the future structure of AEAT. I pressed for the privatisation to be accomplished by a flotation, rather than by an offer for sale, as being the most likely means of producing the structure we need.
I received a reply on 15 December from the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Industry and Energy, who recently left the Government in rather odd circumstances, in which he said:
"I appreciate that you and other colleagues in the House will be looking for some statements on our intentions".
We have been given some helpful clarification by the speech of the Minister of State, and I particularly noted my hon. Friend's words about selling AEAT as a single integrated whole. That is an important commitment on the part of the Government, and it is one that I take seriously.
However, I was not convinced by my hon. Friend's remarks about the core business of AEAT, a topic about which we had some exchanges during his speech. Nor was I satisfied by what my hon. Friend said about the role of Parliament in relation to the final decisions which the Bill will enable.
The other major issue that arises from the privatisation concerns the vexed issue of the continuity under new trading conditions of employee rights and privileges which have been built up over the years in the public sector, the most important of which concern pensions. I am sure that we will have an extensive debate about that in Committee. I note what my hon. Friend said about the Government's desire for a fair and just settlement, and I am sure that they will honour that commitment.
The trade unions at AEAT tell me that they are seeking a continuation of index-linking and that they expect the rights of employees to be protected in this Bill on the same basis as they were when the atomic weapons research establishment was contractorised. There may be a significant parallel in that case, although I am aware that it is not completely analogous. I would be grateful if the Minister could state where he sees the points of similarity or difference between this privatisation and the contractorisation of the AWRE, with special reference to pensions.
736
The unions have also made sound points about the management of redundancies, and they have pointed out that redundancies become more difficult to resolve when the size of the employer decreases. They argue the case for dealing with redundancies in common across all the companies, so that the best possible use of redeployment and retraining opportunities can be made while avoiding unnecessary costs and unnecessary additional redundancies.
The unions are arguing that each company into which employees are transferred—whether it is publicly owned or not—should have redundancy rules and payments to mirror those of the UKAEA. That would, of course, be a constraint on the new management, but there may be a case here which deserves consideration, as does another union point concerning general redeployment across successive companies. There are many employees who have a breadth of experience and many areas of skill within AEAT and, therefore, potentially in the successor companies. It would be of benefit if employees were able to apply for vacancies in any successor companies, as long as they remain in public ownership.
I believe that the Bill is to be welcomed in principle, but the way in which the privatisation is to be effected raises a number of serious questions on which Parliament should expect to continue to be consulted. In one of my interventions during the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister, I noted that the Bill gives the Secretary of State to reorganise or transfer parts of the UKAEA, or to approve such action, without further reference to Parliament. I am not happy about that. The Government should give an indication in Committee of how they will provide further opportunities for parliamentary debates and votes once the Bill has been passed and the privatisation process has begun.
6.26 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall outline one or two general points of interest to hon. Members before I come to the thrust of my comments. I approach the debate without the single fixed ideology that seems to exist on the Government Benches, that everything that is in the public sector is best in the private sector. Nor do I take the view that everything in the private sector is best in the public sector. I take the view that we need to take a balanced approach to the needs of the British economy and British science.
I shall illustrate my point by bringing to the attention of the House the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I thought that it was entirely wrong for the OPCS as an institution to be privatised, but I could see that there was a sound logic in privatising the purchasing and provision of its computer hardware. That area could best be dealt with in the private sector, and the public sector could not move fast enough to meet the needs of the rapidly changing technology.
When the Select Committee on Science and Technology took evidence from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the scrutiny review, we were given an assurance that issues in the interests of British science would take precedence over the Government's ideology. But once again, we see in this debate that that is not the case. The Government start with the ideology and fix their arguments around it to ensure that they end up with the formula that they want.

737
I worked for several years in geology using X-radiation as an analytical tool. In that period of my life, I took a great deal of interest in the work of the Atomic Energy Authority and many of its spin-off technologies, which have been discussed in today's debate. I have the British Nuclear Fuels location at Capenhurst in my constituency. I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has now looked up from busily scribbling his notes, that BNFL and more recently Urenco, the newly floated subsidiary and partnership with the Dutch and German industries, has worked remarkably well within the public sector, but outside the constraints of the Treasury rules. Those models can and do work. If the Government woke up to the opportunity, they could be applied to other industries. The Post Office is well at the top of my list, but other parts of the public sector could also be considered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to how commercial activities can be run under some sort of state umbrella. Why did not the Labour Government do that for British Telecom in the late 1970s when it badly needed money for development?
Mr. Miller: The Minister raises an interesting point, but the difference between now and then is the enormous technological leaps that have been made in the science base of that industry since that time. System X was not on stream then. It is on stream now. It has taken us into a new generation of technology and the arguments have changed dramatically. If the Minister wants to come back and use the same argument for any other industry that has a science base, I can find an equally logical argument for him. As it happens, I know a little about the technology of the telecommunications industry. [Interruption.] I think that the Minister said from a sedentary position—I do not want to put words in his mouth—that it would not wash. It will wash. That fact can be demonstrated by a careful examination of the telecommunications industry.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is not the real reason why a public company cannot operate within any public sector rules that industries always come behind the vital public services such as our national health service, education and everything else in the queue for investment? Therefore, companies such as the Post Office and AEA Technology are always starved of investment funds. That is why companies such as British Gas, which has tripled its investment since privatisation, have become worldwide successes.
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point in the context of the Post Office as it is currently formulated, but the Government have allowed BNFL and its new subsidiary Urenco commercial freedom to raise money in the markets. The answer is that if the Treasury rules need to be changed, let us change them. If there is joint interest among hon. Members on both sides of the
738
House in achieving a balanced approach in the interests of British science, those Treasury rules could be changed immediately.
Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Gentleman mentioned BNFL. Clearly, a way was found in the past to give a certain amount of commercial freedom to BNFL. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the classification recently suggested for BNFL by the Central Statistical Office highlights the problem of public companies in the public sector trying to act like private companies? A much simpler solution is to put them in the private sector to avoid the problem that has occurred.
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman looks for a simple solution. I think that it is a simple solution based on a one-track ideology. If there are problems based on the Treasury rules, the answer is to change the rules.
In the past 18 months I have had the privilege of undertaking a study of Nuclear Electric under the auspices of an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship. Some of the points that have come out of that study are inappropriate to the debate and it would be unfair to Nuclear Electric to bring them to the attention of the House. I am committed to making a presentation to the company early in April. That experience has been particularly enlightening.
It was interesting that the Minister failed to respond to the observations that I made about the effect of this privatisation on Berkeley Technology Centre. I know that the Minister has been there. He visited the centre just a few weeks before I did. It is interesting that in his speech he failed to understand that there were overlapping areas of research. They deliberately overlap at present for the clear reason that it is necessary to separate the power generators' responsibility from the responsibilities of the parts of the industry that provide advice to the Health and Safety Executive. I understand that that is the principal reason for that overlap.
Given what the Minister said, it is difficult to see how we can be assured, without knowing what is in the nuclear review, that those commitments can be maintained. We heard from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that he and, as we know, other Conservative Members want to dispose of the nuclear industry. One can easily envisage a commercial link in a free market between Berkeley Technology Centre and parts of what is currently the Atomic Energy Authority. Such a link would not be in the public interest. There seems to be no provision in the Bill to deal with that. We have no prior knowledge of the content of the nuclear review. That fact alone provides a powerful argument for deferring any decisions on taking forward the Bill.
The House should congratulate the Library on its publication 95/32. It has provided an extremely well set out series of points for hon. Members participating in the debate. I intend to draw on the document in a few moments, but, first, I should like to comment on a few of the points that the Minister made. His first sentence was that the Bill did not lead to nuclear privatisation. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary will make a statement to the House on whether the Government have dropped the idea of nuclear privatisation. The debate would be far more logical if we had an understanding of what the Government were doing. We have pressed on several occasions for information about the review and we have not obtained an answer.

739
I do not know what is in the nuclear review. I guess, because he is not intervening, that the Under-Secretary does not know what is in the review. If he does know, he has chosen to withhold the information from the House. That puts the House at a disadvantage in this important debate.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficult position in which we find ourselves is caused by the Government's lack of any energy policy and the difficulty that that creates in many other Government Departments?
Mr. Miller: I hope that my response to my hon. Friend does not bring about the demise of some of the people whom I have met during my study of Nuclear Electric, but the one consistent theme has been that the only energy policy that the Government have is to have no energy policy. If that is the message that comes from the heart of an industry that provides about 25 per cent. of our power supply, it does not bode well for the future of the country's energy policy.
Mrs. Gillan: If the hon. Gentleman is so preoccupied with what he perceives to be a lack of balance by Conservative Members, perhaps he would care to outline for the House, especially following the redrafting of clause IV, exactly what the Labour party's energy policies are. Do you intend to take privatised companies back into the state sector, and what are your party's policies vis-àa-vis the nuclear review?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I remind the hon. Lady that I am not answering the questions.
Mrs. Gillan: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
An hon. Member: She might like to.
Mr. Miller: I shall not rise to the bait of asking whether the Office of the Speaker has a policy on energy. To answer the hon. Lady's question, it is obvious that the Labour party envisages a role for a balanced economy in which the private and the public sector will play a role. I think that the hon. Lady invites me to recite the new clause IV, but I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you might, on a few marginal points, rule me out of order because some of the international aspects of it are not relevant to the debate.
The Minister said that the Bill presents new opportunities and new horizons for the employees. If that is correct, why do the employees—not in information that they have provided to Opposition Members, but in information that they have obviously provided to Conservative Members—express such anxiety? They are less than confident about the new horizons that are described, and it seems to me a little unfair of the Minister to make that comment.
The Minister dodged the issue on Berkeley Technology Centre, which emphasises the fact that his ideas of new horizons and new opportunities float around in his head but have no substance.
The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), in an intervention, asked what the core business of AEA Technology is. All Members of the House could perhaps agree on one matter—that the core business is based on people, and that the role of people in the industry is very important.
740
Naturally, the Minister would have great difficulty in defining precisely the core business of the industry because, as his opening speech made clear, the company in its current form has engaged in research and development in a wide spectrum of activities that have stemmed from its original responsibilities to the atomic energy industry, but there have been some remarkable spin-off technologies. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Dorset referred to that.
Given that that is the case, it is extremely difficult to envisage a way in which currently prevailing opinion in British industry will properly manage a people-based organisation that is a science institute in itself, when the overriding dogma of the boardroom today is to dispose of non-core activities. The only solution is for the company in its new form to engage in a proper system of management by objectives.
I have observed, in recent studies, some areas where the proper application of management by objectives has resulted in the reversal of the traditional British boardroom dogma of getting rid of non-core activities. Obviously, there are occasions when some companies may not be best equipped to provide their own canteen services, and therefore dispose of them as a non-core activity to a third-party specialist company. One may accept the logic of that.
However, in a company as complex as AEA Technology, to engage in a debate about what is the core of the business understandably gives rise to the anxieties that employees express at present. As no one can define the core business, no one can define which part of the company will have a safe group of employees in it. Therein lies the problem that gives rise to the major part of the anxiety being expressed by employees.
The hon. Member for Amersham—
Mrs. Gillan: Chesham and Amersham.
Mr. Miller: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), to give the full title, referred in an intervention to the issue of employee participation. I am glad that she did so, but I hope that she noticed that the Minister dodged, in his response, any suggestion that the employees might have full voting stock in such a company, or control of such a company. No; the Minister has fixed ideas about the nature of any flotation and, frankly, I believe that he should have clarified to the House exactly what he meant.
I said that I would refer to some of the comments in the Library brief. There is an interesting observation on page 7 about the history of the position in which we find ourselves today:
"An important development which influenced the proposed privatisation of AEA Technology was the publication, in 1992, of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the service provided by the UKAEA."
That was described in a written answer on 13 May 1992. A question was tabled by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). I do not know what his interest is in the industry. It was responded to by the then Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). Both hon. Gentlemen have moved on somewhat since that time. The hon. Member for Colne Valley asked the President of the Board of Trade
"when he proposes to publish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; and if he will make a statement."

741
The hon. Member for Tatton said:
"The report is published today."
That is, 13 May 1992.
"The commission was asked to carry out an extensive inquiry into the efficiency and costs of and the service provided by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority".
It is obvious what the interest of the hon. Member for Colne Valley was on that occasion. It was a planted question.
"The commission reports that it was… impressed by the expertise, enthusiasm and dedication of the AEA's staff'.— [Official Report, 13 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 144]
That is an important issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed worry about the effect of the proposals on the confidence and morale of staff, and I think that the Government should have paid heed to the MMC's observations about that before rushing through with their views.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham also gets a mention in the Library brief. It refers to the debate of 21 November 1994, and quotes her as saying:
"I do not want the benefits and the position of the nuclear-related companies strangled by the provisions that might be deemed necessary for their parent industry".— [Official Report, 21 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 422.]
The hon. Lady hit the nail on the head. I suspect that she was not quite thinking in these terms, but it struck me that the parent company in this case is Her Majesty's Government, who seem to be on a self-destruct course in whatever they do. Perhaps they will be strangled rather than any part of this country's science base.
Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am flattered that he chose to quote me from an earlier debate on the subject. As to his point about morale, has he visited AEA Technology in the past year to talk to staff about morale and the way in which they are reacting to the proposed privatisation?
Mr. Miller: I shall refer to observations from some of the AEA Technology staff representatives later in my contribution and I hope that the hon. Lady will take note of the serious points that they raise.
The Barclays de Zoete Wedd terms of reference set out a number of points of which the House should take note. It is curious that BZW has been given the task of carrying out a study with incomplete terms of reference. I do not believe that that is the correct way to undertake an objective analysis of the problems perceived by the Government. The BZW terms of reference contain nothing about the impact of any conclusions on publicly funded science. They do not refer to pensions or to the knock-on effect of privatisation for other Government Departments. I shall refer to those points in some detail later in my speech.
The fact that the Government set the terms of reference in order to minimise the costs for the British Government sticks out like a sore thumb. They do not seem to have considered the interests of British science. Hon. Members know—perhaps some better than others—that one of the major problems facing Britain today concerns our nation's failure to convert the fruits of our scientific base into profitable manufactured goods. If one adds to that the attempted destruction of part of our scientific base, one can see how the situation will worsen.
742
Perhaps the Minister will explain in his winding-up speech why BZW's terms of reference do not require it to analyse the effects of the proposed privatisation on our national research and development and scientific base. That is a major omission. I shall refer to pensions in some detail in a moment. However, I hope that the Minister will also explain why BZW—although not all merchant banker firms have good reputations these days, presumably it has some expertise in managing pensions——did not make any observations to the Government on pensions. Why was that not included in its terms of reference? Was BZW asked to analyse the effects of the proposals on other Government Departments? The Government were interested only in minimising the cost to Her Majesy's Government in achieving their ideological goal of privatisation.
Extensive reference has been made to the problems of decommissioning and, once again, it is a very complex area. There is widespread dispute within the science community about decommissioning, with different factions arguing about the right course to take. Some important activities are going on at the moment. The hon. Member for South Dorset referred to Winfrith and, as the Minister is aware, a couple of other stations are currently in the process of decommissioning.
The complexity of the engineering process—it is not simply a question of dismantling office buildings; it is far more complicated than that—means that there are new engineering and science achievements on a daily basis. I do not think that we are maximising the potential of that exciting spin-off in this country. As hon. Members saw from the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall a few weeks ago, some extremely exciting engineering developments have emerged from those technologies and there is a world market for them.
The tools that have been devised by Berkeley and similar innovations by the Atomic Energy Authority for accessing the core of active power stations represent quite extraordinary engineering feats. We are undoubtedly ahead of the world market in exploring those technologies. Given the uncertainty of what is happening in terms of the nuclear review and in the context of the legislation, there is a powerful argument for standing still and awaiting the results of the nuclear review. We could then reach a rational decision in the best interests of the exploitation of science and engineering in the long term.
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva rose—
Mr. Miller: Although the hon. Gentleman has only just entered the Chamber, I shall give way to him as I know that he has an interest in engineering.
Mr. Deva: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that there is much work to be done in eastern Europe in the decommissioning area and in order to make safe nuclear power plants that have out-of-date technology? We could assist those countries in that task.
Mr. Miller: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the Minister's speech, he would have heard him praise the work that the Atomic Energy Authority is doing in eastern Europe. However, that valuable work is being done today; there is no evidence that that science and engineering skill will advance any faster under a privatised company. It is happening now while the company is in its present form.

743
There seem to be a series of problems relating to the pension fund. There are no real guarantees on what will happen after the takeover. One problem is that, whoever the previous owner of a company is, it is extremely difficult for that previous owner to exert any real long-term control over the development of a pension fund after the business has changed hands.
In my previous life I negotiated on major pension fund takeovers, some of which were extremely controversial, such as the merger between GEC and Plessey, the partial sell-off to Siemens and the involvement of Ferranti—very complex pensions issues. It is not reasonable to expect the previous owner of a company to give guarantees in perpetuity. Because of that, the Government have a solution at their disposal—to do precisely what they did with Amersham International and protect the employees by giving them the opportunity to remain within the civil service pension scheme until such time as individuals choose to move out of it. That is what happened with Amersham International.
The Government have changed the rules since then, not because there was any logical pension argument for doing so, but because the Treasury required them to do so. The forward commitments of a pension fund are clearly matters which, under the current Treasury rules, are seen as impinging upon the public sector borrowing requirement and it is clear that the Government have reached that conclusion because their intention is to lower the PSBR and not to look after the best interests of the Atomic Energy Authority work force.
Last year, when the House debated the change to the milk industry——a slightly different industry, but the pension argument remains precisely the same—a similar series of questions were posed in relation to the transfer of the milk marketing board pension scheme to Milk Marque. It is clear that at the time the Government had no adequate answers to the logical comparison that was drawn with Amersham International. There is clearly no logical argument throughout the series of privatisations. The Government could quite simply build in a protection in the interests of the pension fund members, which they claim to hold dear to their heart, by offering them the opportunity to have the same provisions that were available at that time. Obviously, the civil service scheme has moved on, so the actual application would be slightly different, but the principle remains valid.
Why are the Government structuring the Bill in such a way? Why can they not treat the work force in the same way as that of Amersham? It is clear that different groups within Government Departments have different interests in the matter. Even if the Minister were able to convince the House on the merits of the privatisation in the interests of science and of the British economy, I suspect that he would fail to convince his Treasury colleagues on how best to protect the interests of the pension fund members. The Minister must remember that the TUPE regulations did not extend to pension schemes, but the principle can be extended by the will of the parties engaged.
I looked carefully at the paragraphs in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill under the heading "Financial Effects". It is interesting that the Government have included phrases that could potentially let them off the hook. The third from last paragraph starts:
"If transferred employees transfer their accrued pension rights in the Authority's pension scheme".
744
I suppose that the Government could get themselves off the hook by working on the word "if" and changing their mind, without any great embarrassment. It appears that all the Minister has to do is convince his Treasury colleagues of the logic of that proposal.
Reference was made earlier to the role of Sir Anthony Cleaver in the creation of Procord. The Minister, in a blunt intervention, made it clear that Sir Anthony Cleaver had stood away from his responsibilities within AEA when Procord was being created. A statement issued on 7 March makes it quite clear that Sir Anthony must have known an awful lot about the way in which Procord was going to perform in the marketplace and what was being offered by the Government. He is quoted extensively in a press release, in very buoyant terms:
"I am confident that Procord will be an excellent employer".
I wonder whether that view will be held by everyone. He continued:
"and I am sure that FSD staff will find new opportunities as part of a company whose core business is facilities service and management."
The entire press release is very buoyant and seems to reflect a detailed knowledge of the company. One has to draw conclusions from that.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about my knowledge of the industry. She will be aware that Risley is a stone's throw from my house. I can see a large part of the industry from my house. In the past, I had a great deal of contact with people on the Harwell site.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), whose constituency incorporates a large part of Risley, the staff representatives refer to the UKAEA letter setting out the proposals:
"The UKAEA letter says that they"—
the company—
"are committed to safeguarding terms and conditions of employment for employees in each divestment. However, despite many requests, UKAEA have not offered any agreement on: index-linked pensions security of redundancy payments or protection beyond the legal minimum offered by TUPE."
That is the view of the staff representatives.
One must express concern about the Government's failure to take into account the interests of the employees to the fullest extent. The Minister said that he would give a great deal of weight to management and staff. If he is serious about that, these are the specific points that concern the staff. I put them on the record because they set out some powerful arguments about why the Government need to think again.
I offer the House a series of explanations. First, the Bill is defective because it says nothing about the existing organisation and retention—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham laughs. Is she not interested in the views of the staff?
As I was saying, the Bill says nothing about the organisation and retention of UKAEA under direct Government control, dealing with decommissioning old reactors and safe nuclear waste disposal. That concern has been raised by a number of hon. Members in the debate, although they hold different views about the future of the nuclear industry. Given that that view comes from the heart of an organisation in the industry whose sole core is its people, the Government should take note of that point.
Secondly, the Bill says nothing about AEA Technology being retained as a comprehensive undertaking. The fragmentation of its renowned collective skills and

745
expertise would destroy valuable synergy and make it difficult to present for sale. The Bill may become a charter for cherry picking. Given some of the spin-off technologies that have emerged from the business in its current unified state, that is another powerful argument. Some of those spin-off technologies, which have benefited the national health service, for example, are unlikely to emerge if we allow a cherry-picking operation to prevail.
Thirdly, the Government are expected to announce the outcome of the nuclear review very shortly. It is likely that that will have implications for the future of UKAEA. The Bill should not pre-empt those recommendations. I have made that point already and shall not dwell on it.
Fourthly, the Bill would specifically prevent employees' existing pension rights being transferred to the private sector. I stress the word "existing". Proper employment protection, including underwriting of redundancy rights, should be incorporated in the Bill as it was with the recent privatisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. I have covered that point as well.
Fifthly and crucially, the Bill leaves wide open options as to how UKAEA is to be split up and AEA Technology might be sold. It could either be kept together or split up in a series of trade sales. There are huge uncertainties about the form of privatisation, which the Bill does not resolve. The Government have yet to clarify the extent to which they would accept a management-employee buy-out. Would they be prepared to allow a scheme whereby management and employees had all the voting stock spread among themselves? The Government need to think carefully about that proposal.
Finally, the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to reorganise or transfer parts of UKAEA, or to approve such actions, without reference to Parliament. Colleagues on both sides of the House who express concern about what is down the line from the Bill should take careful note of that observation. Parliament should have the power to approve such actions.
The Bill is driven by a one-sided ideology based on the Government's determination to dispose of a jewel in the crown of British science. They do so only because that will provide a few more pennies in the Treasury's coffer.
Mrs. Gillan: I object to the idea that this is one-sided ideology. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that AEA Technology conducted a MORI poll among its customers, 84 per cent. of whom said that privatisation was desirable for AEA Technology?
Mr. Miller: The hon. Lady has a background in marketing and could sell ice-cream to the Eskimos. The simple fact is that two other constituencies matter: first, the work force within the company; and, secondly, Great Britain plc. There has been no analysis of Great Britain's interests nor a specific analysis of the interests of the work force, otherwise the Government would have included those requirements in the terms of reference that they set out to Barclays de Zoete Wedd in the first place.
The one-sided ideology based on the interests of the Treasury, not those of British science or the company's work force, must be addressed again. I invite the Government to think carefully about some of the observations that hon. Members on both sides of the
746
House have made about the genuine concerns that exist. Those concerns are based not on a one-sided ideology on the part of the Opposition that nothing can ever be privatised—I made that clear in my opening remarks—but on a determination that any changes in ownership should first deal with those key points.
7.16 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I support the Bill on principle because, where Government can do so, they should disengage from the management of activities that are essentially commercial and free organisations to go out and seek customers untrammelled by Treasury rules or the risk of political interference, which is inevitable when an industry is part of the state.
I bear in mind Opposition Members' points about the nuclear review but hope that this will be the first stage of greater private sector involvement in the nuclear power industry, which I hope will follow from the results of the review. I hope that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), during his Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with Nuclear Electric, studied fully the reasons why that company is pushing strongly for its privatisation as soon as possible.
Mr. Miller: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended the interesting debate that took place in the Select Committee on Science and Technology a couple of months ago, when the only common ground between John Collier and Greenpeace was their desire to privatise the company. I think that they are both wrong. May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I was studying the total quality management systems on which the company is embarking, which could provide some important lessons to the Government? Perhaps some TQM principles should apply to Ministers here.
Mr. Lidington: I was grateful for that response, not least because it showed that, when it comes to privatisation, "one-sided ideology", to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, seems to be the property of the Labour party, whereas we have a rainbow coalition in support of greater private sector involvement in the nuclear power industry.
I support the Bill in principle and because on the doorstep of my constituency is Amersham International, a successful business employing a number of my constituents. It is an excellent example of a business that is not dissimilar to AEA Technology and that has made a tremendous success of its life in the private sector.
I support the Bill because I see privatisation as the best way to secure customers and, therefore, the jobs of the workers who, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed, are the mainstay of AEA Technology's reputation and expertise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) drew attention to the diminishing customer base of the domestic nuclear industry. The reports and accounts of AEAT highlight the new commercial world within which the business is having to operate. In 1991-92, for example, the company's sales to overseas customers amounted to £43.7 million. Two years later, the total had risen to £66.5 million. The story is similar for AEAT's sales to United Kingdom private sector enterprises. In 1991-92, some £40.5 million worth of sales were made. In 1993-94, the figure was £63.5 million. It is the private sector and

747
foreign markets for the ancillary services, which were originally developed as a sideline to the main nuclear business, on which the future of the company and, therefore, the security of the jobs of its employees will increasingly come to depend. It seems to me that we have a real prize in AEAT. We have an enterprise that is forging a lead in some of the technologies and services that will be in great demand throughout international markets in the decades ahead.
Reference was made earlier—I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva)—to the work that is already being done by AEAT in helping to clean up the environmental devastation in eastern and central Europe, wrought by a socialist energy policy, which operated there for many years. AEAT, we know, is already actively involved in Slovakia and has contributed to the work of making good the devastation wrought by the Chernobyl disaster.
We must look globally at the future nuclear business of AEAT and not confine ourselves to discussion of the future of the United Kingdom nuclear market. I do not believe that developing countries will be able to deliver to their populations the standard of living that those people rightly want to see without using an increasing amount of nuclear power as well as power generated by the burning of fossil fuels. We see from recent reports that China is now either planning or is building 24 new nuclear reactors. In Japan, the institute of energy economics has predicted that Japan will need a significantly larger nuclear capacity if it is to succeed in its declared objective and, indeed, its treaty commitment, of curbing carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 level.
There are international nuclear markets for AEAT to go out and win, and I do not think that we should be so pessimistic as to assume that the fate of the elderly reactors left with the remnants of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is the sole determinant of the business for the future. Freed to go into the private sector, I have every confidence that AEAT will be able to go out and win that international nuclear business for this country.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has just reminded me that I was thinking about watching "The Simpsons" on Sky Television, which of course is an American programme. Homer works in a private nuclear power station, and we see the disasters that happen from time to time. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that happening in this country?
Mr. Lidington: I think that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of new Labour's energy policy for the future of this country. He has probably come about as near to it as his Front Bench representatives did this afternoon.
There are other important markets in which AEAT will be able to seek customers. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the descaling of oil and gas pipelines. That was developed initially as an ancillary service to the nuclear business, and there are a number of ways in which AEAT is already involving itself in the oil and gas industry. That, again, is an area that seems to offer considerable scope for business development in the future.
There will be opportunities in oil reservoir management. The company has already developed computer models to examine how oil and water flow
748
through a well drilled in a particular geology, and such as service is of real commercial benefit to oil companies in helping them to determine how best to go about exploiting the hydrocarbons that their geologists find in a particular field.
Mr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such technology, which has no direct connection with the atomic energy industry, emerged as a spin-off resulting from the diversity of the activities in AEAT? Does he not agree that there are risks that the potential for such exciting future technology will be damaged if there is a cherry-picking operation?
Mr. Lidington: Although I have not studied the subject in detail, and I found the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage compelling, when the Government decide on the mode of privatisation they will wish to consider that argument carefully. The key consideration is that once AEAT is in the private sector there will be a commercial incentive for the board and for the management to seek out those opportunities wherever they arise, rather than to wait for them somehow to he handed down by departmental initiative.
Environmental services are another enterprise in which there is scope for new development. I have seen an estimate—I think it was published by AEAT—that there are some 60,000 tonnes of toxic munitions on the bed of the Baltic sea alone. I know that the company feels that it can become involved in the clearing up of chemical wastes, including chemical munitions. It is already involved in the removal of particulates from diesel exhausts, and that is bound to be a growing market. At the moment, quite rightly, there is much concern in the developed world, where we already enjoy a high material standard of living, that the drive to greater prosperity in the Pacific rim and Latin America will bring in its wake great environmental problems. But the peoples of those countries, as they achieve a higher material standard of living, will also want a better quality of life, and therefore there will be a demand from newly developing countries for environmental services of the sort that AEAT will have to offer. Again, that is not something for Governments to seek out. It is not for Governments to direct companies as to how they should find new business opportunities. That opportunity will come from boards and managers looking for customers wherever they can find them in different parts of the world.
Earlier we had an illustration of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage called the schizophrenia of the modern Labour party. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, the very image of new Labour, who took pride in saying that he had no fixed ideology and who I am sure sat up all last night committing to memory the new text of clause IV and would qualify as one of the pink guards of the cultural revolution going through the Labour party at the moment, admitted—I am sure that those on the Opposition Front Bench closed their ears at this moment—that at least he had seen the merits of greater private sector involvement in at least some areas of activity of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which had hitherto been entirely the property of the state sector.
Earlier the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) not only attacked the privatisation measures in the Bill but raised before us in a nostalgic vision a shade of Lord Kearton himself, harking back to the elysian days of

749
BNOC and a majority Government shareholding in BP. The hon. Gentleman is no longer with us. He has probably been summoned for a self-criticism session in Islington even as we speak.
Sometimes I wonder where Opposition Members have been. It is partly a question of Treasury rules; it is partly a fact of life that state-owned businesses are either given an unfair subsidy by the Government of the day—in effect, underwritten by the Government to the disadvantage of private sector competitors—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out, they are always last in the queue behind the politically attractive priorities of health, schools and pensions.
There is also the wider question of political interference. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was somewhat dismissive of BP. He said that it was fine when there was a majority state shareholding in it, but companies that have a state shareholding, particularly a majority one, are inevitably subject to the risk—
Mr. Miller: When was the last occasion that the President of the Board of Trade interfered in the running of BNFL?
Mr. Lidington: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to answer that question if the hon. Gentleman wishes to put it to him. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I was saying. I was talking about the risk of political interference.
Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a recent example of that, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) clearly did not know about because he refused to answer the question that I put to him, and that is when the Central Statistical Office put BNFL accounts back into the public sector borrowing requirement.
Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend puts his point well. The risk of political interference, whether it is to do with the siting of particular operations or investment decisions is there all the time, but so too is the risk of retaliation by a foreign Government that happens to disagree with the policies being pursued by the British Government of the day. It is impossible completely to insulate British companies from unjustified retaliation taken for political motives, but the risk is bound to be greater where a company is not seen to be based in a particular country and when the majority of its shares are owned by the Government with which the foreign Government is in dispute.
Through privatisation we shall ensure not just the survival of AEA Technology but the security of the jobs of those workers whose interests hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to protect today, and through privatisation we will ensure the developing prosperity of AEA Technology to the benefit of its employees and shareholders and of the nation.
7.34 pm
Mr. Ken Purchase: First, I pay tribute to previous speakers, particularly the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) who gave an
750
excellent resumé of the matter. If the Bill were not quite so spurious, it would have been a speech well worth hearing at another time.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who found himself with a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards the Bill. It is becoming clear why that should be so. The Bill is not about the science base or the development of technology but about finance and political expediency, and it is the worse for that.
Not that a Bill should necessarily be troubled by the juxtaposition of finance and politics. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. They are often important to the development of a Bill by which we intend to achieve a certain aim. In this instance, both those matters have been rushed and insufficient thought has been given to the Bill.
In support of my view that the Bill is neither about science nor about the development of technology but about finance and politics, I quote the evidence of the Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists to the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the proposed privatisation. It said:
"Firstly, it will remove from government a major pool of expertise on nuclear and other energy matters other than those related to decommissioning.
Secondly, there is a risk of early business failure for the privatised part of AEA, which would cause extra cost and difficulty for the Government. This is because increasing profit projections for Commercial Division rely on exploitation of monopoly situations that currently exist, for example in the areas of decommissioning and waste management. Without the guarantee of long term Government contracts after flotation, the future of the Division would be at risk. In addition many of the potentially commercial activities assigned to the Commercial Division risk failure since they are based on synergies with part of Government Division that would no longer be available to them."
I take that as an opening statement because it has a profound impact on the Bill.
The origins of the AEA, about which we heard much earlier, were in the depths of 1954 when, notwithstanding that a Conservative Government were in power, wiser counsels prevailed than today, when the Government are bent on unravelling the work which was put in place then and for which we have all had reason to be exceedingly grateful over many years.
My interest is clear. Hon. Members have been anxious to tell the House that they represent constituencies where activities related to the AEA are taking place, but I come from a west midlands seat, Wolverhampton, North-East, where we are totally dependent on the development of science, engineering and new technologies to earn our daily living. Without it, we will fade; indeed, we have already faded because of the underfunding of science, particularly "blue skies" science, and shortage of money for market opportunities.
Harold Macmillan was part of the Government in 1954, and subsequently became Prime Minister. When he retired from the House of Commons, he became a member of the other place. Speaking in his former constituency of Stockton, at a time of earlier privatisations, he used a phrase that is now embedded in the consciousness of the British public: he said that we were "selling the family silver". (Interruption.]If the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) wishes to intervene, he may. It is entirely a matter for him.
Although Harold Macmillan was referring to another privatisation at that time, his words are now etched in our consciousness, and we have reason to understand them

751
increasingly as each day passes—not least the recent fiascos involving the electricity industry. As I have said, however, wiser counsels prevailed in earlier days, and current developments are a travesty of what was then considered to be the right course for Britain to take.
In recent years, the AEA has deliberately separated its nuclear from its non-nuclear work in preparation for privatisation. Of course we knew that the separation was coming—it was almost a sucker punch—but it has happened by default none the less. AEA Technology has already divested itself of much of its work; much of it has been privatised. For some years, the management of the AEA have made no secret of their desire for the organisation to be privatised, but I wonder how much that has to do with the gravy train rather than what is good for the industry.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: My hon. Friend is dealing with an important subject. I joked earlier about Homer Simpson and his power station, but let me point out in all sincerity that many nuclear disasters have taken place in America and Russia, including Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The private sector may not be able to exercise the necessary controls. There are serious ecological considerations. Given the general fear of nuclear disasters and all the safety hazards, should we be pushing nuclear power into the private sector now? I think that there is a long way to go before we get this right.
Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend has made a good point, although I did not realise that he was joking when he referred to the debacle surrounding the Simpsons. As he says, much of the delay involving the Bill—which, of course, is still not timely—is due to the complexity of the process of separating a unitary body into two parts, one of which is to be sold. We do not know the nature of that sale; we do not know what route the Government will take. There is a hole at the heart of the Bill, to which others have referred. Indeed, the Conservative Members to whom I referred earlier spoke at length about the problems involved in the type of sell-off that will ultimately take place. Only when those complex problems are disaggregated can the sale proceed.
As I have said, parts of the AEA have already been privatised. Job losses have continued—surprise, surprise. Have not job losses always been the prelude to the privatisation of every industry? The aim has been not necessarily to put the company concerned into a better state but to put it into a better state in which it can be sold. The state has already met the redundancy costs; price rises have been allowed beyond inflation; the pig has been fattened for sale. That is a simple, straightforward policy that we could all understand. I suspect that the current position is no different. The Government introduced the Bill because they failed to persuade the House and the country that they could privatise the Post Office: there can be no other reason.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: In the 1960s, the AEA's forerunner employed 40,000 people. The rundown in the number of employees happened long before the present privatisation—and, indeed, company splits took place then as well.
Mr. Purchase: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. Of course that was a much larger organisation, Fitted for a very different time. We are now dealing with the short term, however, rather than the long term to which
752
the hon. Gentleman reasonably refers—and in the short term the Government are determined to bring a privatisation to fruition. They want the money, and we know why: according to the Financial Times, AEA Technology is valued at some £200 million, although that will depend on how the sale takes place. It also has a work force of some 4,000. Oddly enough, the organisation's sales also amount to around £200 million per annum. I readily concede that the position is now very different.
The proposal was inserted into the Queen's Speech at the 11th hour and the 59th minute, because the Government had lost what they regarded as the jewel in their crown—the sale of the Post Office. Having interviewed the chairman and chief executive of the Post Office in a Select Committee, I can tell the House that they are bitterly disappointed men—almost, but not quite, as disappointed as the President of the Board of Trade. Their opportunity to achieve millionaire status had been taken away at the last second. They have a right to be disappointed, but they do not have a right to our money.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not go too far down that path. We are not discussing the privatisation of the Post Office; we are discussing the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
Mr. Purchase: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
By modern standards, AEA Technology is quite a large company. Conservative Members have asked what Labour's policies are; I can tell them that our policy in regard to companies of this kind is to ensure that they prosper and contribute fully to the development of the British economy. We believe that AEA Technology could remain in the public sector and continue to make its contribution.
We heard earlier about the corset that Treasury rules tend to impose on opportunities for cash raising, but those arguments are spurious. It is within the gift of the Treasury and the Conservative party to change the rules if they so wish. They can do that at any time. The old arguments that we used to hear about public investment crowding out private investment have proven to be worthless. International capitalism is looking for a home for its money. [Interruption.] Who knows, the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) may rise in a moment. Spring is arriving and the sap is rising too. I think that he is waiting for the opportunity.
The Government have the opportunity to change the rules, if they wish, in a satisfactory way. Money could be raised for this important enterprise, which belongs to the nation and is in democratic ownership. The benefits accrue to the nation. While it is in our control, we have the right to deal with it and to use it to benefit industry, commerce and every other sector that depends on the lifeblood of innovation and invention. Those are the stakes that we are discussing. I agree that this privatisation is not on the scale of the Post Office or water industry privatisations, but it is of that importance.
The Bill does not set up a new company which could then be sold off, with money being put into the Consolidated Fund. It talks about schemes. Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that the Bill offers no real understanding of just how the company will be privatised. We look forward to, and would welcome, an

753
answer on that. Unquestionably, the Committee's work will be hindered unless the basis on which the company will be privatised is understood.
After the schemes comes the possibility of disposals, which can take place without further reference to Parliament. Who knows, the companies or company, whichever it might be—we know not—could then be split into small parts. A typical trick employed in the market is to gather a company, to strip its assets and to sell it off.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I shall not talk about Homer Simpson again. My hon. Friend has got on to an important subject. In relation to the electricity industry, Trafalgar House has just tried to take Northern Electric to the cleaners. The regulator said he was having none of it. I wonder how that relates to the nuclear industry. Once it has been privatised, foreign companies might want to take its assets and use them in the same way as the Americans in "The Simpsons" on Sky Television.
Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend makes a series of good points. I may have preferred them one at a time, but I had the lot together. We should especially recognise the real probability of AEA Technology, in whichever form it exists, being split up in the way that he suggests, and being owned by people who have no loyalty to this country. One must not think that they have that. We are patriots. Hon. Members in this Chamber believe that, first and foremost, we are interested in British interests. Of course we recognise that we cannot exist simply as an island in every sense of word. We must depend and co-operate worldwide; none the less, all our efforts should be directed towards the interests of the people whom we represent, no matter how much that depends on our international diplomacy and the work that we undertake.
Let me give a specific example to my hon. Friend of the way in which the Government have acted. I have mentioned the super-highway. I hope that you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to proceed with that subject for a moment. The Government plan to allow the super-highway to be built by anyone except British Telecom and Mercury Communications. Their reason was that those two companies—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am tolerant tonight—I have felt in that mood so far—but the hon. Gentleman promised earlier that he would discuss the Bill. I hope that he will now do so.
Mr. Purchase: I shall, of course, do as you wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I owed a little debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), who had intervened. It may be inappropriate to talk about the way in which the super-highway has been constructed and about the fact that all the companies are American, but I am sure that you would let me make that point that the same thing could happen because of the Bill.
Under this measure, the technology, science, engineering and development sectors could end up in foreign hands. I do not say that as a xenophobe. Whatever the form of privatisation, it is important that we can keep control of what happens in the interests of the experienced, skilled and scientific employees in the industry.
754
You are not insisting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should return to the Bill, but I do so voluntarily. It states:
"Clause 10 provides for a reduction in the minimum number of members of the Authority".
It removes the requirement that a certain minimum number of members should have relevant experience. That speaks volumes. I am not privy to Government thinking, but the general public will think that that paves the way for yet more political appointees to yet another quango. If the need for technical and relevant expertise is removed, one must seriously probe and question the Government about what they have in mind in relationship to membership of the body. I say that without malice. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us, and to tell us what he understands clause 10 to mean and what his intentions are. I am sure that they are honourable, but the House is entitled to know what is in his mind.
There are issues that must be dealt with. The principles that the Government have used are the usual ones about the need for organisations to have freedom to manage their own affairs and to make the most of commercial opportunities. That is a spurious argument. The company can do all of those things right now. It simply needs the Government to accept that it is possible and sensible to keep it in the public domain and, at the same time, to allow the desirable objectives that I have mentioned.
After any sale, the Government may be left with a part of AEA Technology that requires constant public funding over many years, certainly until the completion of the decommissioning of nuclear assets. It is reasonable for the state to recognise that complementary sectors exist in a unitary body. They are part of the same asset base. We can ensure that the total cost of the activities, especially of decommissioning, is partly offset by the profitable activity of another sector of the company. It is reasonable to keep that critical mass—a scientific term that has been ripped off by the business management community and is now part of its jargon. That critical mass is exceedingly important if the company is to remain as a unitary body rather than one that is divided and is, therefore, weaker.
I hear talk about the form that privatisation will take. Rather than take a single cash sum from the sale, which would then go into the Consolidated Fund, the revenue stream from AEA Technology should be used to continue to contribute towards, for instance, decommissioning costs. More than that, it could be used to reinvest and invest again in the development of research expertise in the nation's interests.
On technology transfer and innovation the Financial Times said:
"AEA contains a high class, probably unique, amalgam of expertise, which can be marketed to a wide range of companies."
The value of this company is expressed almost exclusively through the people who work for it; unless the Government find a way to keep that body of people together, it will be a pig in a poke, it will be worthless. That has to be at the centre of our thinking.
The AEA is a flagship organisation. It plays a key role in United Kingdom technological development. We have already mentioned environmental technology, which is a growing area of concern the world over. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), who is no longer in his place, made a sensible intervention and talked about the need for decommissioning in the former Soviet Union countries and the safe disposal of the nuclear and hazardous waste that has accumulated over

755
many years. The whole aspect of environmental pollution controls is coming closer to the centre of the agenda for business development. In western Europe and north America the issue of emissions is critical to the future of the planet. Here we are with the opportunity to make a head start with this body, but we are throwing it away carelessly without thought for what will happen.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: My mind is starting to boggle. My hon. Friend has been talking about the privatisation of the nuclear industry. Does he agree that the private sector is liable to take shortcuts on safety in the nuclear industry which would cause great danger to the areas in which the nuclear power stations are located? It will be frightening for those who live around them. Three Mile Island has already been mentioned and that is just one example. Is it not of great concern that the Government are not prepared to keep hold of the industry and develop it? Nobody is denying that the industry needs to be developed, but to give it away to private industry at this late stage is wrong.
Mr. Purchase: As ever, my hon. Friend has made a relevant intervention. That is another danger implicit in the Bill and it has been referred to by Conservative Members who have questioned whether the Treasury will relax the rules so that the company will be able to obtain the necessary investment.
One of the things that plagues the development of companies in this country is short-termism, which typifies so much of the work in the City and which has been to the detriment of our small, medium and even larger companies. Short-termism means that companies have to go to the market for money and have to show dividends that are out of kilter with the company's activities in order to satisfy their shareholders so that they will continue to hold the stock. That is a serious danger of privatising the AEA. Rather than an ordered, planned and proper approach to this important company, a scramble will take place and shares and the dividends paid upon them will become the only important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley was right to make his point and I believe that it has been understood by many hon. Members.
The hole in the heart of the Bill is the form of sale. We must know what form it will take. The work of the Standing Committee will be in a vacuum. It cannot be constructive unless we have something around which we can discuss, probe and test in the best traditions of the Opposition. There are many Conservative Members who would want to know that before setting foot in the Committee.
I do not feel that it is necessary to rehearse again the arguments about pension rights, because there will be another opportunity to do that. However, it is important and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) spoke about it at some length. Many trade unionists and ordinary workers will be concerned about the way in which employment rights are expressed in the Bill. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply to the employment rights and we hope that the Government will make it clear that they will honour those regulations properly.
This is a hasty and ill-thought-out Bill. It has no regard for the United Kingdom's science base. It is a hole in the heart and an example of political and financial expediency at its worst.
8.5 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I extend a welcome to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate him on his new appointment. We served as officers on the Back-Bench Trade and Industry Committee for some time and I know that he brings to the House and the Department a wealth of knowledge and experience.
While there is another brief appearance of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), I apologise for not being in the House during his opening speech. I had told him that I needed to be out of the Chamber at a Select Committee, but I should like to put on record the fact that I was extremely sad to have missed his contribution.
We have heard some interesting speeches and I congratulate my hon. Friends on the contributions that they have made. However, I must confess to being rather sad at the doom and gloom that has been echoed in all the speeches from Opposition Members. I had expected a welcome for the Bill, but the speeches have only made up in length for what they lack in depth.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said that he can see the site of AEA Technology from his bedroom window. However, I was left unsure as to whether he had actually visited the premises. No doubt he will let me know later. He can rest assured that, during the privatisation, from his bedroom window he will be able to look at a company being developed and set free from the shackles of Government. I am delighted to welcome this Bill, which is long overdue.
This is the first step towards releasing the remaining shackles that were imposed by the Treasury on a group of individuals whose talent and capabilities have grown out of the development of nuclear power. This privatisation will be the second successful operation to spin off from our original investment in the nuclear industry. The first was Amersham International, which I am sure that hon. Members know is based in my constituency. Amersham International has set a pace that I hope AEA Technology will match. Developing as they do from UKAEA, they both represent a commercial payback for this country from our investment in science and fundamental research.
Some of the speeches have left doubt in the minds of those outside who listen to these debates who may believe AEAT to be part of the nuclear power industry. AEA Technology is not a nuclear energy business, although it builds its expertise and reputation by servicing the nuclear industry, among others. Today, only about half AEA Technology's revenue comes from customers in the nuclear industry and it does not own any nuclear facilities or generate electricity. Some speeches have not made that absolutely clear. AEA Technology's own vision is to become a UK flagship science and engineering services business, creating a strong new British competitor in world markets and delivering—
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Lady give way? Mrs. Gillan: By all means.
Mr. Campbell: Can we take it as sure that that company will not be buying shares in the privatised nuclear industry?
Mrs. Gillan: I am not sure that I understand that intervention. As I did not hear or understand it, I think that I better pass over it.

757
I was saying that AEA Technology has a vision which I think that every hon. Member should endorse. It wants to be a flagship science and engineering services business, creating a strong, new British competitor in world markets and delivering a competitive edge to all its customers. I am sure that that stated aim is welcome.
Since privatisation in 1982, the business of the first flagship science company in this field, Amersham International, has grown more than sixfold. Its turnover has risen from £48.5 million in 1980, the year before privatisation, to £324.2 million last year and the company's profit before tax has grown even more significantly from £4.1 million to £43.5 million—almost 10-fold. I hope that hon. Members will listen to that and understand the success of Amersham International as proof that privatisation has truly worked.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my hon. Friend make sure that she has her facts entirely right? I recall that, in the early 1980s, Labour Members were moaning and groaning about the privatisation of Amersham International and suggesting that it was going to be a disaster. Can it really be such a success story in view of what Labour Members said 10 or 14 years ago?
Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Labour Members were opposed to the privatisation of Amersham International. I shall repeat its success. Amersham's turnover rose from £48.5 million in 1980 to £324.2 million last year.
From reports of his speech, I understand that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy is especially concerned about the erosion of the science base and the reduction in the number of employees. Perhaps he would like to know that the number of staff of Amersham International has grown from some 2,000 employees in 1980-81 to just under 3,500 in 1993-94. The measure of Amersham International's success may be seen in the fact that more than half its staff are employed overseas, where it does almost 90 per cent. of its business, making the company one of the country's top overseas earners. It contributes more from overseas earnings than the whole of the rest of the British nuclear industry. The rigours of open international competition, when compared with the task of a public utility addressing a domestic market, makes that achievement even more remarkable.
Amersham International has founded its commercial success on applying its scientific and technical expertise in health care and fundamental research into the processes of life. The company's products have significantly enhanced the ability of the medical community worldwide to diagnose brain disease and heart disease and have brought relief to many thousands of sufferers of certain forms of cancer. Those applications provide the most dramatic evidence of the benefits of nuclear medicine arising from the application of very small amounts of short-lived radioactivity at molecular and cellular level. The nuclear industry is often seen as exclusively connected with power generation and, in earlier days, weapons. Amersham International's achievement should remind us that there is a third sector to the industry which has applied fundamental understanding of nuclear science to products and methodologies of outstanding social benefit and commercial success.
758
This sector of applying such fundamental skills is new and deserving of every encouragement from all hon. Members. We on the Conservative Benches have every confidence that AEA Technology will demonstrate the same success as Amersham International. I hope that Opposition Members will also demonstrate their confidence in AEA Technology to work more in industrial applications, but essentially to apply its depth of skill and expertise.
Privatisation will give AEA Technology a clear commercial remit and submit it to the discipline of the market place. To meet that challenge, it must be able to operate from a secure platform and in a predictable political and regulatory climate. As I have said in previous speeches on the subject, it will need to demonstrate to potential investors that the sector that it is joining is secure from maverick political pressure, which may affect lines of supply, freedom of international trade, and the ability to attract investment and secure publicly acceptable disposal routes for waste. The Government are currently reviewing many of those areas, as hon. Members have said. I see this as an opportunity to ensure that Amersham International and the newly privatised AEA Technology are founded in an atmosphere not of over-regulation but of cautious regulation.
I am fortunate enough, unlike the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who can only see it from his bedroom window, to have visited AEA Technology in the past year to see at first hand some of its work. Its existing worldwide markets are very impressive and we have heard a long list of what they cover, including aerospace, defence, electricity, health and safety, the oil and gas industry, the pharmaceutical industry and research laboratories. Indeed, its skills base is almost as impressive as the markets that it serves and I shall highlight some of the projects in which it has been involved to show the variety of the organisation.
AEA Technology is often the first port of call for expertise in a crisis. When the oil tanker the MV Braer broke up on the coast of the Shetland islands, AEA Technology teams were called in to advise on oil spillage control and the use of dispersants. Local authorities frequently turn to AEA Technology to support fire and other emergency services at major accidents involving toxic chemicals or hazardous cargoes. It was perhaps not highlighted enough, but following the Piper Alpha accident in the North sea, AEA Technology became the leading consultancy contractor in helping offshore operators with health and safety. It quickly saw a market and set up a company in the Netherlands to serve the Dutch sector, where, incidentally, it now leads the field.
Safety, economy and environmental impact studies are also in the company's remit. Several major safety assessment studies have been carried out for London Underground and British Rail, including a project which is of particular importance to my constituency, the crossrail project. I very much hope, on behalf of my constituents in Chesham and Amersham, that crossrail will not be another project that is consigned to the dustbin of history and that we shall press forward with it as soon as possible.
I have been reading AEA Technology's research highlights and it appears that diamonds are not just a girl's best friend, but have been used in some of the company's front-edge technology and research and development work. The surface sciences and the diamond-like carbon

759
coatings give a tremendous performance showing an order of magnitude less wear. That technology is o f special significance to hip replacements.
Dr. Moonie indicated assent.
Mrs. Gillan: I see that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that exciting innovation. It will alleviate much pain and suffering.
AEA Technology has also reacted well to international markets. As we have heard, it has extensive offices in the United States, Slovakia, Korea, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Japan. Indeed, two employees were seconded to Japan to Dodwell and Co., under the excellent "Engineers to Japan" scheme. The scheme has been much understated. It is funded by the Department of Trade and Industry and administered by the Royal Academy of Engineering. The DTI funds up to 50 per cent. of the total cost of secondment up to a maximum of £35,000. AEA Technology and two of its employees have taken full advantage of the scheme. They have made significant breakthroughs and they have improved contacts and sales in the Japanese market.
The international dimension of AEA's business leads me naturally on to space, an area in which, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy, the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), appreciates, I take a particular interest. Space is an area of increasing international co-operation. It is, perhaps, not surprising that AEA Technology can make an important contribution to space technology as both nuclear and space activities take place in a hostile environment involving radiation problems. While on the subject of space, we can see plenty of space on the Opposition Benches at the moment.
Since 1972, AEA's European space tribology laboratory at Risley has been the European. Space Agency's laboratory for friction, wear and lubrication problems, serving all space industries in Europe. It has an unrivalled reputation as a centre of excellence for its capabilities, services and products. Similarly, the nuclear fusion work carried out at the Culham laboratory has established a leading expertise in radio frequencies and particle beam technology. Those capabilities are being used for spacecraft antennae and for the development of the next generation of environmental and earth observation satellites.
The AEA Technology portfolio ranges from research and development and consultancy right through to the manufacture of flight hardware and the provision of testing facilities for industry. Its customer base here is both civil and military. It has customers not only in the United Kingdom, but in Europe and elsewhere. Its customers include NASA—the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—the Department of Defense and United States aerospace companies.
We should all support international co-operation in space, not least today when, following in the footsteps of our own astronaut Helen Sharman who went to the Russian space station Mir, we have seen the successful launch of the 18th mission to Mir, carrying for the first time an American astronaut who will spend three months on the station.
All United Kingdom space industries are in the private sector. Surely it is appropriate that the capabilities of AEA Technology should join them.
760
I intervened earlier to speak about the growing reputation of AEA Technology and about the fact that there are demands for its privatisation from another source. AEA Technology employed MORI to research customer attitudes. The findings were extremely positive. First, MORI found that AEA Technology was the highest-rated company in its sector. Secondly, 84 per cent. of customers welcomed privatisation. Thirdly, more than 58 per cent. thought that it would improve the service. An overwhelming majority of customers think that AEA Technology performs at least as well as its main competitors.
Dr. Moonie: I have listened to the hon. Lady's speech with great interest. Does she place the same cachet on the latest MORI poll which shows the Labour party on 58 per cent. and her own party on 20 per cent.?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should not be led in that direction.
Mrs. Gillan: I rely on your good taste and advice on every occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall treat that intervention with the response that it deserves—silence.
Much has been made by Opposition Members of the position of employees. The impression has been given that we care not for employees or staff—or the workers, as one of my hon. Friends called the people who are employed at AEA Technology. AEA Technology not only recognises the quality and commitment of its staff, but realises that the staff are one of its greatest assets. The terms and conditions of employment will be safeguarded under the TUPE—Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—which means that the staff will transfer with their current pay and conditions, and that redundancy rights will be protected.
The Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State and on AEA to ensure that employees can join a pension scheme on privatisation which, taken as a whole, is no less favourable than the AEA scheme. Employees will be free to leave any accrued rights in the AEA pension scheme. They will, therefore, continue to benefit from the full index-linked pension. Existing pensioners and the pensions of staff who remain in the AEA will not be affected. That is my understanding and I believe that it is also the understanding of AEA Technology.
As for employee participation, although it is the decision of the Department of Trade and Industry, it will be AEA Technology's policy to seek to maximise initial and subsequent employee share ownership in the company after privatisation, including encouraging every employee to own at least a minimum number of shares, by operating a share option scheme that is equitable on the basis of length of service, contribution to the business and personal productivity. A committee will be formed to advise on extending employee share ownership. It will publish at the time of the annual report a full list of the number of shares and the number of options owned by every director. That is an excellent commitment.
I was delighted when my Government put their money where their mouth was and created the Office of Public Service and Science. We have heard from the lion. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and I hope that we shall soon here from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). Like me, they are members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. During our first year, we looked at the White Paper "Realising our

761
Potential" and at the crucial signpost from that White Paper, the foresight programme. One of the programme's aims was to help the business community to secure the maximum benefit from science and technology while continuing to support excellence in research.
These steps towards liberating AEA Technology should be widely welcomed by politicians, by business men and by our community of scientists, as I know they are by AEA Technology. The Bill fulfils one of the aims set out originally in "Realising our Potential". I have no hesitation, therefore, in commending the Bill to the House.
8.26 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I apologise for my late arrival; I was unavoidably detained outside the House. I am afraid that I missed the Minister's speech, for which I apologise.
I am one of the many Labour Members who believe that power, wealth and opportunity should be in the hands of the many and not the few. One of the reasons why many of us oppose these privatisations is that we sincerely believe that that is a fundamental belief of the Labour party. I hope that we shall soon see that belief officially written into our constitution.
I intervened earlier to comment on the complete lack of a Government energy policy. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) agreed with me on that occasion. I should also draw attention to the complete lack of Government policy on public sector research establishments. The Government have not even begun to try to answer very important questions such as what the establishments are for, what their role is and what they are expected to do that the private sector cannot achieve. Instead, the Government have progressed with a policy that has involved privatisation, stripping the establishments down, selling them off and generally debilitating and rationalising them in a way that has been extremely damaging.
The issue was first pointed out in the science White Paper, "Realising our potential". It is an important indicator of the way in which the Government have subsequently behaved. The White Paper says:
"The Government believes that many of the services currently provided by its research establishments could be carried out in the private sector, and that privatisation is a realistic prospect for a number of establishments. However, there are other establishments for which privatisation is not currently a realistic option. Where establishments are to remain, for the time being, in the public sector, the Government will ensure that customers are provided with a high-quality service in a way that represents best value for money. Careful consideration will need to be given to holding the level of any such capacity to the minimum necessary to meet Government's statutory responsibilities and other essential requirements."
Since then, there have been several reviews. The DTI has suggested that several of its laboratories be privatised. There has also been the Government's efficiency scrutiny of the public sector research establishments, which was supposed to examine those establishments and find out whether any were suitable for privatisation. The recommendations were published, but so far the Government have not said whether they will accept them. We have been waiting a long time, and I suspect that the report will be quietly dropped because of the hostile
762
reaction not only of the House of Commons Select Committee but of the House of Lords Select Committee and of other respected bodies such as the Royal Society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) told the House earlier why AEA privatisation had cropped up at this particular time. Many outside observers were greatly surprised that it was mentioned in the Queen's Speech last November, but it was obvious to the Opposition why that happened. The Government needed a last-minute suggestion because the Labour party ran a successful campaign against Post Office privatisation and so they could not proceed with that. I shall not pursue that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I know that you will rightly stop me if I try, but it is worth pointing out that that is the only reason why AEA privatisation is before us now.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) said that he had a constituency interest, and expressed concern about the employment opportunities for the people who work for AEA Technology. Indeed, when the Government published the preview to the efficiency scrutiny of the public sector research establishments AEAT employed 7,000 people, but today that number has fallen to 4,100. In the run-up to privatisation there has been a vast rationalisation and a great reduction in staff numbers, and I understand that AEA plans to cut its staff even further, by one sixth, after privatisation.
Some of my hon. Friends may be rather disappointed that the redrafted clause IV of the Labour party's constitution does not mention full employment, but it does refer to giving people the opportunity to work. Clearly Conservative Members do not believe in that. Time and again, staff numbers are reduced and jobs lost, and people with great expertise and skills find that those qualities are no longer valued or used in the public sector. One could describe the Government philosophy as, "Strip it down, sack most of the staff, then sell it off"—and that epitomises exactly what is happening to AEAT. The civil service union, the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, has said that the only way in which the Government can increase profits at speed is to sack the people who have made the business successful. That is precisely what is happening at AEAT.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have described at length what AEAT is all about, and I do not intend to repeat what they have said, but it is worth pointing out that it was set up under the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 to
"produce, use and dispose of atomic energy and carry out research into any matters connected therewith".
In recent years, in preparation for privatisation, the nuclear and the non-nuclear work have been separated and three divisions have been created—AEA Technology, the UKAEA Government division, which manages the AEA's nuclear liabilities, and the services division, which is being contracted out to the private sector.
If AEA Technology is privatised it will be one of the largest private sector engineering and science consultancies not just in this country but in the world. I want to talk about its previous history, especially the merger with the Warren Spring laboratory, which became part of the national environmental technology centre, which is now part of AEAT.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was asked several times whether he had visited a laboratory. I visit as many Government laboratories as I

763
can, and I spend much time visiting science and technology organisations and institutions not only in my constituency but in other parts of the country. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and I wished to visit Warren Spring laboratory before it was closed we were firmly given the thumbs down by the President of the Board of Trade, who refused to allow us to visit it unless we were accompanied by a Minister. It proved difficult to find a time when a Minister could visit the laboratory at the same time as my hon. Friend and myself, and in the end we could not make the visit. I have deeply regretted that ever since, as the visit would have been most interesting and would have helped us to understand the situation. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will deprecate the fact that Opposition Members were prevented from finding out about and visiting Government laboratories.
Only about half the Warren Spring staff moved to AEAT, a few moved to other posts in the DTI, and the rest took voluntary or compulsory redundancy. That is a pity, because a great deal of valuable environment-related work has been lost, and the expertise has probably been lost for ever. I know at first hand how valuable that work was, because Warren Spring was one of the main laboratories which analysed the samples taken in my constituency by Cambridge city council to monitor air pollution and established that Cambridge is one of the most heavily polluted cities in the country due to the effects of traffic. I am therefore well aware of the valuable work done by staff at the Warren Spring laboratory, and I hope that it is being continued, at least in part, by the staff at AEAT.
There has been a rundown of the work done by AEA Technology. I would regard the AEA as being very valuable as a technology transfer organisation. The Select Committee on Science and Technology said that it was crucial to our national economic prosperity that the science base and the work done by universities and other institutions should be transferred into manufacturing technology. That is one of the most important purposes of public sector research establishments such as the AEA, which have direct contact with industry. The AEA provides a valuable consultancy service and is able to offer technical assistance regarding the research carried on in other institutions. That research can be passed to industrial applications to ensure that they take full advantage of it.
In earlier days, research associations provided that valuable role with a large element of Government funding. Since that Government funding disappeared, a lot of the research associations have diminished in size and reduced in effectiveness, and we are left with a small number of establishments such as AEA Technology which play a valuable role. That is different from the situation in Germany, where the Fraunhofer institutes play an extremely important part in transferring basic science and technology expertise to the industrial sector. That explains why Germany is so much more successful than the UK in manufacturing and production.
It is worth reviewing what will be lost following this privatisation. Jobs will be lost, including the jobs of people who have skill and expertise beyond the norm in this country and who have been trained at great expense by the state in science and technology. They have skills which we are supposed to value. We tell young people to study science and technology to help them get a job more
764
easily; yet time and again people with valuable science and technology skills are made redundant, sometimes in their late 40s or early 50s when they have little chance of getting other jobs.
We are also losing the important base for Government research and development. That is not a one-off; it is part of a continuing trend. Statistics in the forward look statistical supplement published last year show that between 1986 and the projected spending for 1996 Government Departments will have reduced their research and development expenditure by a massive 46.7 per cent. The Ministry of Defence has had its research and development expenditure reduced during that period by 34.4 per cent. I do not particularly object to defence expenditure being reduced, as the end of the cold war has meant that we are living in a much more stable environment, but the fact that that money is not being transferred to civil research and development is a disgrace and the Government should be ashamed of that.
We are losing jobs and the important base for Government research development. We are also losing the supply of people into Government policy making. When one looks at the profiles of Government Departments, it is quite worrying that there are few scientists in the higher grades. The only places from which scientists can come are the Government research establishments, as they find their way to the top of those organisations and then into Departments. They can then become practising scientists and intelligent customers with real scientific expertise.
In the Department of Trade and Industry, for example, those in grades 1 to 3 make up a total of 70 staff, of whom only nine have science and technology qualifications. In the same grades in all Government Departments the total staff is 737, of whom only 59 have science and technology qualifications. That situation is not tolerated in other countries, which expect people involved in policy making to have science and technology qualifications. Our approach leads to poorer quality decision making by Government, and we should redress that.
We shall also lose the Government's resource to provide expertise at times of national emergency, and also the retention of expertise. Once AEA Technology is privatised, there is no guarantee that that expertise will remain available to the Government. The expertise may not remain as a single body, and it may split up in a way which makes it inaccessible.
A great deal of senior management time will also be lost, as indeed is happening already. What has happened during the past couple of years—and will happen in the next couple of years—is that instead of getting on with the job of making AEA Technology into a thriving organisation the senior management of AEAT will he spending their time in a diversionary way. They will he looking at how to privatise, how to arrange the rest of the organisation and how to improve staff morale and little effort will go into the actual running of the organisation.
The philosophy in relation to this privatisation should be, "If it's not broke, don't mend it." If there are no clear benefits, we should not proceed with the privatisation. The only clear benefit that I can see is that it will raise revenue for the Government. There will be a continuation

765
of the run-down in DTI research and development, which has been reduced by between £200 million and £300 million between 1985 and 1994.
The Government have not treated the safeguarding of the nation's knowledge base with respect, and this privatisation is another indication of the rather bizarre way in which they are discarding the nation's expertise. The stability of the work force will be lost as replacement of long-term research with short-term contracts will result from the commercial pressures to which this organisation will be subject. It is a sad commentary on the research and development industry in the United Kingdom that we so often find that long-term research is going out of the window, to be replaced by very short-term contracts which make it difficult to plan for the future.
A more important question is why the privatisation is being undertaken at this particular time. The Government have given themselves the tools and the procedures with which to plan much more effectively what happens to our public sector research establishments. We have a combination of two procedures. One is the forward look and the other is the technology foresight programme. They can be used as a means to identify overlap and encourage change without undue disruption. We should examine the scientific capabilities of the entire country and assess the research that we need to carry out to ensure our prosperity and quality of life into the future. We should use forward look and technology foresight to identify the areas in which rationalisation is possible. We should examine the scientific capabilities that we need to carry out research on topics identified by technology foresight.
The technology foresight programme has been running for more than 12 months now. Some recommendations from it have been carried forward into the science spending statement made by the Minister recently. We have not seen a full-scale publication of the technology foresight exercise which will identify the factors that I have outlined. I am therefore curious to know why the Government have decided to jump the gun and proceed with the privatisation of AEA at this particular time. The science and technology base is undergoing rational change and the Office of Science and Technology in particular should use the new tools available to it and not proceed in an ad hoc manner but implement change in a much more orderly way.
I draw to a conclusion by quoting the president of the Royal Society, who stated recently:
"we should remind ourselves that many of these"—
he was talking about the services provided by the public sector research establishments—
"were taken over by the state because (as perceived by the electorate at that time) the privately run services were inadequate or unsatisfactory. The arguments in favour would have varied but would have included the advantage of unification, public safety and long-term planning."
That is worth bearing in mind as we may find ourselves facing a similar situation in the future. Much of the work would then have been seen to be unnecessary.
766
It is also worth quoting an editorial in the Financial Times. Even though it was in favour of privatisation, it had the following to say:
"The ideal solution must be a management buy-out. This would create a sense of partnership among the company's employees and guarantee the AEA the independence to underpin its credibility as a consultancy.
The alternative would be flotation as a private company. This would not be easy, however, since investors would have to ensure that the AEA had a worthwhile portfolio of contracts, and that its principal assets—people—would not walk out of the door.
Only as a last resort should the Government consider the remaining option: sale in whole or in part to trade purchasers. This would be highly unsatisfactory. The AEA would lose its independence and, if broken up, its range of skills as well."
That was a comment from someone who favoured privatisation, but I would say that there is one alternative open: not to proceed with privatisation at all.
8.53 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for the opportunity to say just a few words in this Second Reading debate. I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). He made a masterly presentation of what has been right and wrong in the nuclear industry and in particular in AEA in the past 20 or 30 years. His speech also demonstrated the right way ahead for AEA Technology.
It is worth contrasting my hon. Friend's speech with that of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who seemed to think that nothing right could possibly happen. He simply dwelt on what were in many ways the false trails along which technology and the nuclear industry were led in past years.
The speech of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) showed up clearly the shambles of the Opposition's policy on nuclear energy. Until recently, it was clear that the policy was to shut down as many power stations as possible as quickly as possible. It is strange that all Opposition Members who have spoken tonight referred to the damage that would be done to our nuclear industry and more specifically to AEA if it went into the private sector, when but a few months if not a few years ago the industry would not have existed as we know it today if the Labour party had been in government. Labour Members are not in a responsible position to comment on what the Government want to do with this part of the nuclear industry.
It is worth noting the change that has occurred in the nuclear industry in the past eight to 10 years. There is little doubt in my mind that until 1980 or 1982 it was a high-cost industry. Indeed, it would be true to say that it did not even know what its costs were. It was driven by all the bureaucratic devices that have been mentioned. The way in which it has been transformed is a tribute to it. It operates in the much more commercial climate that has resulted from the vast majority of the electricity industry being in the private sector.
I should go further than that. I cannot see that Nuclear Electric, even though it is still in the public sector, would have achieved greater efficiency if the other two power companies had not already been privatised. That acted as a spur. As a result, Nuclear Electric was forced to compete. There is now a transparency of costs that did

767
not exist before and greater efficiency, with more generation of electricity by the nuclear industry than ever before.
I sincerely hope that we will have the results of the nuclear review sooner rather than later and that those results will acknowledge the fact that at present we have a most unlevel playing field for the generation of electricity. The nuclear industry rightly has safeguards far in advance of any other safeguards in the rest of the electricity generating industry. I hope that the Minister, who is in his place, will take note of the fact that people—especially those, such as myself, in the north-west—would think it wrong if part of Nuclear Electric were given to Scottish Nuclear Ltd. as a way of making the privatisation of that part of the generation of nuclear energy more equitable. That would be the wrong way forward. I think that I speak for all Members in Lancashire when I say that it would not be considered to be the right way of proceeding.
The efficiencies that have been evident in the generating part of the nuclear industry have also been shown, more recently, in AEA Technology. There is little doubt that, as a result of what the Government have done in the past few years, that part of the industry has become more competitive and more commercially minded.
What can happen in that part of the industry was demonstrated by the first privatisation—that of Amersham International. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) clearly showed how the privatisation of a small company, as it then was, whose products were held in high regard and which had a great deal of technical expertise, provided that it is managed properly, can increase not only profits but jobs—by 50 per cent. That must be the way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House wish AEA Technology to progress.
I cannot envisage that happening in the public sector. I cannot envisage the constraints imposed by the Treasury and the bureaucratic environment in the public sector allowing AEA Technology to realise its full potential as a group, bringing to the market unique skills in many different areas, such as product enhancement, plant and safety performance and environmental matters.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage about the way in which the company should be privatised. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry to ensure that AEA Technology is put into the private sector as an entity in its own right and not split up. I suggest that he considers closely the success of the Water Research Council, which was very much the research arm of the water industry in the public sector and which has been placed in the private sector so successfully. It now not only works for water companies but has developed a considerable expertise abroad and is expanding quickly.
Privatisation also demonstrates the use of devices that allow the maximum amount of share ownership among employees. Many hon. Friends know that I feel that we have not taken enough advantage of that aspect of the privatisation of public companies. AEA Technology offers us the opportunity to ensure that many, if not all, its employees become shareholders in the company. If we do that, there is a much better chance of the company being able to prosper in the private sector, just as the WRC has prospered.
768
Privatisation should have occurred before now. I understand the difficulties associated with separating the different parts of what was the Atomic Energy Authority from one another, but now we definitely have a company in the public sector that is ripe to enter the private sector as one entity. If it does, there will be a much larger repeat of the success that Amersham International had more than a decade ago.
9.2 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had some thoughtful and informed speeches from Conservative Members and some exceptionally long speeches from very few Members of the Opposition.
Mr. John Battle: We have had the same number as yours.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is not true.
The Opposition said that the Atomic Energy Authority was a last-minute inclusion in the Queen's Speech. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) called it a rushed privatisation. In fact, the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), announced in a written answer, as long ago as 17 February 1994, that:
"the business activities in the AEA's new commercial division are capable of privatisation".—[Official Report, 17 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 923.]
That was about eight months before the Queen's Speech—hardly a rushed inclusion.
Predictably, the Bill's publication on 2 March 1995 was greeted with hostility, especially by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and by the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists.
Many speeches this evening have mentioned the fact that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has been split in two. AEA Technology comprises a large range of nuclear and non-nuclear consultancies and research services, and that part of the business will be privatised under the legislation. The Government will retain AEA Government division, which will remain in public hands to oversee the substantial task of decommissioning the authority's many nuclear sites, including the Magnox power stations. AEA Technology is likely to be a £250 million business, capable of generating profits of £10 million next year and £20 million the year after. Its turnover could double in five or six years.
Mention has been made of the some 4,000 employees of AEA Technology. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East referred to the rundown in the number of employees. However, in the 1960s the business employed 16,000 people, so one could hardly claim that there has been a rundown in staff numbers recently to facilitate privatisation.
Half the 4,000 employees are scientists and engineers and their conditions of service must be a priority. Concerns have been expressed about their service conditions. Of course, they will be subject to the TUPE regulations, which means that their future conditions of service will he broadly the same as their existing conditions in AEA Technology. Schedule 3 deals with transferred pension rights which are modelled on previous privatisations.

769
AEA Technology has four nuclear and five industrial businesses. It delivers innovative technology and services to more than 2,000 organisations, many of which are household names and leading blue-chip companies. Although the United Kingdom and Europe constitute the company's largest market sectors, it is rapidly expanding into the United States of America, south-east Asia and 70 countries worldwide. That rate of diversification will be beneficial not only for the company but for its employees in giving the company a firmer foundation on which to base its future operations.
Hon. Members have referred to the activities of AEA. It delivers a huge range of services and technologies. It has developed a system to test aircraft carbon fibre propellers, in which a company in my constituency, Doughty Air Propellers, has an interest. AEA Technology has been instrumental in helping Airbus Industries in Toulouse—which I was fortunate enough to visit during the summer—to produce a test so that the structure of the carbon fibre on aircraft wings can be verified and any deterioration discovered quickly.
AEA Technology is also involved in a number of environmental technologies which have been mentioned tonight. For instance, it participates in the European Space Agency's ENVISAT satellite environmental testing system, which is at the forefront of our space and science technology. No nuclear-powered submarine can go to sea without first having an AEA test.
The company is involved in a number of other industries, including the electricity industry. It promotes energy efficiency, which will be extremely important if we are to meet our Rio target of stabilising CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. It has been involved in promoting and producing the lithium-ion cathode battery technology, which is now in use worldwide thanks to a licensing agreement with Sony Technology.
AEA Technology is a world-beating company. Hon. Members have mentioned the fact that the company helps foreign Governments and they have referred to its partnership with the Ukraine Government in helping with the Chernobyl disaster clean-up. That has been accomplished partly through direct tender for contracts and partly through European Union funding.
Why should we consider privatising the company? Before Opposition Members laugh at that suggestion they should recall that it was Labour's Minister of Power, Fred Lee, who in 1965 promised an expectant nation that we would capture all the export markets of the world if we were to mass build all of his new advanced gas-cooled reactors. We all know what a disaster that decision was for the nuclear industry. It has taken 30 years to get over the problem of those advanced cooled gas reactors and it will take another 30 years and billions of pounds to decommission them.
Not only Fred Lee was involved in that programme; the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was involved in promoting the programme. If those strategic decisions had been taken not by the political Freds and Tonys but by the private sector we would not have had such disastrous results and the nuclear industries would not have had to recover from those decisions ever since. It was not until recently—until Sizewell B came on stream, not only early on the contract time but below budget, and until the Government had the courage to make
770
a major strategic decision to adopt a wholly new technology—that we returned to the forefront of nuclear technology in the world.
The importance of that decision was that 70 smaller companies were involved in the building and commissioning of Sizewell B, the major one of which was AEA. It will benefit from having gained expertise at Sizewell and will adopt that expertise in the emerging market for pressurised water reactors throughout the world. That will give it a great leg up in nuclear technology.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East asked why it was necessary to privatise the company. As I pointed out to him, public companies operating in the public sector with Treasury rules and the external finance limit that they have to meet simply become starved of investment. We saw it with virtually every industry in the public sector. British Steel was losing £500,000 a week in the public sector; now it is the most efficient steel producing company in the world.
Mr. Purchase: May I correct the hon. Gentleman and remind him that I represent Wolverhampton, North-East, although I am proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the external finance limit and the rules imposed upon those companies can be changed? They are not God-given and the tremendous success that he has mentioned has been underpinned by the very rules that he now criticises.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I bowled the hon. Gentleman a googly and now he has come back with a leg break. I mentioned the simple answer in an earlier intervention. If the assets—particularly the loans—of any organisation are accountable to the Treasury, of course the Treasury has to set proper financial directions for that organisation. Opposition Members would be first to criticise us if the Treasury were to allow any organisation to operate at a loss for any length of time. Therefore, proper external finance limits, financial guidance and, indeed, administrative guidance have to be given to every organisation in the public sector, and AEA Technology is not immune from that process.
Opposition Members would be the first to criticise us if we set a nil external finance limit for any of the organisations that have had substantial injections of public funds. That would be no way for a responsible Government to organise their affairs. Therefore, anyone who says that any company can operate as a quasi public sector company but with no external finance limit is not living in the real world. In my view, the only alternative is to have a fully public sector company to which the full rigours of the market do not apply, or to allow the full rigours of the market to apply, in which case all the benefits of the private market will apply.
What are those benefits? Private companies have innovation and the incentive to make a profit. Profit is a dirty word for the Opposition, but profit must be made before there can be reinvestment. Without that, the company cannot invest in new markets, find new technologies and produce new inventions as I have already suggested AEA should do and has the capability of doing. Like British Gas, British Steel and British Telecom, it can become a world-beating company. I want it to become a household name. I want its workers to benefit because they will have secure jobs that are well

771
paid. I want its shareholders to benefit through increased dividends. Above all, I want the country to benefit because the company will pay increased corporation tax as a result of making a profit.
This virtuous cycle of privatisation has been recognised throughout the world, but still the Labour party cannot recognise it.
9.14 pm
Mr. John Battle: I congratulate and welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy who, I gather, will make his debut at the Dispatch Box when he winds up the debate. I look forward to hearing his response to the serious questions that have been raised about the Bill by hon. Members on both sides of the House and hope that he will provide some answers.
The Bill is a space filler in the Government's rather thin programme, and its intention is to atomise AEA Technology. The chairman of AEA Technology, Sir Anthony Cleaver, suggested one reason why the company might not be attractive to potential private sector investors. He was reported in The Observer of 24 April as saying:
"The real problem for the City is to understand what we do."
I hope that, as a result of this debate, people will be better informed. It has been a well-informed debate and all hon. Members have spoken of contacts, and the work of AEA Technology has reached almost every constituency of every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate.
AEA Technology is the world's largest engineering and science consultancy and it is precisely because it is of such quality that we oppose its fragmentation In this manner. UKAEA's annual review for 1993-94 praises a Government Department in a way that they are rarely praised these days, and we endorse that praise. It says:
"AEA Technology's vision is to become a flagship science and engineering services business working in partnership with a broad range of customers world wide to improve their competitive edge.
Our unique wide-skills base, built up from working at the leading edge of science and technology for over 40 years, is focused on providing integrated solutions in the closely related fields of plant and process performance, safety and environment."
I stress the words "unique wide-skills base", "leading edge" and "built up over 40 years". AEA Technology takes a diverse, yet integrated, approach. Why, then, should the Government dismantle it in this way? The company's scientists are technically the best in the world.
Interestingly, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who is no longer present in the Chamber, expressed his fears that this could be another Government redundancy programme in the public sector. He also seriously queried the shifting of decommissioning responsibilities in UKAEA and AEA Technology simply to move it around in order later to break it up. The Minister for Energy and Industry did not answer the questions in his earlier presentation, and I hope that we shall hear some answers in the winding-up speech.
The hon. Member for South Dorset said that he suspected a sub-plot. Opposition Members, too, believe that there is a sub-plot. AEA Technology already engages in international science and engineering activity. It has not, as some Conservative Members suggest, been stopped in its tracks. On the contrary, it is making huge strides, which is the whole point. The Science and
772
Technology Act 1965 contained a section that extended the AEA's research functions and allowed it to carry out non-nuclear research and development under contract for its customers. It could be argued that the AEA does not need the Bill to enable it to extend its functions and develop, as it can recoup its investment in licence agreements and the rest. Again, the annual report states:
"AEA Technology can solve many problems better and more effectively than those who depend on bringing together a number of small companies, each with a narrow field of expertise. AEA Technology's major customers frequently draw on the skills of more than one operating division."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) spelt out in his speech, the seamless activity within the organisation is its unique property, its greatest asset. There is space for lateral thinking, for research boundaries to be crossed, to create space for new development and new ideas, to integrate experience and expertise. There has been more than 40 years of experimental research, and a whole range of spin-offs from that primary nuclear research has developed in recent years, and we have heard about many tonight. In health, they include developments in carbon fibre hips and in laparoscopes for keyhole surgery. There have been developments in propulsion units for satellites. There have even been developments to protect aircraft from lightning strikes. In electronics, there have been developments in hybrid integrated circuit packaging, which is now making a major low-cost contribution. There have even been measures to deal with dangerous electronic smog, caused by mobile phones, computers and radio interference.
All those developments—including that mentioned by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown): the lithium-ion cathode battery technology—are respected internationally and turned into products that are used. There are other areas, including heat transfer and fluid flow services. There are the non-nuclear consultancies, and the work of the energy technology support unit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell)—a diligent champion for science and technology in the House—referred to air pollution in Cambridge. Again, that is part of the work. What about chemical monitoring and conservation expertise? AEA Technology is leading the field in a whole range of areas, including safety in the North sea.
Why, then, with that tremendous non-nuclear environmental expertise, are the Government going to place it in jeopardy with the Bill? It could all be lost if the Bill goes through. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) suggested that it can succeed only if there is a sell-off. Precisely the opposite it true. It is succeeding because of its integrated functions and, of course, its well-respected international consultancy services. At least some good is associated with Government activity, when our Government's research is associated with cleaning up after the Chernobyl disaster. We are used in Slovakia because of our expertise in this country, which then reflects on the science base, to the celebration of scientists in this country. Why privatise it, push it out, suggest that there is no role? It is a fully fledged integrated operation. It is our best example of technology transfer. Because it is successful, it does not need the spur of sell-off that the Government propose. There is no need to palm it off. It is not inefficient.

773
Again, in the annual report, the chairman wrote:
"With our business strategy aimed at increasing profitability through the more efficient use of resources, exploitation of international markets and improved customer care, we decided to focus AEA Technology's products and services on the three inter-related fields of plant and process performance, safety and environment. All of these are areas of growing expenditure by industry world-wide. We therefore expect global demand for our services to increase substantially over the next decade … The outlook for AEA Technology is therefore bright and we are working enthusiastically to continue to develop a profitable, integrated business with a good track record and to exploit to the full the opportunities which are apparent both nationally and internationally."
AEA Technology is not inefficient. It employs more than 4,000 staff. The business has a turnover of £250 million, derived from the invoices of services, products, royalties and completed long-term contracts. The profits alone are reported to be, as other hon. Members have mentioned, about £10 million. In an interview with The Engineer magazine, on 8 December last year, the chief executive of the AEA, Dr. Peter Watson, was reported as saying that the annual turnover would rise to £400 million over the next three years. Of the present turnover, 41 per cent. comes from work for the Government, 18 per cent. from other public bodies, including, as has been mentioned, from local authorities as well as private sector business in Britain, and 23 per cent. from work for overseas customers. In other words, it is not an inefficient business. That is the whole point. The only thing that jeopardises it and threatens to make it inefficient is the Bill.
In the debate on the Loyal Address on 21 November, the President of the Board of Trade claimed that privatisation of AEA Technology
"will benefit consumers and, of course, add to national competitiveness."—[Official Report, 21 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 355]
It is hard to see how in the proposals before us. As John Billard of IPMS said:
"The cost in lost jobs, redundancies and future changes to government will far exceed AEA's market value."
In the memorandum that the IPMS submitted to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, dealing with the efficiency unit's scrutiny of the public sector research units, it said:
"In the case of AEA which is already a Trading Fund and operates at arm's length from government, the rush to privatise the `commercial' arm of AEA Technology and separate it from a government owned decommissioning authority requires careful review from several angles. Firstly, it will remove from government a major pool of expertise on nuclear and other energy matters other than those relating to decommissioning."
It goes on:
"the increasing profit projects for AEA Technology rely on exploitation of monopoly positions that currently exist … and without the guarantee of long-term government contracts after flotation, the future of the Division would be at risk."
We have heard nothing today of any of those guarantees. It is becoming increasingly clear from today's debate that privatisation makes not only no political sense and no sense in terms of Britain's science base but no economic sense.
When the Under-Secretary replies, will he confirm that more than £300 million will have to be set aside to cover redundancy costs and pensions to staff not transferring to
774
the privatised body? If so, the costs of putting scientific skills out to grass and the huge loss to the United Kingdom economy will be more than the Government want to make from the sale. That must be economic nonsense.
As has been mentioned, AEA Technology includes the National Environmental Technology Centre which came out of the merger with Warren Spring Laboratory. It worth recalling that fewer staff from Warren Spring transferred to AEA Technology than was promised.
According to the written evidence presented by the IPMS to the Science and Technology Committee,
"Only half the staff and functions moved to the AEA, and they have been dispersed within the AEA rather than merged with one particular unit—the NETC as promised. A few staff have been moved to other posts in the DTI and the rest have gone on either voluntary or compulsory redundancy."
In other words, given our experience so far, the omens are not good.
Much valuable environmental related work has already been lost in what should be a vital area within our economy. The Department of Trade and Industry's record on research and development is appalling. On the very day that the science White Paper "Realising our Potential" was published, the DTI closed down the collaborative research programme with the Science and Engineering Research Council at an estimated loss of £40 million to research and development from public funds. The record of the Department of Trade and Industry is not good.
Many hon. Members have asked—we shall listen with interest to the Under—Secretary's reply—how the privatisation will be carried out. That is still not clear. Barclays de Zoete Wedd, which carried out the Government-commissioned consultancy study, at one point recommended contracting out the United Kingdom nuclear fusion research programme. There was then a suggestion that the fusion programme be transferred to the research councils, but that was dropped.
In answer to a parliamentary question on 17 February 1994 on the future of the AEA, the Minister for Energy and Industry said:
"Decisions on the form of privatisation will be taken in due course, but there is no presumption that this should follow the present structure. The decisions taken will be based on the performance in the market place and the extent to which the various options would meet customer requirements, enhanced competition, help to improve United Kingdom competitiveness and maximise the return to the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 17 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 923.]
That tells us very little. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out, if Ministers are not prepared to say how AEA Technology is to be privatised, we should not even be discussing the Bill.
This is one of those enabling Bills. It is simply saying, "Give me, the Secretary of State, power to do what I want." It contains what are described as
"largely standard form privatisation provisions".
Going on current form, we know what that means, and it is not welcome. It is not good enough simply to claim that a variety of options will be left open for the exact method of AEA Technology's privatisation. Employment cuts have already been made with the short-term aim of satisfying the City analysts who have been softened up to buy the concern from the Government.
According to the Minister, we do not know whether the company will be sold as a whole or in parts, by the authority of the Secretary of State or by flotation or trade

775
sale; we do not know whether it will be incorporated or unincorporated; we do not know whether it will be wholesale. Barclays de Zoete Wedd had no evidence of a single purchaser in the wings, despite what Conservative Members have suggested. A management buy-out was suggested, but the chief executive, Sir Anthony Cleaver, is reported as saying in July 1994 that a management buy-out was "not being discussed seriously". The options are first put up, and then knocked down.
On 8 April 1993, The Engineer suggested that finding a large enough prospective company would prove extremely difficult. There is not a big enough buyer out there to take over the company lock, stock and barrel. All that is really on offer is its fragmentation into separate businesses—a form of cherry picking that will undermine its activity. That is as rational a science policy as ringing up Mystic Meg: the driving force behind it is revenue collection. It is driven by ideological short-term impulses to cash the business in because the Treasury needs to balance the books. This is a Treasury-driven Bill, which—as my hon. Friends have said throughout the debate—has nothing to do with a science policy initiative.
The irony is that, although hon. Members on the opposite Benches call themselves Conservatives, throughout the last 15 years of Conservative government we have seen "Conservatives" who conserve nothing. They tear things up: they are the great dismantlers of our time. They destroy what is working well, defying the classic advice, "If it works, don't fix it." In this case, it is, "Simply fit it up for privatisation." It will be much harder to piece together the necessary experience and expertise once it has been broken down.
In its report to the DTI, BZW referred to
"deriving maximum benefit from synergies";
but the Bill undermines the meaning of the word "synergy". It is a fragmenting Bill. The Government have a fetish about privatisation: the Bill exists because they did not manage to privatise the Royal Mail. If it moves, privatise it; if the Government cannot privatise one concern, they find another to privatise.
Is the message not getting through to the Government yet? The public are fed up to the back teeth with privatisation. This is a classic move of short-termism the short-termism that has characterised the Government's approach to research and development. If anything could be described as the hallmark of the present Administration—their characteristic trait—it is that short-termism: that interest only in what can be sold today. If something cannot be marketed immediately, it is of no value.
That is not the attitude to research that our country needs. It is not a view that invests in the future. The Government push near-market research all the time at the expense of basic research, with the result that Britain falls further and further behind. In recent years, Britain's research and development have declined, and Government spending has declined proportionately. It is down every year. We are not arguing that the Government should fund all research and development, but the worrying trend is going in the opposite direction to that in all our competitor nations. Where it is successful, we should be supporting research rather than simply flogging it off. The has no rationale. We should reject this bit of unthought-out privatisation.
In the White Paper "Realising our Potential", the Government stated:
776
"careful consideration will need to be given to holding the level of any such capacity to the minimum necessary to meet the Government's statutory responsibilities and other essential requirements".
The decision to sell the Department of Trade and Industry's best integrated research and the best international research that we have speaks volumes. We urge the Government to think again. They should start to focus on our country's long-term strategic scientific interests. It is against the national economic interest to press ahead with the Bill. It is a fag end of a policy at the fag end of the Conservative Government. It is time that they were out. The Bill deserves to go no further. We will oppose it tonight.
9.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I thank the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) for his kind words at the start of his speech. From then on, however, it went downhill. When I heard that this would be a full day's debate, I must confess that I was slightly worried that I would have to make a winding-up speech lasting three quarters of an hour or an hour. But I forgot one of the Peter principles: that work expands to fill the time available. I should like to thank all hon. Members who have made my task so much easier—it is much appreciated.
I should like the House to recognise that, contrary to what many Opposition Members have said, the Bill that places AEA Technology in privatisation mode is not dogma driven, but sheer common sense. [Interruption.] I hear them laugh, but they should wait and see. AEA Technology can achieve its huge potential only in the private sector. Every examination that we have had points that way. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded us that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that the company
"rests uneasily in the state sector".
The Barclays de Zoete Wedd report came out the same.
The Bill gives the Labour party a golden opportunity to show whether its clause IV road to Damascus conversion, or rather its road to Inverness conversion, is real. As the minutes tick away, it still has a chance to repent, to come over to the Conservative side, and to make the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) a reality. But what do I hear and see? Moans and groans and the shaking of a head. As I suspected, whatever the packaging, old Labour is a little like old Adam—it is still lurking underneath.
Enough of that; let us get on to the business ahead. The Bill is not dogma driven.
Mr. Battle: Convince me.
Mr. Page: When I have finished, the hon. Gentleman will be convinced. I want to spend some time telling hon. Members about AEA Technology. I want to show them why it needs to be in the private sector to achieve that potential. We should consider AEA Technology—
Mr. Frank Cook: Tell me you are going to.
Mr. Page: We are going to. That is the purpose of the Bill. If we consider AEA Technology, an image is conjured up of white coats, scientists and nuclear reactors. That does not have much to do with the man in the street

777
or the man on the proverbial No. 9 Clapham omnibus. AEA Technology is not like that. Let me suggest that it stands not for Atomic Energy Authority but for advanced engineering applications. That is AEA Technology's business. It applies leading-edge science and engineering skills to enhance industry's products, to improve its performance and to make it safer and more environmentally friendly. One or two hon. Members asked what the core is of AEA Technology. I suggest that that could be a core mission statement.
I must confess that AEA Technology is not a title that trips off the tongue. If another name could be devised that retained the links with its parent while being a little more user-friendly, I would not stand in its way.
AEA Technology provides solutions to everyday problems that face businesses in one way or another and affect us all. As the world becomes more and more environmentally conscious, the opportunities for AEA Technology will grow. That is the reason behind the debate. We want to set AEA Technology free to grow and develop.
I know that many Opposition Members and many of my hon. Friends have mentioned what AEA Technology is doing now. It is the world's largest safety and reliability consultancy, with expertise based on 30 years or so of involvement in nuclear plant safety. The techniques used to meet the safety standards demanded by the nuclear industry are directly applicable to transport, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred in his opening remarks. I shall not talk in detail about what it is doing, but it is working in partnership with British Rail and London Underground. It is helping to design stations to minimise the risk of fire and make them much safer places. It has pioneered a holistic approach to aircraft testing, designed to ensure that inspection routines pick up any structural defects before they become potential hazards.
Let us take paint, or more precisely fireproof paint. Fire can be just as damaging— [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not worry about businesses. They do not worry about earning and making a profit. Their casual remarks about their satisfaction with the profitability currently being achieved by AEA Technology are staggering and I might refer to that later.
Fire is just as much a threat to commercial activity as it is to human life. A business and the jobs associated with it cannot go on if the factory, warehouse or office are damaged, gutted or require extensive repair. AEA Technology developed a fireproof paint for structural steelwork which, I am told, is easy to apply, because I have not applied any. More importantly, it envelopes the metal in a protective layer of foam at temperatures above 250 deg C. By delaying the buckling of the steelwork—it is hard to believe that RSJs buckle like sticks of plasticine, but I have seen it happen—the paint increases the chances of a building surviving intact and getting back into action much sooner.
Mr. Dennis Turner: I am just wondering whether the Minister was talking about paint or whitewash.
Mr. Page: That is one of the best interventions that the hon. Gentleman has made in all the years that he has been in the House. The House can judge the standard of the rest.
778
Let me come back to paint—not whitewash. The paint is used in many buildings, particularly by the British Airports Authority. As the House will know immediately, the mention of airports will bring me on to artificial limbs. The House will see the immediate connection. Aircraft and artificial limbs have two common characteristics. They must be lightweight and capable of withstanding high levels of stress. AEA Technology worked with the manufacturers to produce an artificial leg that is very light, but extremely strong and capable of supporting the heaviest and most active of customers. Over 10,000 people a year benefit directly from its skills.
I should like to stop talking in general terms and concentrate in more detail on one of the specific things that goes on at AEA Technology—the National Chemical Emergency Centre. The centre provides immediate expert advice and support 24 hours a day and 365 days a year to the emergency services and others faced with incidents involving potentially dangerous chemicals. One of the first jobs that I undertook as soon as I found out that I had become a Minister was to visit Harwell and Culham. I sat in the control room at the centre and saw it at work. I shall give the House a few real-life examples of what goes on there to show how its skills operate.
There is an overturned tanker on the motorway and chemicals are leaking on to the road. Through radio and computer technology, within minutes the fire officer in charge has full information on the chemical and knows how he should deal with it to avert potential danger. The Army ordnance corps in Bosnia rings up on a Sunday morning. A lorry is in a ditch, riddled with bullets and leaking cyanide-based chemicals from damaged drums. The men on the ground need advice quickly on how to respond and protect themselves. Even though it is Sunday, advice is available within a few minutes.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is such a supporter of Hazchem, which, as he so rightly mentions, is a staple of the chemical industry. Will he tell the House a little more about how successful it has been in establishing European Union standards for hazardous chemicals?
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend makes the point that the centre has led the way in introducing uniform signs, especially on the backs of lorries, so that throughout the European Union—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but they should know from travelling on roads that on the backs of lorries signs tell them what chemical is carried. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in making the point that we have succeeded in leading the way in bringing about that form of harmonisation.
Mr. Frank Cook: I am afraid that I must correct the Minister. The Hazchem system—standing for hazardous chemicals—was devised on Teesside, between Cleveland county council and Imperial Chemical Industries plc. Let us have the record straight, please.
Mr. Page: That is absolutely right, but the centre uses the system for all its customers whenever it can. I have been to the centre and seen it in operation.
The last example that I shall give the House is of a jumbo jet landing at Heathrow. It has a leaking drum in its hold. The documentation on the load shows that the contents are relatively harmless, but the labelling on the drum indicates the presence of something altogether nastier. The centre is asked to send people to the airport

779
to find out what the chemical is and deal with the situation. On arrival, they confirm that the drum contains a dangerous chemical—toxic, corrosive, flammable and exactly the wrong sort of substance to be sloshing around the hold of a trans-Atlantic jet. The centre's team immediately supervises the decontamination of the aircraft. Yes, it is a routine enough job for the centre, but the consequences of what may have happened if that aircraft had taken off do not bear thinking about.
Hon. Members have spoken about AEA Technology as a world leader in computational fluid dynamics. This is not the hour to go into computational fluid dynamics or to explain it to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—even though I can see that one or two hon. Members are burning to know about its advantages. Essentially, it deals with fluid flow and heat transfer problems. The technology was originally developed for nuclear purposes, but it has wide-ranging uses across industry.
AEA Technology, as all hon. Members recognise, has many strands of activity that are applicable throughout the world to safety and the environment. I am absolutely convinced that without the spur and the opportunity of moving into the private sector, AEA Technology will not be able to take full advantage of its potential. Any business needs a chance to develop, a chance to expand. It needs to market its products; it needs to tell the world just how good we are in that particular area. That is why AEA Technology currently has overseas offices in Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Prague, Bratislava, Budapest, Brussels and Washington. All those offices, except the one in Washington, are new offices that have opened in the past year.
Mr. Battle: The Government's usual argument is to say that they are privatising an enterprise because it is not succeeding. AEA Technology is doing extremely well. Why privatise it?
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman may be satisfied with the progress of AEA Technology. I believe that it can do a lot better and I shall come on to that point.
Much as I am enjoying myself, as time is running out, I shall refer to some of the comments made by hon. Members. I respond first to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who opened the debate on behalf of the Labour party. I was surprised by the first part of his speech, because I thought that he was talking about the Post Office; I thought that I had gone into the wrong debate. He then moved on to other matters and he was joined by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who ran the tired old plea of saying that having commercial activities in the state system bankrolled by the taxpayer and then second-guessed by the politician was the way forward. Has the Labour party not yet realised, through all the successes of privatisation, that that is not the way forward? The way forward is to let commercial managers dealing in the real world make the decisions. We should let them go forward and provide jobs, opportunities and expansion.
If Labour Members want a classic example of what they are advocating, I remind them of the National Enterprise Board. Politicians went out picking winners. How many hundreds of millions did that cost the taxpayer? More than enough. That is exactly why the industry should be allowed to make its own decisions and that is why it should not be second-guessed by the experts on the Opposition Benches.
780
I take issue with some of the remarks about the decision-making process behind Procord. I found them distasteful and inaccurate, and they were full of innuendo. I am glad tonight to be able to give the lie to some of the comments made. I am fresh to this job, so I do not carry any particular baggage. I have seen the figures connected with Procord. I cannot tell the House the figures because they are commercially confidential, but I can give hon. Members an absolute assurance that the decision to choose Procord was clear cut because its offer was far ahead of any other offer. Not to have taken that offer would have been ridiculous. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, Sir Anthony Cleaver left the room and was not involved when the decision was made. Some of the remarks made were absolutely disgraceful. One of the other reasons for choosing Procord is that it wants to develop a business and to build and expand on that. That was a further opportunity for the staff.
Many hon. Members contributed to the debate; I shall not be able to accommodate all of them. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made a careful speech. He remarked on the need for flexibility by the work force at Winfrith. He said that those people must change their focus and extend their non-nuclear work. I can confirm to my hon. Friend's constituents his assiduity in promoting the future activities of Winfrith. I suggest that he is one of my more regular correspondents; he was certainly one of my predecessor's regular correspondents.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and four other hon. Members made the same point. They all wanted a firm commitment to the method of privatisation which, in effect, would close off freedom of choice. There was some suspicion that there was a hidden Government agenda to which we were secretly working. I assure the House that there is no secret Government agenda. All we want is to give AEA Technology the chance over the next year to develop its plans and then to choose the best method to move it forward. Of course, I am aware of the number of hon. Members who want it to be moved into the private sector as one unit on a flotation. I hear and understand that message, but hon. Members will understand that it would be wrong of me either to accept or to deny it tonight.
Mr. Maclennan: Part of the point of the message from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and myself, which the Minister may care to address now, is the fact that we want the House to be informed about the method that has been decided upon and then to consider the aptness of that method in the circumstances. Will the Minister undertake to bring the matter back to the House before a decision is taken? [interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the Minister continues, I must tell hon. Members that I am growing rather tired of hearing running commentaries and private conversations in the House. I should like a little more quiet, so that I can hear the Minister without straining.
Mr. Page: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is nothing unusual in the process that we are employing, and it will not be necessary to bring the matter to the House. Obviously, the House will be informed about what is to happen, but if the Opposition feel so enthusiastic about discussing it, they can use a Supply clay to do so.

781
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also said that the proposed appointment of a site managing agent at Dounreay might have some effect on safety. As the House knows, for the Government safety is of paramount importance, and the hon. Gentleman's idea that the appointment of the agent will affect safety is an incorrect assumption.
Dounreay's safety regime will continue to be governed by the legal responsibilities under the nuclear site licence and by the nuclear installations inspectorate's regulatory regime. Those legal responsibilities will remain with UKAEA. It will continue to exercise them by issuing corporate safety instructions. Implementation of the UKAEA safety regime at Dounreay will remain the responsibility of the Government division site director. The managing agent will report to him and operate under his direction. The only difference from the present arrangements will be the presence of a stronger management team, which will enhance rather than diminish safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) spelt out the virtues of privatisation and the need to develop new markets, especially overseas. He also drew attention to areas of positive advantage and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), said that the proof of the pudding was in the eating.
Indeed, the closest parallel to AEA Technology is Amersham International, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham delivered one by one the hammer blows of the success of that company. Employment is up from 2,000 to 3,400, turnover is up, and profit—a dirty word to the Labour party—is up from £4.1 million to £43.5 million. Yet the Labour party would deny AEAT the chance to deliver the goods and to emulate Amersham International.
I shall bring my remarks to a close by mentioning again the concerns that some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, expressed about safety. Whatever we want to do in such an area, the safety aspect must be paramount, and AEAT is similarly committed to maintaining the highest standards of health and safety. Whether it is in the public or the private sector, it will follow safety procedures fully consistent with those that apply within UKAEA as a whole. The suggestion that a privatised AEAT would cut corners on safety is arrant nonsense and does no credit to the House. Indeed, it is an affront to the dignity of the people in AEAT.
Hon. Members have described UKAEA as a national asset, and I agree. It has one of the highest—if not the highest—concentrations of graduates and skilled manpower in the country, and it has specialist facilities for staff to utilise those skills. It is essential that, as a nation, we get a good return from those skills, and that is what privatisation is all about.
AEA Technology has the potential to become a world-class player in the international science and engineering market. It has the skills and technology to compete successfully in the markets and to secure business for itself and for other British firms. That is what the Bill is about. It is the only way forward, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 250.

Division No. 102]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth Peter (East Surrey)

Dicks, Terry

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Dover, Den

Amess, David

Duncan, Alan

Ancram, Michael

Dunn, Bob

Arbuthnot, James

Dykes, Hugh

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Elletson, Harold

Ashby, David

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Atkins, Robert

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Evennett, David

Baldry, Tony

Fabricant, Michael

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fishburn, Dudley

Bates, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Batiste, Spencer

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Bellingham, Henry

Forth, Eric

Bendall, Vivian

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Body, Sir Richard

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

French, Douglas

Booth, Hartley

Gale, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Gallie, Phil

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Bowis, John

Garnier, Edward

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gill, Christopher

Brandreth, Gyles

Gillan, Cheryl

Brazier, Julian

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bright, Sir Graham

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gorst, Sir John

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Budgen, Nicholas

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Burns, Simon

Grylls, Sir Michael

Burt, Alistair

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Butler, Peter

Hague, William

Butterfill, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hannam, Sir John

Carrington, Matthew

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carttiss, Michael

Harris, David

Cash, William

Haselhurst, Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sydney

Hayes, Jerry

Churchill, Mr

Heald, Oliver

Clappison, James

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hendry, Charles

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Coe, Sebastian

Hicks, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Congdon, David

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Conway, Derek

Horam, John

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Couchman, James

Howell, Sir Ralph N Norfolk)

Cran, James

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hunter, Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Starnford)

Jack, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Day, Stephen

Jenkin, Bernard

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jessel, Toby

Devlin, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

783

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Key, Robert

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kilfedder, Sir James

Sackville, Tom

King, Rt Hon Tom

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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'stn)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Knox, Sir David

Shersby, Michael

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Sims, Roger

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Soames, Nicholas

Legg, Barry

Spencer, Sir Derek

Leigh, Edward

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spink, Dr Robert

Lidington, David

Spring, Richard

Lightbown, David

Sproat, Iain

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lord, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stephen, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stern, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Stewart, Allan

Maclean, David

Streeter, Gary

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sumberg, David

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sweeney, Walter

Madel, Sir David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Malone, Gerald

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Marland, Paul

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Thomason, Roy

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Merchant, Piers

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mills, Iain

Thurnham, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Townend John (Bridlington)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Moate, Sir Roger

Tracey, Richard

Monro, Sir Hector

Tredinnick, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trend, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Trotter, Neville

Nelson, Anthony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Neubert, Sir Michael

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Viggers, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Walden, George

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Walker, Bit (N Tayside)

Norris, Steve

Waller, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Waterson, Nigel

Ottaway, Richard

Watts, John

Page, Richard

Wells, Bowen

Paice, James

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Patrick, Sir Irvine

Whitney, Ray

Patten, Rt Hon John

Whittingdale, John

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Widdecombe, Ann

Pawsey, James

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wilkinson, John

Pickles, Eric

Wilshire, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wood, Timothy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Yeo, Tim

Richards, Rod

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Riddick, Graham

Robathan, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Mr. David Willets and

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Mr. Liam Fox.

784

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Fatchett, Derek

Adams, Mrs Irene

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Anger, Nick

Fisher Mark

Allenen, Graham

Flynn, Paul

Alton, David

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Foulkes, George

Armstrong, Hilary

Fraser, John

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Fyfe, Maria

Ashton, Joe

Galloway, George

Austin-Walker, John

Gapes, Mike

Barnes, Harry

Garrett, John

Barron, Kevin

George, Bruce

Battle, John

Gerrard, Neil

Bayley, Hugh

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Godman, Dr Norman A

Berth, Rt Hon A J

Godsiff, Roger

Bell, Stuart

Golding, Mrs Llin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Gordon, Mildred

Bennett, Andrew F

Graham, Thomas

Benton, Joe

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Bermingham, Gerald

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Betts, Clive

Grocott, Bruce

Boateng, Paul

Gunnell, John

Bradley, Keith

Hain, Peter

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hall, Mike

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Hanson, David

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

Harman, Ms Harriet

Burden, Richard

Harvey, Nick

Byers, Stephen

Henderson, Doug

Caborn, Richard

Heppell, John

Callaghan, Jim

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hodge, Margaret

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hoey, Kate

Campbell-Savours, D N

Home Robertson, John

Canavan, Dennis

Hood, Jimmy

Cattle, Alexander (Montgomery)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Chisholm, Malcolm

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Church, Judith

Hoyle, Doug

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hutton, John

Clelland, David

Illsley, Eric

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ingram, Adam

Coffey, Ann

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cohen, Harry

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Connarty, Michael

Jamieson, David

Cock, Frank (Stockton N)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Corston, Jean

Jones, Lynne (B'ham SO)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jowell, Tessa

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dafis, Cynog

Keen, Alan

Dalyell, Tam

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Darling, Alistair

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Davidson, Ian

Khabra, Piara S

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Lestor, Joan (Ecdes)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lewis, Terry

Denham, John

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Dewar, Donald

Livingstone, Ken

Dixon, Don

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dobson, Frank

Llwyd, Elfyn

Donohoe, Brian H

Lynne, Ms Liz

Dowd, Jim

McAllion, John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McAvoy, Thomas

Eagle, Ms Angela

McCartney, Ian

Eastham, Ken

Macdonald, Calum

Enright, Derek

McFall, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McKelvey, William

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Mackinlay, Andrew

785

McLeish, Henry

Rendel, David

Maclennan, Robert

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

McMaster, Gordon

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

McNamara, Kevin

Roche, Mrs Barbara

MacShane, Denis

Rogers, Allan

McWilliam, John

Rooker, Jeff

Madden, Max

Rooney, Terry

Maddock, Diana

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mahon, Alice

Rowlands, Ted

Mandelson, Peter

Ruddock, Joan

Marek, Dr John

Sedgemore, Brian

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Sheerman, Barry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Short, Clare

Martlew, Eric

Simpson, Alan

Maxton, John

Skinner, Dennis

Meacher, Michael

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Meale, Alan

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

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Snape, Peter

Milburn, Alan

Soley, Clive

Miller, Andrew

Speller, John

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Steinberg, Gerry

Morgan, Rhodri

Stevenson, George

Morley, Elliot

Stott, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Straw, Jack

Mudie, George

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Murphy, Paul

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Timms, Stephen

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Tipping, Paddy

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Touhig, Don

Olner, Bill

Turner, Dennis

O'Neill, Martin

Tyler, Paul

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Walker, Fit Hon Sir Harold

Patchett, Terry

Wallace, James

Pearson, Ian

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pendry, Tom

Wareing, Robert N

Pickthall, Colin

Watson, Mike

Pike, Peter L

Wicks, Malcolm

Pope, Greg

Wigley, Dafydd

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Wilson, Brian

Primarolo, Dawn

Wise, Audrey

Purchase, Ken

Worthington, Tony

Quin, Ms Joyce

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Radice, Giles

Randall, Stuart

Tellers for the Noes:

Raynsford, Nick

Mr. Eric Clarke and

Reid, Dr John

Mr. John Cummings.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Points of Order
10.15 pm
Mr. Robert Key: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At about 20 minutes to 10 o'clock this evening, there was a road traffic accident on the pedestrian crossing between Victoria Tower and the roundabout at the end of Lambeth bridge. It appeared to involve at least one motor cycle, which ended up underneath another vehicle and I do not know whether anyone was injured.
The street lighting on that stretch of road is particularly bad. The House authorities are going to quite extraordinary lengths to protect Members of Parliament and their staff—for example, there are eight fire doors between my office and the front door in Millbank. However, as soon as one ventures outside, one takes one's life in one's hands.
Madam Deputy Speaker, will you request the Serjeant at Arms to talk to Westminster city council and/or the Minister for Transport in London about securing better lighting on that stretch of road? That will ensure that we have some hope of surviving when conditions are as treacherous as they were tonight and when drivers are going recklessly fast.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I witnessed the aftermath of the same incident to which the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred and I strongly endorse what he said. I do not distinguish between the safety of members of the public and Members of Parliament, but many people go backwards and forwards across that stretch of road at speed—particularly when there are votes in the House—and the lack of safety arrangements is very disturbing.
Tonight the conditions were extremely hazardous. Cars were driving across that pedestrian crossing at speeds of 50 and 60 mph, even while the police were present. It is a tragedy waiting to happen. Since the extension of the parliamentary offices to Millbank, many hon. Members have been aware of the situation. We do not want to investigate a tragedy; we want to pre-empt one.
I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to accept the recommendation of the hon. Member for Salisbury that there should be urgent discussions with the police and with Westminster city council about traffic-calming measures in order to secure effective safety arrangements.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I am concerned to hear what the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) have said. I will certainly ensure that the proper authorities are informed and asked what action they might be prepared to take. We must now continue with the money resolution.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Energy Authority Bill ('the Act'), it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the following, namely—

(a) expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in consequence of provision made by the Act for the acquisition of, or of rights to subscribe for, securities of successor companies;

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State or the Treasury;

(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided;

(2) the extinguishment of liabilities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority ('the Authority') in respect of the principal of such relevant loans as may be specified by order to such extent as may be so specified;

(3) the extinguishment of liabilities of a successor company in respect of the principal of such relevant loans as may be specified by order to such extent as may be so specified at a time when the company is wholly owned by the Crown or a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Authority;

(4) the issuing out of the National Loans Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for making loans to any successor company which is wholly owned by the Crown;

(5) the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling such guarantees given by them for the discharge of financial obligations in connection with sums borrowed by any successor company which is wholly owned by the Crown;

(6) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.

In this Resolution—
'relevant loan'—

(a) in relation to the Authority, means the Authority's commencing capital debt and any loan made to the Authority under section 4 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1986,

(b) in relation to a successor company, means any debt or loan mentioned in paragraph (a) above (if and to the extent that the liability to repay it is transferred to the company in accordance with a scheme under the Act) and any loan made to the company by the Secretary of State under the Act;

'successor company' means any company which, at a time when it is wholly owned by the Crown or a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Authority, becomes entitled or subject, in accordance with a scheme under the Act, to any property, rights or liabilities of the Authority.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Question agreed to.

Coal Industry
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I beg to move,
That the draft Miners' Welfare Act 1952 (Transfer of Functions of Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.
The immediate purpose of the draft order is to facilitate a change in the organisation and arrangements for coal industry social welfare. Instead of having a Companies Act company, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation Ltd.—CISWO—at the centre of those arrangements, the aim is to have a charitable trust, the CISWO trust.
This is not a new idea. When CISWO Ltd. was formed in 1952, it had been the intention to register it as a charity, but there was some nervousness that its aims and objectives would conflict with charity law at the time. So the draft order is perhaps implementing the intentions of some 43 years ago. On 10 March, some four days ago, the directors of CISWO Ltd. decided to take that step as part of wider changes consequent on the privatisation of British Coal.
It may be helpful if I remind the House of some of the wider background. The Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation embraces a wide range of activities. To take a few examples, there are between 4,000 and 5,000 recuperative convalescent placements annually, and we know how much those facilities are cherished, such as those at the Bournemouth convalescent home for south Wales miners. There are nearly 12,000 counselling sessions and visits each year by 17 CISWO social volunteers, supported by a virtual army of voluntary helpers and CISWO's organisation of sports and competitions—in part through company sponsorship—for the seriously disabled, as well as the able-bodied, involves an ambitious range of activities.
CISWO provides administrative support to independent miners' welfares and convalescent homes and trusts, including more than 4,000 grants, primarily to widows, from the coal industry benevolent trust for the relief of hardship, and more than 400 grants to miners and dependants pursuing full-time education from the education trust fund.
It was clear from debates in the House last year on the Coal Bill that those services, especially services for the disabled, the old and the infirm were greatly valued.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: The Minister has given us a list of CISWO's functions, but he has not mentioned sport and recreation grounds. That issue is yet to be resolved. During tonight's debate, will the Minister give us some indication of his present thinking?
Mr. Page: I made a short reference to CISWO's organisation of sport and competition, but matters dealing specifically with recreation grounds have not yet been decided, although the Government are fully conscious of the importance of recreational grounds. Debates and discussions are taking place between the National Playing

789
Fields Association, CISWO and British Coal to find a satisfactory solution as to how they can continue to be operated and retained for recreational use.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister confirm that all lands which are run by or on behalf of CISWO will remain under the control of the new trust, or is there any risk that such lands, including sports grounds, may be sold off as part of British Coal's plans to privatise its land?
Mr. Page: The land under the control of CISWO will remain under its control unless it reaches a particular agreement with the National Playing Fields Association for that organisation to look after the land. Any terms and arrangements would have to be satisfactory with such an agreement.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The issue is of great concern to mining communities, because for many years miners have contributed to creating that particular wealth and resource. Miners in many of our villages are afraid that the land will be transferred into the general package of sale by British Coal. For instance, the ownership of some land is a little ambiguous because during particular periods miners cleared land and created playing fields on land that then belonged to the private coal industry. The ownership has never been established. Will the Minister either examine the matter very closely or give us some assurance tonight that the facilities that belong to mining communities will not be sold off?
Mr. Page: The Government have given assurances that the land will be maintained for recreational use. As I have said, discussions are taking place between those three bodies. It is a highly complex issue, as hon. Members accept and appreciate, and it has not yet been resolved, but the Government have given a commitment that the land will be retained for recreational use.
Mr. John Cummings: The Minister mentioned in the preface to his remarks that CISWO was instituted in 1952. CISWO was founded on previous welfare schemes, which were developed by the likes of my grandfather with his halfpennies, my father with his pennies, and me with my shillings when I worked in the industry. Will the Minister consider the tremendous progress made in the county of Durham, where most of those facilities have been transferred at a peppercorn rent to parish councils to be used by miners and their future generations in perpetuity? We believe that that is the best way forward. We have contributed to and maintained those facilities, and we wish to maintain them for future generations.
Mr. Page: I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have said nothing that does not recognise the tremendous work that CISWO and its predecessors have done in that area. I shall elaborate on that recognition a little later in my speech.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: As the CISWO recreation grounds and welfare halls have been an integral part of mining communities, have any discussions been
790
held with local authorities in those areas about the possibility of their taking over the recreational grounds and welfare halls?
Mr. Page: Certain local authorities have leasehold agreements on that land and will be consulted on the best way forward. The Government have given a clear and firm commitment. I understand hon. Members' concerns, but I can take the matter no further than to say that CISWO is currently negotiating the best way forward.
Mr. Derek Enright: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again. There are two matters that he does not appear to cover. The first is the serious concern of allotment holders on British Coal land. I asked a question of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which responded this morning by saying that it is the business of the Department of Trade and Industry. Will the Minister therefore clear up the whole question of allotment holders? The second, which is tangential but has not been mentioned and is clearly not central to the parties involved, is brass bands.
Mr. Page: I recognise that there is a great deal of concern about allotments. No decisions have yet been made, as discussions are still taking place. The views expressed by the hon. Gentleman are of the kind being taken into consideration in the current discussions. On brass bands, I shall not try to pre-empt the negotiations, but I believe that CISWO is taking a particular interest in that matter and may come forward with an announcement on it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister clear up a point that worries all of us? Some valuable land currently being used mainly for recreational and sporting purposes has come out of the ribs of the miners and off the shovel in years gone by. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) said, that is where the wealth was created. We want an assurance from the Minister that, by passing this order or any other such order, none of that land will be sold off for development, or by some speculator to make some money for whoever wants to develop it, and that the land will remain for recreation and sporting purposes, because the miners in the area provided it for that reason. We want a guarantee.
Mr. Page: The order provides that CISWO recreational land will remain CISWO recreational land. CISWO will discuss the best way forward with the National Playing Fields Association and British Coal, and they must agree any changes in the use of the land. So the matter is entirely in the hands of CISWO. It has the authority and control, and this is the best way for it to proceed.
Mr. Rogers: The Minister is being kind, but I am sure that he will recognise our general fears. Many of the grounds, certainly in the south Wales valleys, have been supported by local collieries that are now closed, and therefore the cost of maintenance has reverted to local welfare organisations or to CISWO itself. If no support is coming from British Coal funds to maintain those grounds, the pressure will be on, if the National Playing Fields Association cannot take them over, for them to be sold. We would like to see moneys put aside or made available so that they can stay in the ownership of the people who provided them.
Mr. Page: Although I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, I do not feel that it would be right for me—I do not

791
think that I have the power—to tie CISWO's hands in that way. It wants to be a living and growing organisation and it must decide the best way forward for the charity that we are establishing tonight.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he tell the House exactly who owns all those different tracts of land? Do they belong to CISWO, the Coal Board or, as has been suggested, the local miners, who may have paid over many years? If my hon. Friend does not have all the answers now to tell the House, perhaps he will write to me.
Mr. Page: I will have to write to my hon. Friend, because the ownership of the land, whether the leases involved were given to local authorities or to organisations at peppercorn rents, will be an immense puzzle to unravel. [Interruption.] No. We are not going to withdraw the order, because the order is at the request of and to the benefit of CISWO, and I would be surprised if any hon. Member tonight did not want to give CISWO the opportunity to go forward to become a charity and fulfil the original obligation that was wanted back in 1952.
Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Page: No, I wish to make some progress.
The Government took careful note of the depth of support for existing services and arranged funding of some £17 million to secure the future of those core services for the disabled, the old and the infirm. The funding falls into two parts: £5 million taking the form of an annual payment of £1 million a year for five years from the new coal companies; and £12 million taking the form of capital endowments from British Coal.
There was also widespread concern on a separate but linked issue, which many hon. Members have raised—namely, recreational facilities.
Ministers gave assurances that British Coal land currently in active use for sports and recreation will be retained for those purposes. That remains our position. I have said that before and say it again. CISWO and the NPFA are closely involved with our discussions with British Coal.
Why should CISWO move to a charitable trust? First, essentially, to improve flexibility. As a Companies Act company, CISWO presides over some 400 area trusts, miners' welfares and convalescent homes, each of which is a trust. Yet it does not enjoy the benefits of charitable status. The change of status increases the range of options for making the best use of resources in the system.
Secondly, CISWO will be looking to a wide range of sources of support and funding. As a charity, it will be well-placed to do that.
The directors of CISWO agreed, in a meeting on 15 February, to a supplemental trust deed. The trust will now be able to perform all the functions of CISWO Ltd. The supplemental deed also puts in place new arrangements for the governance of the CISWO trust.
In brief, there will be three groups of trustees: four will represent employers; four will represent employees; and there will be four general trustees, bringing experience and knowledge of the voluntary sector to the CISWO
792
trust. To ensure continuity in CISWO's strategic direction, four British Coal trustees and four trade union trustees will be appointed as employer and employee trustees.
The role of trustee places substantial obligations and responsibilities on individuals. That will be well appreciated by hon. Members with experience of the voluntary charitable sector. I can say that, having been an honorary treasurer of a national charity. People with knowledge of how charities work and how they best operate are valuable. Therefore, I am pleased that members of the CISWO council, who have guided and supported the activities of CISWO over the years, are prepared to continue their commitment and give their time and energy to the future development of the coal industry's social welfare.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Minister referred to four trustees from the employer, four from the employees and another four. Who will be appointing those other four?
Mr. Page: As I understand it, four will come from the trade unions, four from British Coal and four general trustees will bring additional expertise. We must recognise that CISWO is moving on and will require that extra support.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Page: No, I must bring my remarks to a close.
The charitable trust is therefore in place. The specific purpose of the draft order is to enable the transfer of the functions of CISWO Ltd. to that trust in accordance with section 12(3) of the Miners' Welfare Act 1952.
That section provides that if a resolution is passed or an order made for the winding up of CISWO Ltd., any functions of that organisation shall be transferred to such body or person as may be prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State. Such a resolution was passed on 10 March and I ask hon. Members to support the decision made by CISWO council and trustees of the CISWO trust by affirming the draft order. I commend the draft order to the House.
10.36 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity available to him to reply to the debate. I realise that he has already accepted several interventions, but we spent a fair amount of time on this issue during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill because we considered that the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation played a significant part in the life of coal communities in a number of ways.
As has already been made clear, CISWO is significant because it was set up before the establishment of the welfare state. It started in 1920, partly with funding from management but largely on the basis of funding which came from the men who worked in the industry who, conscious of the inadequacy of the facilities that they had around them, felt it necessary to provide additional services not only for recreation but for the very basis of health and welfare in their communities.
It is therefore with a certain sense of regret and chagrin that we debate the order today. We recognise that, as the ownership of the coal industry has changed, so the basis of funding must change, as it must in so far as the price per tonne has fallen since the demise of the coal industry.

793
Twelve months ago the Government were singing from a rather different hymn sheet from the one that they are using tonight. When the Bill was in its embryonic stage, Opposition Members had a number of discussions with the trustees. The Minister for Energy and Industry met the trustees and it became abundantly clear that he had precious little understanding of the importance and significance of CISWO and its associated organisations' activities.
To some extent the Minister has moved, as he has been made aware of the social welfare organisation—the welfare clubs and the sports facilities. To an extent, we must recognise that that movement has meant that there has been an improvement in the funding of CISWO. We shall have to wait and see whether the improved method of funding will be sufficient to cover the continuing functions of the organisation.
The Minister has paid tribute to the extensive social welfare provisions which still exist. It would be wrong to assume that, because only about 10,000 men are now employed in the coal industry, there are only 10,000 potential beneficiaries; that figure could be multiplied 20 or 30 times, given the families and communities who have depended on the counselling, disablement assistance and grants which have constituted part of the fabric of coal-mining constituencies. It is important for the new funding arrangements to be clear, and for the best use to be made of the money.
The Government have made it clear that they are prepared to provide an endowment of £10 million, which will attract some £600,000 per annum in interest. The licensed operators have committed themselves to contributing £1 million per annum for five years. That will be done on the basis of some form of covenant. Will the Minister assure us that it will be as tax-efficient as possible, so that the nascent charity can benefit fully from the money that the new licensed operators will be required to contribute? I understand that the draft covenant still has some way to go before it can take best advantage of the appropriate tax breaks.
Mr. Enright: I hope that my hon. Friend will deal at some point with British Coal, which none of us trusts. It gave certain undertakings about Frickley colliery. People living in the area who were sold their very small cottages are now left without roads, lighting, cleaning or any other facilities, and we fear that British Coal will do exactly the same in regard to CISWO unless we know who is to appoint the four other trustees. The Minister was coy about that.
Mr. O'Neill: I hope that the Minister will deal with that point when he winds up the debate. I understand that the legislation must also go through the House of Lords, and that the procedure must be completed by 31 March, when there will be a further diminution of the role and responsibilities of British Coal.
I do not think that many Opposition Members—or, I imagine, many Conservative Members who take an interest in the coal industry—have much trust in, or affection for, the rump that constitutes the remainder of British Coal. It has failed to defend the industry and the communities; indeed, it has walked away from them. I am reluctant to say this, but it almost bears testimony to the
794
campaign that was waged by Opposition Members and the trustees of CISWO that the Minister was able to give CISWO some support. Indifference has been the hallmark of the commitment given by British Coal in the recent past.
We are concerned about the nature of the funds from the new licensed operators. We want to ensure that they are as tax-efficient as possible. We also want guarantees from the Government that if any of the licensed operators for any reason default on the payments that they are required to provide, adequate steps will be taken to ensure that the money is forthcoming. Already, in the three months since the change in the coal industry pension schemes, a number of the new, smaller operators—not the three licensed operators mentioned earlier—have reneged on their commitments to the miners' pension schemes. They are defaulting on their payments. We therefore require clear and express guarantees that the Government will undertake correct policing to ensure that the charity is able to expect the funds that the licensed operators have committed themselves to making available. One expects that that might be one of the first things that they would default on if they got into difficulty.
We are told that the threat of licence withdrawal will be the Coal Authority's greatest sanction against licensed operators, but we are concerned that they may not come up with the goods. It may be only £100,000, but such sums are critical to the funding of CISWO. We need guarantees that the back-sliding that has taken place in relation to pension scheme contributions will not take place in this context.
Land is the other point that has exercised most hon. Members. We are talking here not about wee parcels of land dotted around the country, but about 1,000-acre areas, many of them located in prime sites in mining communities. Those sites could be used for industrial or housing developments, but they are desperately required to provide adequate social and welfare facilities.
The Minister was somewhat disingenuous in his replies. I understand that his officials have arrived at an agreement with CISWO that the terms of the leasing of land are cut and dried. The Under-Secretary of State and the Minister for Energy and Industry have yet to put their signatures to the agreement. What the Under-Secretary of State has said today is not good enough. He has not made his point in any threatening way, but he should recognise that Opposition Members know that they are up against the clock, that 31 March is the date by which this has to be signed, sealed and delivered, and that the statutory instrument must be agreed today so that it can go to the Lords and complete its passage.
We do not understand why the Minister is not prepared to go the extra yard to secure the agreement and to allay the anxieties of my colleagues and of many people engaged in sporting, welfare and recreational activities across the country. It would not take much. We want to know what is required and why he has yet to do it. The impression that we get is that it is somehow up to the welfares, but that is not the case: it is up to the Minister to come across.
I take second place to few people in my appreciation of the distance that the Government have already travelled. At one stage, we expected the demise of the welfares and we were concerned about what would happen to the myriad activities for which they are responsible. It would be a shame and a disgrace if those

795
activities were denied to mining communities simply because of the inability or unwillingness of the Minister to get off his backside and to argue with his colleagues in Government to secure the last piece of the jigsaw and to get CISWO on a good footing.
The improvement in the deal is in large measure due to the work of the trustees. We are concerned to ensure that the people who will have the sizeable responsibility for taking care of a substantial amount of money and for myriad social working activities and other matters will be accepted and trusted by the mining communities. We should like a greater degree of frankness from the Minister as to who will appoint those people and what their credentials will he. We want to ensure that they will enjoy the trust of all people involved in mining. I doubt whether many people currently working at or associated with Hobart house and British Coal would be included in the list of the great and good from which the names will he taken. I doubt whether all the trade union organisations will enjoy the greatest degree of confidence across the spectrum of mining communities. I would certainly be concerned if there was not a truly representative group from the other element in this—the communities. People from the communities will be aware of, sympathetic to and enjoy the confidence of those communities.
At this late stage I want to mention what we have achieved. I use the word "we" because my colleagues on the Standing Committee, those who fought the Bill on the Floor of the House and all our colleagues in the trade union movement went a great distance to secure the compromises and advances embodied in the order and I should hate the ship to sink for the lack of a ha'porth of tar. This is important to the areas that many of us are privileged to represent, to those who have given their lives and to families who have given substantial parts of their weekly wage to ensure that there were common facilities in the communities. We want to ensure that that communitarian tradition will he sustained and that it is in the hands of people whom we know and trust. We want the Minister to assure us as to the manner of the financing and the way in which the guarantees will be established; we want an assurance that the land will be available to our people in perpetuity and that those who will have overall responsibility will be people whom we know and trust.
10.51 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred to the Coal Industry Bill, which explored a number of important issues. There are three main issues that we need to clarify: first, funding; secondly, the suitable structure; and, thirdly, the leasing of the recreation land.
The Minister said that there would be four trustees from the union side, four from the management side and four other trustees to be appointed. I am sure that he is aware that previously there was always an even number of trustees from management, an even number from the union and a rotating chair, so things have changed. There may be, for example, a disagreement over land. The union trustees would be easily outvoted on that sort of issue. We are concerned that the situation has changed so radically and we hope that the Minister will elaborate on the arrangements for the trustees when he replies.
796
Another issue of concern is funding, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan referred. Funding is significant because of the important role that CISWO has played in mining communities. It does a great deal of work for disabled and sick people and for the disadvantaged generally.
The funding is insufficient. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan explained, over the first five years, there is £1.65 million. That is much less than previously. It means that many of the services that CISWO has offered in the past will no longer be provided. In the sixth year, things become even more dire. Between the sixth and ninth years, the amount per year will decrease from £1.65 million to £1.63 million. I understand that it has been suggested that the trustees should be able to raise £500,000 between the sixth and ninth years to augment the moneys from the annuity. At the same time, I understand that a special expenditure fund is to be drawn on, which will be exhausted by the 10th year. In effect, CISWO will face a very difficult situation by that 10th year because, no matter how enthusiastic the trustees are, raising £500,000 a year for a good number of years—at least six years—will tax that enthusiasm. It is rather unlikely that they will be able to continue raising such amounts of money.
Does the Minister have plans for further funding? Are there plans, for example, to assist CISWO from the sixth year to the ninth year if the trustees are unable to raise £500,000 each year? What plans does he have for after the 10th year?
There is also great concern over leased land. Much of it is leased from British Coal. The Minister will be aware that we withdrew some of the amendments to the Coal Industry Bill on the basis of assurances that we were given. It now appears that some of those assurances may not, in some respects, be fulfilled in the way in which we thought they might. For example, we were given to believe that some of the land might be transferred to the Coal Authority, yet when the Minister opened the debate, he made no mention of that.
I shall draw the Minister's attention to two great concerns in my constituency. First, the North Gawber welfare is currently in receivership, but its football pitch is used regularly by the community. Will the Minister ensure that that football pitch is kept as a leisure amenity in the community? Secondly, there is concern regarding land in the village of Worsborough. The girl guides' camp is on a piece of land covering 3.34 acres which is owned by British Coal. The area is regularly used and it is important to the village. I hope that if the Minister cannot give an answer at the Dispatch Box, he will be prepared to look into the matter with a view to ensuring that the land is handed over to CISWO. If that is not possible, the land should go to the local authority.
Mr. Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend is being typically modest when he refers to some of the CISWO land in his constituency. Will he reflect on one of the cricket pitches in his constituency in the village of Cawthorne, which traditionally wins the title of the best kept village in Yorkshire? For a village in Yorkshire, that is no mean achievement. Will he reflect on the fact that a number of private entrepreneurs would like to buy the cricket pitch in Cawthorne from CISWO? The cricket pitch is a marvellous village amenity and is likely to be

797
sold to the private sector if there are four union trustees, four management trustees and four trustees from the voluntary sector—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. This is a very long intervention and it is time that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) was allowed to resume his speech.
Mr. Illsley: I would just like to ask my hon. Friend—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. No more.
Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for prompting me. Cawthorne cricket club rests in a very beautiful part of Yorkshire, in a small village, and property developers have had their eye on it. The issue may well have to be determined by the vote of the trustees. The interests of the community may take second place to business interests, which may influence the vote of the trustees. We are concerned about the composition of the trustees. We would be much happier with the previous structure of an even number of trustees and a chair by rotation.
I ask the Minister for an assurance that the lands that are leased from British Coal will be handed to CISWO and that the two areas in my constituency to which I have referred will continue to be available for recreation.
11 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We are having to discuss these matters because of the privatisation of the coal industry. It is a pity that the Tory rebels were not around at the time. They could have joined us and prevented the privatisation from taking place. Perhaps it is futile to think along those lines when pits have shut throughout Britain. They are still closing. I hear that one in Nottingham is on the skids.
We have seen the devastation of mining communities. We now find that the welfare organisation, with its grounds and recreation facilities, is placed in jeopardy. It is little wonder that we are greatly concerned about the order to deal with CISWO and its activities on behalf of the injured, including paraplegics. I have in mind visiting, for example.
The recreation grounds could be called the glamour part of CISWO. Most people know about the cricket and football grounds. We are talking of grounds where the Charltons played and where Kevin Keegan learnt his trade. Some of the most famous English cricketers used the grounds during the early years of their careers. Those of us who represent mining communities are here tonight to defend the grounds. We are anxious to ensure that a tradition continues.
We are naturally peeved that the pits have gone. We have a duty to protect local amenities in what were mining areas. It has already been said that all the amenities were provided by miners in the past. They were not provided
798
by the Budges of this world. Budge has made no contribution to the welfare amenities. He has produced nothing.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: He has opened some pits.
Mr. Skinner: He has helped to close them.
The welfare facilities have come from miners over generations. Along comes R. J. Budge and, from what we have heard, it seems that he will recommend about half the CISWO trustees. It is a fine state of affairs when the man is operating on a shaky financial basis. He won a tender on one of the most crooked proposals in any privatisation package. He makes a £900 million bid and wins the tender. He then has discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry and the bid is reduced by £100 million. The fellow will be able to have four of his henchmen on CISWO. We cannot be satisfied with what the Minister has told us about the trustees. Where will they come from? How many of them will be scabs? How many will come via Mr. R. J. Budge and such people?
The net result will be that the whole thing will turn into a Tory quango. The Minister has not satisfied us. In a few years, or in an even shorter time, some of the welfares will be cherry-picked. They will be sold off and there will be yuppies in every pit village, who will gradually change the cricket and football grounds into parts of leafy suburbialand. They will have pampas grass in the gardens.
We are not satisfied with what the Minister said. We know that there is a 31 March deadline, but unless he can give us satisfactory answers and a guarantee that no land will be sold, and unless we hear today who the trustees will he and who will appoint them, some of us feel that we have no alternative but to oppose the order.
11.5 pm
Mr. Eric Clarke: My speech will be short, too. I am disappointed that the Minister is not sitting beside the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy, because he, like us, went through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb. He was the one who gave us many of the assurances that such problems would not arise.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), I was under the impression that the land would be given to the new Coal Authority, yet all of a sudden we found out that British Coal was auctioning it all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) said that he had paid for these assets. In fact, we all paid for them. At Roslin colliery, the first colliery where I worked, the baths and the bicycle sheds were provided by CISWO through the men's contributions. They were then transferred to the jurisdiction of British Coal. Many of the assets were paid for by the men and the communities themselves. Even when we talk about a few collieries, the House must realise that thousands of people provided the assets there.
Those assets—the miners' welfares and recreational facilities—make life tolerable in the villages to which they belong. Many of the individuals who, quite rightly, take advantage of them have given their lives and their health to the industry. They are worried about the future and about what is happening to CISWO.

799
The Minister had given me the impression that the facilities were protected and the land would remain, but now I wonder what is happening to the money paid for the land being sold by British Coal. Is it going into a central fund or will it go directly to the Treasury? Those are the questions that worry and frustrate us. Will the money gained from the cherry picking that will take place go to the Treasury, too?
Sometimes the assets can become liabilities, and local authorities cannot inherit them without some sort of grant to get them into condition and to provide for their upkeep and maintenance. There is not the money for people to contribute directly to the funds now, because most of those who use the facilities are retired or redundant miners and their families.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that the order is a leap forward—indeed, it is a light year forward from what we were offered originally. I agree that it is constructive. But, like everybody in all parts of the British coalfield, I am worried that we may again be being hived off as a problem. The Government wanted to privatise the coal industry, so they had to get rid of us awkward characters who were worried about our communities.
I am sorry that the Minister has to answer the debate; but he is a member of the Government, so he should answer it. There are questions that need to be answered and blank spaces that need to be filled in by the Government and by the Minister in this debate. I hope that, if he does not have the answers now, we will get them in the future. I also hope that dialogue will continue even after the motion is passed today.
11.9 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: It would be churlish not to recognise the movement that has been made on CISWO. When the debate on British Coal started, there was real anxiety among some of us that the Government did not understand the value of CISWO and thought that they could discard it. I am pleased that we have moved to a position where there will be a charitable trust and CISWO is to be funded.
We will return to the issues because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said, the funding is relatively short term, and I am anxious about the future of CISWO. It has been given a lifeboat, but times are difficult in the coalfield communities and we may well have to revisit this part of funding in 10 years' time.
The problems of the coalfields will not go away. It is okay for people to talk about regeneration, but we must understand that that regeneration will take time. The recreational land about which we have talked to the Minister is important as part of that regeneration. We must try to nail the issue tonight, because the trust will be set up from 31 March. The clock is ticking and assets must be transferred into that new charitable trust.
There are three problems about the land. First, it is my impression that British Coal frankly does not know what it owns. An example of that is the allotment land by the old Linby colliery site, where there has been an absolute denial of ownership of those allotments. British Coal says that it does not own the land, and that the county council owns it. The county council, however, denies that it owns the land.
800
I note that British Coal is taking rents from allotment holders. It is vital that British Coal decides quickly who owns the land and transfers those lands and properties. One of the problems is that, in the rush to privatise and get rid of British Coal, the staff have been left in flux. There is nobody there to do the work, and the issues need to be resolved quickly.
Secondly, I must draw the Minister's attention to the issue of allotments. If he wants to have a fight, he can take on the allotment holders of England who are firmly tied to that land. There has been no consideration at all of what will happen to allotment land. Can the Minister give us an assurance tonight that allotments will be transferred across to CISWO and that we can then talk about the kind of co-operatives and partnerships we might need to keep the allotment holders happy? My postbag is full of letters from allotment holders. If the Minister wants a fight, they will take him on, and they are a powerful group to consider.
Finally, while we are talking about recreational land, it is clear that advanced discussions have taken place between British Coal, CISWO and the National Playing Fields Association. I have the impression—the Minister may tell me that I am wrong—that a schedule has been drawn up. That needs ratification. Yet the clock is ticking. We have an opportunity tonight to question the Minister about the way forward for the land. Can he not give us a little more clarity about what will happen? What land will go to CISWO? What will go to the National Playing Fields Association? My colleagues speak with passion on those subjects because we have seen the passing of British Coal. We want to maintain the best traditions of the mining communities. CISWO can embody that. It can be a step into the future.
I hope that the Minister will do his best to reassure not only us but coalfield communities, which have had a tough time in the past few years and now look for some real messages of hope.
11.15 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: I should like to take the Minister back to his opening submission. He said that the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation was a limited company formed in 1952 under the Miners' Welfare Act 1952. He went on to say that it had never achieved charitable status with the charity commissioners as a result of an oversight or mistake. I think that those were his words. He will intervene if I have got that wrong.
I should like to take issue with the Minister on that one point, which goes to the heart of the matter. I do not for one minute believe that anyone forgot to register CISWO as a charitable organisation with the charity commissioners. I believe that CISWO was set up as a company for a particular reason. I suggest to the Minister that CISWO was set up as a company by the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. They had an equal number of shares and made an equal contribution to funding. The chair of the company rotated from the National Coal Board to the National Union of Mineworkers in alternate years. I could be wrong, but the Minister might want to answer that point when he replies to the debate.
I have a little experience of CISWO as I once applied to be its chief executive. In applying for that position, I went in some detail into the structure of CISWO. I dispute

801
the assertion that someone in CISWO overlooked the fact that it had to seek charitable status with the charity commissioners rather than be set up as a limited company.
Let us take the matter a stage further and consider why CISWO should have been a limited company rather than a charity. To do so we have to examine trust law and charity law and consider whether a body can achieve charitable status with the charity commissioners for a tightly defined group of beneficiaries. Will the charity commissioners accept an application for charitable status where the beneficiaries are solely mineworkers? I suggest that in 1952 the charity commissioners would not grant charitable status to a group of beneficiaries restricted solely to mineworkers and their families, hence the need for a limited company. There was never any intention for CISWO to seek charitable status, which the Minister says it overlooked.
Under the order, we are now to leap from a limited company set up in 1952 to a new CISWO, a new charity. I understand that the application for charitable status has already been accepted by the charity commissioners. The terms are that there will be four trustees from the mineworkers' unions, four trustees from management and four trustees from certain voluntary organisations which the Minister has not identified. He has not even identified a range of voluntary organisations from which those four trustees could come.
We move on from there being a limited company whose directors are equally divided between the union and the company, with a rotating chairman. There are now three groups—a union group, a management group and a separate group. Let us consider each group in turn.
There are now two unions—the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and the National Union of Mineworkers, a split group with four trusteeships. On the management side, four trusteeships are available to 29 or 30 different companies. Several private companies now operate in the mining industry, the most well-known of which is RJB Mining, but in South Wales and other areas there are many private companies. There are four trusteeships among a great many companies there.
There are four trusteeships for charities, of which the only one mentioned this evening is the National Playing Fields Association, which has never previously been in the ball game, as far as I can remember. Why should the National Playing Fields Association be included? We are talking not only about playing fields, but about substantial land holdings, miners' welfare premises, licensed premises, clubs, pubs and so on.
In one leap we go from a company with an even spread of directors from the NUM, British Coal and the National Coal Board, to a charity with trustees who are appointed from three separate areas.
CISWO's property holdings give some cause for concern. Its property holdings in mining areas are specific to those mining areas but it also has fields—substantial property holdings that could be attractive to outside bodies.
The split of trustees—four from management, four from the unions, four from voluntary organisations—means that the unions, which traditionally represented the opinions of the mining areas and previously held 50 per
802
cent. of the vote, can no longer voice those opinions in the new organisation. They can be overruled, so the wishes of mining areas are likely to be overruled.
Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) suggested—that we could be seeking funding in about 10 years' time—the new charity may sell off the assets of CISWO very quickly, not to local authorities inside whose boundaries those assets are situated, but to the highest bidder, not for leisure purposes but for development. I give the Minister an example that occurred in my constituency recently, whereby a brewery applied for planning permission to build houses on a bowling green alongside a public house. It wanted to do away with a leisure facility and build houses on what has been a bowling green for many years. That is the sort of situation that may confront us.
Will the Minister explain why CISWO is to become a charity? Why cannot it remain a company? Why is CISWO now subject to three different groups of trustees? When was it agreed that four of its trustees should come from the voluntary sector, as opposed to the trustees being derived from management and the unions within the industry? Why are trustees from outside being thrust upon CISWO? Will assets now be sold off to the highest bidder in the private sector because the trustees who represent mining areas—that is, trustees from the mining unions—will be out-voted?
11.24 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: My remarks will be brief because other hon. Members have already made many important points.
The process of privatisation has been very traumatic for mining communities throughout the country. Retired miners in north Warwickshire have been extremely concerned about what will happen to the many facilities that they use and upon which they base their entire social lives.
Those retired miners will hold their annual general meeting tomorrow morning to discuss, among other things, the future of Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation Ltd. They will be concerned to receive answers to the questions that my hon. Friends have asked tonight. I think that they will appreciate that the Government have moved a long way since the privatisation process began.
The order appears to rush the process and, in that rush, there is a danger that certain questions may be left unanswered. On the face of it, they may not appear to be particularly important questions; but they may give rise to issues which may involve the new trust in legal complexity and controversy which would severely obstruct its ability to undertake the tasks that it has been set up to perform.
Mr. Jack Thompson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has the same problems in his constituency as I have in mine. There is an agreement between CISWO and the local authority about the mining welfare facility in my constituency, which was extended by the local authority. It is organised and run on a trustee basis by the local authority and CISWO trustees. I understand that there are about 500 similar agreements throughout the country. Local authorities are already under financial pressure and are concerned about their continued

803
operation and when CISWO also comes under pressure the demands to dispose of those facilities will become intense.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Unless many of those issues are addressed—and, in undertaking this process, the Government have a responsibility to address them and to come up with some clear answers, if not tonight then as soon as possible thereafter—CISWO may experience a great deal of difficulty in carrying out its designated duties, in terms of not only its various agreements with local authorities but its dealings in leased land under private ownership. All those legal problems must be resolved sooner rather than later.
In his reply, I hope that the Minister will address the legal problem that he ducked earlier. He must set out clearly how the trustees—particularly the trade union trustees—will be selected.
My final point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). Allotments are one of the main issues that concern many retired miners. I very much hope that we can have some clear answers on what will happen to those allotments and on what promises and undertakings the Government can make to allotment holders that their future will be protected.
11.29 pm
Mr. Page: In opening the debate, I commended the commitment given and pledged again by the council and trustees of CISWO. I was born in Tredegar in south Wales, so I am not unaware of the role of the coal industry in that society and the role fulfilled by the various miners' welfares. The advisers and staff of CISWO, led by their chief executive, Mr. Vernon Jones, must also be commended. They have borne a heavy burden of additional work in recent months in preparing the transfer of activities from the company to the trust and for the future of the trust.
It may he helpful if I say to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) that when CISWO Ltd. was formed in 1952, the intention was to register it as a charity, but there was a degree of apprehension and nervousness that its aims and objectives on the recreational side would not have been compatible with charity law at the time. That was why it would not become a charitable trust.
Mr. Illsley: I wonder whether the Minister heard what I said. The charity commissioners would not accept the charity with such narrow charitable objectives as those available only for mine workers and their families, hence the decision to stick with limited company status.
Mr. Page: I believe that the hon. Gentleman said that it was never the intention to form it as a charity. The original intention was to form it as a charity, but the trustees had to go down the limited liability route for the very reasons on which the hon. Gentleman and I now agree.
At the same time, CISWO has been able to maintain the complex and dynamic range of services for which it has become well respected over the years. It has been planning for the future.
There will be four representatives from the employees, four from the employers and four other independent trustees. The employees will appoint four representatives,
804
those from the employers will be appointed by British Coal and the service is for five years. On the four that will be from the independent sector, the Government are in discussion with CISWO to choose suitable people that can provide the advice from the voluntary sector to which I referred in my opening speech. Therefore, 12 people will be working together to move the charity forward. After their term of five years, they will be in a position to replicate themselves and move on.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) asked about particular sites. It will come as no surprise to him that I do not have a clue about the individual cases that he mentioned. I shall certainly take him up on his offer that I write to him, although I repeat that the Government have given assurances that all lands in active recreational use will be maintained, and that any land leased from British Coal, for example, for recreational use will go either to the National Playing Fields Association or to CISWO. That is the position, but I shall write to him about the individual cases.
Mr. Illsley: Before the Minister moves on, may I bring him back to the point about charitable status? At the start of his reply to the debate, he mentioned that it was thought in 1952 that perhaps CISWO could not achieve charitable status. Why can the company achieve charitable status now, but it could not in 1952, when there were other worries? Why has it achieved charitable status quickly now under privatisation, when it could not do so under nationalisation?
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman seeks devious reasons at every available opportunity. I hate to disappoint him, but it may have crossed his mind that one or two laws have been passed which have changed the status of charities and enabled CISWO to become a charitable trust.
Mr. Illsley indicated dissent.
Mr. Page: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head, because that is the answer.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) mentioned allotments. I know to my cost how dear that issue is to many people. British Coal's original intention was to put allotments into the parcels of land to be sold. I can give the hon. Gentleman some good news: Ministers were unhappy about that proposal and have asked British Coal to reconsider its position. The hon. Gentleman's words tonight will ring in my ears when the details come before me.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been generous in doing so today. He assured us, and we have, of course, taken him at his word, that legislation on charities has changed to enable CISWO to undertake what it previously could not. Will he assure us that, if difficulties arise, or if his advice is not as clear as he thought, legislation will be passed as quickly as possible to enable CISWO to do what I hope we both want it to do?
Mr. Page: I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would come behind CISWO if everything went wrong because I believe that the funding is a generous settlement, which should guarantee CISWO's services well into the future. CISWO itself appreciates that it must be able to stand on its own two feet. It will have charitable status and, as I have some experience of

805
charitable work, I know what can be achieved when an organisation moves into that area. As a national charity, more fund-raising opportunities will be open to it, such as company donations; sponsorships; grants from other charities, foundations and trusts; local and central Government grants to support specific services; and individual covenants and endowments. I know how much money can come in from endowments and the work that can be done to get those additions to the charity's income.
Mr. O'Neill: In the light of the Minister's experience, is he satisfied that the arrangement that has been entered into by the new licensed operators is the most tax efficient? Will he assure us that there will be guarantees against defaulting by any of those who are required to contribute to that new financial arrangement?
Mr. Page: Had the hon. Gentleman held on for a split second, he would have seen that I was about to come to that subject.
Mr. O'Neill: I grew tired of waiting.
Mr. Page: I know, but there we are. The covenant forms are a question for the companies, and it will be for the companies to work with CISWO to agree the best method. They are obliged to pass over the sums of money concerned, which is what they will do. On financial failure and guarantees, the Government will not be in a position to provide the guarantees that the hon. Gentleman seeks. But, in granting the licences in the first place, I do not believe that the situation that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about can even be contemplated.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the pressure of time, given that the 31st is the deadline. I can look him straight in the eye and say that, if some agreement has been reached and CISWO is working it out, it has not yet crossed my desk. I have had no sight of it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must restrain himself slightly because, on the basis of what he said this evening, I shall make that the first question that I shall ask tomorrow morning.
In bringing this order to a conclusion, I pay special tribute also to the many supporters and voluntary helpers in the coalfield communities who have effectively helped to deliver the services by CISWO to those convalescent homes and day centres. Their work is vital and well appreciated. Long may it continue.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 29.

Division No. 103]

[11.29 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Brandreth, Gyles

Mason, Rupert (Torbay)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Amess, David

Browning, Mrs Angela

Arbuthnot, James

Burns, Simon

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Burt, Alistair

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Butler, Peter

Ashby, David

Carrington, Matthew

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Carttiss, Michael

Bates, Michael

Cash, William

Beresford, Sir Paul

Chapman, Sydney

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Booth, Hartley

Conway, Derek

Bowis, John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

806

Cran, James

MacKay, Andrew

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'byire)

Maclean, David

Day, Stephen

Maitland, Lady Olga

Devlin, Tim

Malone, Gerald

Dover, Den

Merchant, Piers

Duncan, Alan

Neubert, Sir Michael

Elletson, Harold

Nicholls, Patrick

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Fabricant, Michael

Norris, Steve

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Forman, Nigel

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Pickles, Eric

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

French, Douglas

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Gallie, Phil

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Gillan, Cheryl

Shaw, David (Dover)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Spink, Dr Robert

Hargreaves, Andrew

Sproat, Iain

Hawksley, Warren

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hayes, Jerry

Stephen, Michael

Heald, Oliver

Stern, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Sweeney, Walter

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Jack, Michael

Thomason, Roy

Jenkin, Bernard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Thurnham, Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom

Tredinnick, David

Kirkhope, Timothy

Twinn, Dr Ian

Knapman, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Wallar, Gary

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Knox, Sir David

Wells, Bowen

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Whittingdale, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Widdecombe, Ann

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Willetts, David

Legg, Barry

Wolfson, Mark

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Wood, Timothy

Lidington, David

Yeo, Tim

Lightbown, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Dr. Liam Fox.

NOES

Alton, David

Illsley, Eric

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

Llwyd, Elfyn

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

McCartney, Ian

Campbell-Savours, D N

Mahon, Alice

Chidgey, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Clapham, Michael

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Pike, Peter L

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Rendel, David

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Simpson, Alan

Donohoe, Brian H

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Tipping, Paddy

Graham, Thomas

Wise, Audrey

Hall, Mike

Wray, Jimmy

Heppell, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mr. Dennis Skinner and

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Miners' Welfare Act 1952 (Transfer of Functions of Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.
  That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

  HOVERCRAFT
  That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  COURT OF AUDITORS
  That this House takes note of OJ C327, the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1993, together with the institutions' replies; and supports the Government's efforts to improve Community financial management.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, if the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—(Mr. Burns.]

AGRICULTURE
Ordered,
That Mr. Christopher Gill be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Sir Roger Moate be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mackay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

NATIONAL HERITAGE
Ordered,
That Mr. John Sykes be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Nigel Waterson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mackay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION
11.50 pm
Mr. David Evans: I have much pleasure in presenting the petition, which has 1,250 signatures.
The Panshanger Community Action Group of Welwyn Garden City in the County of Hertfordshire Declares that it is deeply concerned that the proposed chemical machining process in the premises of Messrs TKR International Ltd will pose unreasonable and unacceptable risks to the health and safety of the residents of the area and in particular to their children who attend nearby schools.
It also Declares that the process, (which will use considerable amounts of nitric and hydrofluoric acids and will release a substantial quantity of chlorinated hydrocarbon solvent directly into the environment) is an entirely unsuitable one for a small factory estate with light industry and storage warehouses together with a major food distribution centre. Furthermore, it should be recognized that the factory has many houses and allotments in very close proximity and that there are three schools within a few hundred metres of the site.
The group is also seriously concerned that the transport by road of concentrated acids and solvents and their storage and security on site, together with the removal of toxic and hazardous waste by road tanker will present an unreasonable and continuing health hazard to the residents and children of the area.
The Petitioners therefore respectfully ask the House of Commons to request Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution to refuse a licence for the process as proposed, to be carried out in Welwyn Garden City to the detriment of Her Majesty's loyal subjects.
The Committee of The Panshanger Action Group acting on behalf of the residents of the area respectfully present this petition and remain,
Yours faithfully
M Brunning
J Brunning
F Grover
E A Grover.
To lie upon the Table.

Nitrate-vulnerable Zones
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Burns.]
11.52 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss, in particular, the nitrate-vulnerable zone at Nayland which affects my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo).
I welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to the debate, but I do not envy him his position. Researching for the debate, I thought that I had uncovered a new and interesting topic in the implementation of nitrate-vulnerable zones, but it turns out that the saga has been running for a long time. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is responsible neither for the period in which his Department was sponsoring discussions on the relevant directive in the European Community, nor for the implementation of the directive, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Why on earth has my hon. Friend been put in such an invidious position, given that he has very little responsibility for what I am about to discuss? The problem with nitrate-vulnerable zones at Nayland and elsewhere is that they have unquantifiable adverse effects on land and asset values of farms. The important question that we should ask about the implementation of the directive is whether it is effective and fair.
The basis of the directive is simply to limit nitrates in rivers and water courses so that nitrates do not concentrate in the water supply during abstraction. Sadly, that was effectively rubbished in a debate on 1 November 1989. As soon as the subject of today's debate appeared on the Order Paper, colleagues who have been in Parliament for considerably longer than I started sending me all the material that had been available for many years. On 1 November 1989, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) drew attention in column 434 of Hansard to a House of Lords report.
Nitrates are said to have caused blue baby syndrome and stomach cancer, but the House of Lords report said that blue baby syndrome had become
"virtually non-existent in Western Europe".
In the past 35 years, there have been a mere 14 cases in the UK, the last of which was in 1972. The only recorded death was in 1950, when the nitrate level in the water was found to be 885 mg per litre. The directive sets a limit of nearly 50 mg per litre, but that did not trouble the authors of the directive.
The House of Lords report went on to rubbish the idea that a connection existed between nitrates in water and stomach cancer, pointing out in particular that, where nitrate concentrations in water are highest—that includes regions in my constituency and in east England—the incidence of stomach cancer is one of the lowest. Having been successfully rubbished in 1989, the directive subsequently became enacted as law, as is the way with the European Community legislative machine.
The pressure for the directive involved environmental correctness more than practical benefit. I want to consider the implementation of the directive, the methodology of
810
which compounds the impracticality. It depends on regular measurements in water courses. If less than 5 per cent. of those measurements fail the test and show more than 50 parts per million in the water, a nitrate-vulnerable zone for the catchment area of the water course is not needed, but if the measurements exceed that number, a nitrate-vulnerable zone is needed. The tests in relation to the nitrate-vulnerable zone in Nayland were conducted in 1992. From the particular abstraction point used, the water failed the test on a number of occasions.
The techniques used to measure nitrates in the water are interesting. The National Rivers Authority and Anglian Water sampled the same water, apparently using the same method, at Clapham on the great River Ouse in 1992 and 1993. On several occasions, the difference in the measurements were substantial. On one occasion, they differed by 14 per cent., on another by 10 per cent., on another by 86 per cent., and on another by 10.6 per cent. Occasionally, one tester recorded a fail and another recorded a pass. Clearly, a problem exists in terms of the way in which the measurements are taken. Some statistical adjustment is needed to reflect the probability of inaccuracy in the information, but the implementation of the directive has not taken care of that.
Having established by that rather unreliable method that a nitrate-vulnerable zone would be necessary, the boundaries of the zone were drawn up. It is difficult to establish any causal link between the agricultural practices in the Nayland nitrate vulnerable zone, as it is being provisionally designated, and the nitrate content in the water courses because the concentration of nitrates in the water courses occur at unpredictable times—sometimes when the flows are high and sometimes when they are low. That means that it is difficult to be fair or objective about what the boundaries of the nitrate-vulnerable zone should be.
In the Nayland zone, it is evident that very little nitrate is being used in farming. A total of 50 per cent. of the land is used for purposes which do not require fertiliser application at all. The grassland is almost all managed within the Suffolk river valleys environmentally sensitive area, so there is no intensive grazing. There is no intensive livestock or pig rearing. Furthermore, for some years farming practice in the area has been conducted on the basis of the minimum appropriate nitrate application, with those applications being made at the time of maximum take-up of nitrogen by plants.
The high nitrate readings at the Langham intake—the abstraction point from which the samples were taken—are unlikely to he influenced by the imposition of the proposed zone, particularly bearing in mind that the code of good agricultural practice is already being operated by those who farm in the proposed zone.
That raises the question whether the directive is being implemented by designating this nitrate-vulnerable zone and, if it is not being implemented, what changes are likely to be required, either in the short term when the Government admit that the objectives of the directive are not being fulfilled or when the whole thing comes up for review in the future.
I can inform my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that I took up all these concerns, along with representatives of the National Farmers Union and an

811
agricultural consultant, at a meeting with my noble Friend Earl Howe, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, kindly organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South. My noble Friend took on board our main concerns and acknowledged that there were difficulties with the directive. In response to a letter that I wrote to him, he replied:
"I can assure you that the Government does have a great deal of sympathy with your concerns about the Directive and that is why we tried to use"—
I emphasise "tried"—
"the flexibility contained within the Directive to keep the designations to a minimum."
I am grateful for the efforts of colleagues at the Ministry to try to contain the damage caused Ey the directive. We went through the gamut of the problems with my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and he listened sympathetically. However, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to get in touch with his colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ask about the latest timing for implementation of the Nayland nitrate-vulnerable zone. I should be grateful if he would ask whether there is any possibility that there will be changes in the criteria for implementation before the next four-year review. That remains a concern of the NFU in particular.
I am told that some recent letters to Ministers appear to extend the criteria to river catchments where the nitrate level could exceed—rather than has already exceeded—the threshold. That is contrary to the relevant paragraph of the proposal document and to the proposals themselves, where all 11 existing river catchments put forward actually exceeded the threshold in 1992. My guess is that the Government are having difficulty reconciling this minimalist approach with the overall objectives of the directive.
Then there is the whole question of what will happen when the matter is reviewed again in four years' time. When it emerges that there is no connection between farming in the nitrate-vulnerable zones and the effects on nitrate content and that there are still readings above the prescribed limit, we may well find that there is pressure on the Government to extend the zones further—to what effect, I am not absolutely certain, as it is extremely difficult to tell what connection there is between the nitrate content of the water and the farming practices on the land.
A note from the Library informs me:
"It is worth stressing that although fertilisers are based on nitrates, the problem of excess nitrates in drinking water in some areas does not, in a simple sense, derive from farmers using too much fertiliser which is washed away by rain directly into the water supply. Much nitrate leaching derives from the ploughing up of grassland years ago and there is little that can be done to prevent the nitrates from slowly trickling into the water supply."
Indeed, research which has been done since the whole issue arose shows that it may take 20 years for the effects of changed farming practices to be reflected in the nitrate content of water courses.
What are the solutions to the position in which we find ourselves? The obvious solution would be to seek a change in the directive. I understand that my colleagues in the Government have already sought to change the target level of nitrates in drinking water and in water courses from an absolute limit of 50 parts per million to
812
an average of 50 parts per million. That may well have been the original intention of the directive, as the World Health Organisation prescribes an absolute limit of 100 parts per million and is satisfied with an average of 50 parts per million in drinking water.
I return to the point that it may have been the European Commission's fit of environmental correctness which encouraged it to go for the highest standards of drinking water and river water in the world, albeit at disproportionate cost. I understand that my colleague the Member of the European Parliament for North Essex and South Suffolk, Anne McIntosh, has already tabled a question to the Commission on this subject and that the Commission has absolutely no intention of proposing any alteration either to the drinking water directive or to the nitrates directive. That leaves us in a bind.
The only alternative would be to challenge the matter in the European Court. I reckon that there are two grounds on which the directive may be challenged. The first is subsidiarity. On what basis does the international application of the directive justify itself when we are dealing with rivers on our side of the North sea and rivers on the other side of the North sea? Hon. Members may be interested to learn that the North sea is the issue of concern. Concern has been raised about the incursion of excessive nutrients into the North sea, which is affecting pollution there.
To be realistic, the River Stour, which runs through my constituency, represents a rather minor element of pollution in the North sea. Some figures from the Library on the River Rhine, which is obviously a very large river, show that although its total nitrogen content is very low, it is estimated that the Rhine and the Meuse between them contributed about 50 per cent. of the total nitrogen load, compared with about 10 per cent. from all the UK rivers which run into the North sea. Unfortunately, although subsidiarity was used—possibly—as a test to justify the directive, we find that the directive is being driven by the concerns of other continental countries which do not apply much to us. That would explain MAFF's minimalist interpretation and implementation of it. That first challenge would probably fail because of the concerns of other countries.
The other challenge that we could mount is a test of proportionality. From speaking to MAFF officials and others, it is clear to me that the directive is right out of proportion with what it seeks to achieve. The 50 parts per million limit is disproportionately expensive compared with the objective that we are trying to achieve, and the means of achieving the objective are disproportionate and inappropriate to its achievement.
We are rather undermined in any challenge in the European Court because, despite what some MAFF officials have attempted to lead us to believe, the Government were not outvoted on the directive. It was not imposed on the Government—we supported it. It was agreed unanimously. That was made clear to me in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Whereas my right hon. Friend seems enthusiastic about the flexibility that we gained during the negotiation of the directive, MAFF is finding that the interpretation of flexibility is fraught with difficulty and results in unfair, discriminatory and arbitrary practices in respect of some farmers, which the Ministry finds it extremely difficult to justify.

813
I remind the House that once a directive has been agreed to by unanimity it can be changed only by unanimity. That puts us in an extremely invidious position. I regret dragging my hon. Friend the Minister to the Dispatch Box on these issues, for which he was not responsible. He is not responsible either for the way in which policy is being implemented. I hope that he has heard my concerns sympathetically and that he will take them to the heart of government. If we are to avoid the over-regulation of business and farming and loss of jobs, we must tackle the problems that stem from the heart of Europe.
12.10 am
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to have the chance to contribute briefly to the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has said, some of my constituents are affected by the Nayland nitrate-vulnerable zone. I endorse everything that he said about the specifics of the zone.
My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the lack of any proper scientific basis for the directive. It is seriously flawed in that respect. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us an unequivocal assurance that his officials are pursuing with the Commission the urgent need to revise the directive. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North said about unanimity, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that he is contacting all the other 14 members of the Council to get their support for urgent and overdue reform.
I hope also that my hon. Friend the Minister will talk to his colleagues in MAFF to get them to agree to defer any action to implement the directive at Nayland and many other parts of the country. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's assurances.
12.12 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I wondered whether I was to hear a dissertation on hobby-horse riding. It seems, however, that markers have been set for consultation. We are in the first stage of that consultation.
I think that we can all accept that maintaining and improving the quality of water by setting quality standards is an essential element of the sustainable management of our water resources. Such an approach is essential for safeguarding our drinking water supply and for protecting aquatic life. It is also important that standards should be respected. Elevated levels of nitrate can lead to problems. That is mainly where the water is used as drinking water, or if putrefaction occurs.
When there is a risk that water for potable water supply exceeds the nitrate ceiling set in the drinking water directive, there are three options. First, the water could be cleaned up. That means that the water companies would remove the nitrates at their customers' expense before the water was used for public supply. That is being done by several water companies, in instances of nitrate-polluted sources. Secondly, the nitrate could be reduced at source. That is where our measure to reduce nitrate pollution from agriculture comes in. Nitrate-vulnerable zones are one strand of a package of measures to reduce nitrate pollution
814
from agriculture. The third option is a combination of the first and second. That reflects the current situation in the United Kingdom.
We broadly welcome the Commission's proposal in the directive to reduce nitrate pollution from agriculture. The directive was published in 1989, which was slightly before my time. It was in line with the Government's policies on protecting the quality of our water resources. However, several aspects of the proposal caused concern. During negotiations, many of those aspects were addressed and amended. The final text incorporated many of the amendments, as we would have wished.
The Government signed up to the nitrates directive when we were content that it represented what we wanted in terms of providing a balance between maintaining a viable and efficient agriculture and protecting and improving our environment. Within its overall objective and deadlines, the directive offers discretion on how to achieve the requirements, and we have taken advantage of that where appropriate.
Mr. William Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Hatton groundwater scheme is the basis on which the prototype Government decision was taken? Yet the Staffordshire farmers examined the matter extremely carefully and came to the conclusion that, having regard to the realities of what the Hatton scheme has demonstrated over the past 90 to 100 years, the European directive was completely out of order.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said, that question has been considered over a period without any satisfactory result, so I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to answer it directly now. But will he be good enough to take the matter back for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to reconsider?
Sir Paul Beresford: I should certainly be happy to take that question forward and to ask for a response from MAFF. But as my hon. Friend understands, as it is predominantly a MAFF question, I could not be expected to be able to answer it this evening.
Our approach has resulted in proposed vulnerable zones covering 650,000 hectares, compared with the 2 million hectares initially estimated in the negotiations. For example, there are far fewer surface water vulnerable zones than was originally expected.
My hon. Friends will know that we have set up a consultation process to seek the views of those likely to be affected by the proposed vulnerable zones. It is worth regarding tonight's debate as part of that package. The intention is to confirm the accuracy of zone boundaries before their formal designation, using farmers' local knowledge.
The Government's response to the consultation document published last year will address the main issues raised by farmers and other consultees. We shall do that either in our response document, which we expect to issue soon, or in the individual responses being sent out to all the letters received.
Mr. Jenkin: Is my hon. Friend saying that he believes that the basis of the directive is still sound, or is he simply saying that we have to carry on implementing it because

815
we are stuck with it, as it was agreed by unanimity and that is that, because of the way in which the European Community works?
Sir Paul Beresford: Neither, in effect. I am saying that there are elements involving good agricultural techniques which in a few areas—considerably fewer than originally expected—may have to be statutory.
A key part of the Government's response will be our decisions on the boundaries and locations of the proposed zones—I emphasise the word "proposed"—and those will be made known in the form of amended maps of the NVZs.
Mr. Jenkin: Where there is clearly no logical provable explanation involving connections between the levels of nitrates in the river and agricultural activity, as in Nayland—the implementation of the Nayland nitrate-vulnerable zone will result in no change whatever in agricultural practice—will my hon. Friend ask for those nitrate-vulnerable zones to be reviewed and dropped? If not, the directive is proving a complete farce.
Sir Paul Beresford: I think that I was making it clear that we are in the process of consultation, that there will be amendments, shifts and changes, and that nothing is set in tablets of stone.
816
Farmers who are dissatisfied with the Government's decisions on the boundaries and locations of the proposed NVZs as set out in the response document, in individual responses or in the amended maps will have the opportunity to present their case in writing to the independent review panel to be jointly commissioned by the Department of the Environment, MAFF and Welsh Office Ministers. The independent review procedure will ensure that our vulnerable zone proposals will have been objectively assessed prior to designation.
Following our initial consultation, we shall undertake another public consultation on the measures that might be introduced in the zones before their formal establishment. The resulting reductions in nitrate leaching in vulnerable zones will add to the reductions already taking place because of recent changes in agriculture and voluntary applications of the code of good agricultural practice for the protection of water issued by MAFF and the Welsh Office Agriculture Department.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

TREASURY

  Exchange Rates (Irish Punt)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the constitutional implications of the severing of the link between the Irish punt and the British pound.

  Mr. Nelson
  The link between the Irish punt and British pound was severed when Ireland joined the European monetary system. This step had no constitutional implications for the United Kingdom.

  Capital Gains Tax Reinvestment Relief
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if investments in companies listed on the unlisted securities market qualify for the reinvestment relief.

  Sir George Young
  No. Capital gains tax reinvestment relief is available for investment in shares in qualifying unquoted trading companies. As the relevant legislation makes explicit, companies whose shares are dealt in on the unlisted securities market are not unquoted companies for this purpose.

  Draft Legislation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what will be the inter-relationship between(a) Ministers and private sector lawyers, (b) hon. Members, (c) Government Whips and (d) Select Committees in respect of the contracting out of the drafting of Treasury legislation;

  (2) what measures he will take to prevent legal firms operating at below-cost prices to acquire contracts to draft Treasury legislation;

  (3) what safeguards will apply (a) for ensuring security on Budget details and forecasts and (b) for ensuring standards of confidentiality and propriety in respect of the Finance Bill following the contracting out of the drafting of Treasury legislation;

  (4) if the costs of trial contracting out of Treasury legislation will appear as (a) running costs or (b) programme costs; how such costs will be shown when there are changes of dates in respect of policy; and how such costs will be controlled when there is a change in drafting instructions;

  (5) which parts of the Finance Bill he plans to contract out and what plans he has for other forms of financial legislation to be contracted out;

  (6) what are the criteria by which the success of the exercise in contracting out the drafting of Treasury legislation will he judged; who will assess the success of
  464
  the exercise; and what quality controls there will be in respect of the drafting of the legislation;

  (7) what proportion of contracted-out Treasury legislation will comprise (a) primary legislation and (b) secondary legislation;

  (8) what proposals he has to market test (a) market-sensitive and (b) non-market-sensitive Treasury legislation;

  (9) what discussions he has had with (a) the Law Society and (b) the Bar Council in respect of the contracting out of the drafting of Treasury legislation;

  (10) what will be the relationship between those in the private sector instructed by him and advisers from the Inland Revenue in respect of the contracting out of the drafting of Treasury legislation;

  (11) what have been the costs for each of the last five years for drafting legislation in his Department;

  (12) how many staff in his Department and at what grade are engaged in drafting legislation;

  (13) what are the total annual wages and salary costs in his Department in respect of those engaged in drafting Treasury legislation;

  (14) what proposals he has (a) to market-test, (b) to go to outside contractors without market testing and (c) to employ outside contractors as civil servants on short-term contracts in respect of the contracting out of the drafting of Treasury legislation;

  (15) if he will list (a) his proposals for quality assurance, (b) his proposed methods for testing this assurance and (c) his proposed penalties for (i) under performance and (ii) loss of revenue as a result of inadequate drafting in respect of the contracting out of the Treasury legislation;

  (16) what guarantees his Department will demand of private sector lawyers engaged in the drafting of Treasury legislation to ensure that they do not have any dealings with clients on issues relating to their work for his Department; and what safeguards he will impose to prevent conflicts of interest arising between these lawyers and (i) past and (ii) prospective clients;

  (17) what measures he will take to ensure that there is public confidence in the contracted-out Treasury legislation in respect of potential conflicts of interest between those employed to draft legislation for the Government who are also advising private clients.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. and learned Friend's plans to involve the private sector in drafting legislation for Treasury Ministers are as follows:

  Present practice is that most primary legislation in the areas of responsibility which fall to Treasury Ministers is drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. Officials in the Chancellor's Departments provide Parliamentary Counsel with instructions from which legislation is drafted, but none of the Chancellor's Department employs staff who themselves draft primary legislation.

  There have been occasions in the past where lawyers outside Parliamentary Counsel have been engaged in the drafting of primary legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now setting up a pilot project to gain further experience of using the private sector in this area. Potential benefits could include: reducing time pressures caused by the volume of work facing existing draftsmen; widening the range of talent available to departments; bringing relevant specialist

  465
  skills into the drafting process, and providing fresh thinking as to how our laws should be drafted.

  The pilot scheme will cover some aspects of the 1996 Finance Bill, and possibly also some secondary legislation.

  Treasury Ministers are still considering exactly which topics will be chosen for the pilot, but the bulk of the 1996 Finance Bill will continue to be drafted by Parliamentary Counsel in the usual way. Once the topics are selected, the contract or contracts will be let through competitive tender.

  Before the contract or contracts are signed, Treasury Ministers will need to satisfy themselves that the contractors chosen will be capable of doing the job well, that sensible financial arrangements are made, that adequate security measures are in place to protect classified information, and that potential conflicts of interest are avoided.

  The intention is that Inland Revenue and customs officials will deal directly with the contractors in much the same way as they deal with Parliamentary Counsel. It will be for the Revenue departments to give instructions to the contractors and for those departments to satisfy themselves that the draft legislation that is produced is of a satisfactory standard.

  Parliamentary Counsel will be responsible for the rest of the Finance Bill and for ensuring that the clauses and schedules drafted by the contractors are fitted into the Bill in the appropriate place.

  When the legislation comes before Parliament, Ministers will look to the contractors, working on instructions from officials, to draw up any Government amendments that are necessary, and to provide advice, for example, on the implications of any other amendments that are tabled. Contractors will be judged on the full range of services they provide.

  The fact that part of the Bill will have been drafted by private sector lawyers will not affect the relationships between Ministers and the House or Committees of it.

  The experiment will be closely monitored and will be subject to a full evaluation to consider the quality of drafting, other advice, whether timetables were met, security issues, and cost. The analysis of the cost will cover not only the fees for the pilot project, but also an assessment of any differential burden on Revenue department officials compared with using parliamentary counsel. One of the purposes of the pilot will be to look at the overall resources employed .by the contractors on the project to improve our understanding of the costs to the private sector of drafting legislation.

  The costs of the pilot will fall on departments' running costs. If necessary, the terms of the contract will deal with the possibility of late changes in policy or drafting instructions.

  Brays Detective Agency
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the schemes, activities and projects in which Brays Detective Agency has been retained and, in each case, the Government Department sponsoring the scheme and the total expenditure to date.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has no schemes, activities or projects on which Brays Detective Agency has been 466
  retained; and it does not maintain records of other Government Departments' use of detective agencies.

  VAT (Church Repairs)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to changing the rate of VAT on repairs to churches.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Repairs to all buildings, including churches, have been liable to the standard rate of VAT since 1973. The Government are opposed to further reduced rates as a matter of principle.
  The introduction of any zero rates, or reduced rates in this area, would also contravene the EC sixth VAT directive.

  Select Committee on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the reason for the decision that officials from the Treasury would not give oral evidence at the House of Lords Select Committee on Sustainable Development meeting on 7 February.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 March 1995]: The Government's strategy for sustainable development is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I was therefore not persuaded that it would be appropriate for Treasury officials to give oral evidence on the subject as a whole to the Committee on 7 February. Since then, the Committee has provided me with a list of questions relating to specific Treasury responsibilities and I have authorised my Department to submit a memorandum in response.

  The accountability of Ministers and the Government to Parliament has always been based on the principle that each Minister answers for subjects within his or her own departmental responsibilities.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his objectives in the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory, and if he will make a statement.

  Dr Mawhinney
  I shall be seeking bids for the Transport Research Laboratory from a wide range of interests. My objectives are:
  to secure the continued provision of high-quality, independent research and development at good value for money across the range of my Department's inland surface transport needs;to transfer the laboratory to the private sector as soon as reasonably practicable;to optimise the net proceeds to the taxpayer.
  In pursuing these objectives, I shall have full regard to the need to help promote a competitive market for the supply of research services to my Department and obtain reassurance that the purchaser has the capacity to meet transferred obligations and liabilities.

  The work of our financial advisers, Price Waterhouse, has confirmed that there is interest in acquiring the TRL business as a whole, with a lease or freehold interest in the land and buildings required for the operation of the

  467
  Laboratory. I shall be seeking competitive bids for the laboratory on this basis. I have not ruled out any sale option including the possibility of a proposal from TRL's management and staff to take over the Laboratory as a non-profit-distributing company.

  To emphasise the Government's continuing commitment to TRL as it moves into the private sector, I have decided to provide the laboratory with guarantees of future research work for a number of years. The guarantees will be subject to the delivery of high-quality, independent and impartial research at competitive prices. Bidders will be asked to demonstrate that the supply of scientific advice and research to Government will not give rise to conflicts of interest with their other operations.

  I am aiming to complete the sale of TRL during 1995.

  Airports
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusion he has reached on his Department's review of the system of economic regulation of airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The review considered how the system of economic regulation established in the Airports Act 1986 had worked to date, and whether there was scope for improving the process of regulation. It was not concerned with the principles or methodology of regulation.

  Following consultation, my Department has identified a number of measures to improve the way the system works, including clarification of the procedures for regulation of airports and for handling of complaints, improved availability of information, and clarification of the criteria for designating airports under section 40 of the Airports Act 1986 for closer economic regulation. In addition, some measures have been identified which will require legislation; these will be taken forward when the opportunity arises. The main such change concerns the roles of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Civil Aviation Authority in the regulation of the designated airports; it is proposed to adopt a regime based on what has become the "standard" model for the regulation of utilities. It is expected that the next quinquennial reviews of BAA's south-east airports and Manchester airport will proceed under the existing system.

  In the light of recommendations from the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, we have also considered whether Glasgow and Edinburgh airports should be designated for the purposes of economic regulation. We have found no evidence of abuse of monopoly position or inefficiency and we have therefore concluded that there is no case at present for designating these airports.

  I am placing the report of the conclusions in the review in the Library.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to visit the Newbury constituency in the current year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At present, I have no plans to do so.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of whether Pan 468
  Am flight 103 was under special guard at Heathrow airport from the time of arrival from San Francisco at 12.10 hours on 21 December 1994 until take-off for JFK airport, New York at 18.25 hours as described in page 14 of the fatal airport inquiry on the Lockerbie air disaster report.

  Mr. Norris
  From the evidence given to the fatal accident inquiry, and the earlier investigation by the Metropolitan police into the handling of this flight at Heathrow airport, my Department is satisfied that the Maid of the Seas was under constant supervision by security guards while between flights at the airport on 21 December 1988.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those parts of the railway system which will have been privatised or put out to contract by April 1996.

  Mr. Watts
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 March 1995, c. 53]: Union Railways Ltd. and European Passenger Services Ltd. were omitted from the list of sales intended to April 1996.

  Detained Ships
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by classification society the number of ships detained by the Marine Safety Agency in the last two years.

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Ms Joan Walley, dated 14 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of ships, by classification society, detained by the Marine Safety Agency in the last two years; I attach two tables. The first table gives the number of detentions following port state control inspections in UK ports for 1994. This includes a detention rate based on the total number of inspections carried out on ships classed with the classification society. Equivalent figures for 1993 are not available without undue expenditure but the number of detentions without the amplifying detention rates are listed in the second table.The figures must be treated with some care as ships may be detained for items which are not the responsibility of a classification society. Also some fish factory ships, klondykers, although in a detainable condition could not be detained because the ships were anchored outside the port when inspected. In a small percentage of cases the classification society has not been recorded because it did not issue the certificates.

  Port state control detentions by the marine safety agency listed by classification society

  Classification Society

  Number of detentions in 1994

  Percentage detained

  HINSIB (Honduras)

  1

  50

  Turku Lloyd Vakfi

  1

  50

  Hellenic Register

  12

  40

  Bulgarian Register

  7

  35

  Romanian Register

  3

  25

  China Corporation Register of Shipping

  1

  25

  RINAVE (Portugal)

  1

  20

  American Bureau of Shipping

  20

  18

  Croatian Register

  1

  14

  RINA (Italy)

  6

  14

  469

  Port state control detentions by the marine safety agency listed by classification society

  Classification Society

  Number of detentions in 1994

  Percentage detained

  Nippon Kaiji Kyokai

  13

  14

  Russian Register

  43

  13

  Bureau Veritas

  35

  13

  Register of Shipping of People's Republic of China

  1

  12

  Indian Register

  1

  11

  Lloyd's Register

  26

  7

  Germanischer Lloyd

  24

  7

  Det Norske Veritas

  16

  6

  Polish Register

  1

  4

  Un-classed or class unknown

  12

  Port state control detentions by the marine safety agency in 1993 listed by classification society

  Classification society

  Number of detentions in 1993

  Bureau Veritas

  34

  Lloyd's Register

  26

  Germanischer Lloyd

  24

  Russian Register

  19

  American Bureau of Shipping

  17

  Nippon Kaiji Kyokai

  12

  Hellenic Register

  11

  Det Norske Veritas

  10

  HINSIB (Honduras)

  5

  Romanian Register

  3

  Panama Bureau of Shipping

  2

  RINA (Italy)

  2

  Indian Register

  1

  Un-classed or class unknown

  8

  Rail Track Renewal
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contracts have been agreed by Railtrack for each section of the Great Western mainline, and each branch line, for track renewal, re-sleepering and re-ballasting, for 1995–96; and what has been the value of each contract and track length covered.

  Mr. Watts
  These activities form part of the track renewal work carried out under contract for Railtrack by that part of British Rail infrastructure services which the British Railways Board expect to. offer for sale as the Western track renewal unit later this year. In light of the expected sale, details of the contracts and their value are therefore commercially confidential.

  Channel Tunnel Freight
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much freight by tonnage has been transferred from road to the railway system(a) since 1 January 1992 and (b) since the opening of the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not available in the form requested. Information on tonnages carried by rail can be found in table 1.12 of "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1994", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
  470
  Railfreight Distribution has moved over 2,000 trains through the channel tunnel to date.

  Mobile Crane Operators
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what restrictions currently exist on the maximum working and driving hours for mobile crane operators.

  Mr. Norris
  Drivers of mobile cranes are subject to national rules on drivers' hours in part VI of the Transport Act 1968, as amended. These limit driving to 10 hours a day. The rules also limit drivers to 11 hours duty each day, but not on days when they do not drive or when they drive for less than four hours on each day of the week.

  School Vehicles
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that vehicles hired for the transport of children to and from school have the appropriate licence or that local education authorities be empowered to issue a new form of licence specifically for school transport purposes.

  Mr. Norris
  All motor vehicles, including those used for school transport, are subject to the requirements of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and to annual roadworthiness testing. Public service vehicles must also satisfy additional construction requirements and be licensed through the operator licensing system under which their operators are subject to sanction by traffic commissioners if standards are not maintained.

  We do not consider further controls to be necessary.

  Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those sites where he is currently monitoring vehicle pollution stating in each case(a) what monitoring he is undertaking and (b) whether PM10 is counted.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency.

  I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 14 March 1995:
  The Minister for Local Transport and Road Safety, Steven Norris, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those sites where he is currently monitoring vehicle pollution stating in each case (a) what monitoring he is undertaking and (b) whether PM10 is counted.We do not routinely monitor vehicle pollution but the Highways Agency has a number of monitoring stations in operation either for research purposes to aid the development of air quality techniques or to inform environmental assessment of specific highway proposals where appropriate. For most situations involving road schemes we use mathematical modelling to assess pollution levels. Where the modelling techniques cannot adequately reflect the characteristics of a particular location monitoring work is undertaken.471

  The table below contains our current active sites.

  Road Name

  Location

  Emissions monitored

  M4

  Theale

  Carbon monoxide

  Nitric oxide

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Total oxides of nitrogen

  Ozone

  Total hydrocarbons

  Non-Methane

  hydrocarbons

  Methane

  Range of poly-aromatic

  hydrocarbons

  Victoria St

  London

  Carbon monoxide

  Nitric oxide

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Total oxides of nitrogen

  Ozone

  Total hydrocarbons

  Non-methane

  hydrocarbons

  Methane

  Range of poly-aromatic hydrocarbons

  Benzene

  Toluene

  Xylene

  Range of carbonyl compounds

  M4 London

  Between Junctions 3 and 4B

  Carbon monoxide

  Nitric oxide

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Total oxides of nitrogen

  PM10

  Benzene

  Toluene

  Xylene

  M4 London

  Junction 4

  Carbon monoxide

  Nitric oxide

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Total oxides of nitrogen

  M62 Manchester

  East Junction 17

  Carbon monoxide

  Nitric oxide

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Total oxides of nitrogen

  M2 Kent

  Junction 3 Area

  Carbon monoxide

  Nitric oxide

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Total oxides of nitrogen

  Benzene

  Toluene

  At present PM10 is measured at one location on the M4 but our intention is to commence monitoring of this emission at new sites on the M62 (Manchester) and the M25 (Surrey) shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pages of forms an applicant for a review of a refusal of an application for disability living allowance has to peruse; and how many pages an appellant has to peruse when making an appeal for disability living allowance, having being rejected on first consideration and review;
  472
  (2) how many pages the average applicant for disability living allowance has to peruse in order to make an application.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 13 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Disability Living Allowance (DLA) forms.For an initial claim to DLA there are 60 pages which comprise the claim pack:-

  Pages

  Notes

  8

  Section 1 "Your claim for DLA"

  12

  Section 2 "How your disability/illness affects you"

  28

  Additional Section

  12

  The additional section was introduced to gather information following recent caselaw. Customers must complete section 1; other sections are optional.

  A customer is able to request a review of an initial decision whether this was successful or not. The review pack has a total of 48 pages:

  Pages

  Section 1 (Personal details)

  8

  Section 2 (Mobility needs)

  8

  Section 2 (Care needs)

  20

  Additional section

  12

  A review pack is not usually issued where similar information has been obtained within the preceding three months.

  A customer can appeal against a review decision by writing to the Benefits Agency. There is no pack for appeal purposes.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Fraud Investigation Costs
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the Government have spent on the detection of benefit fraud for each year sine 1979.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Benefit fraud is investigated by the Benefits Agency, Employment Service and local authorities. Details of local authority expenditure on benefit fraud investigation are not held centrally.

  The Benefits Agency's expenditure on fraud investigation is only available for the last two years. Prior to the formation of the Benefits Agency, most anti-fraud work was integrated with benefit claims processing, and other mainstream local office activities, and separate cost data was not kept. However, the bulk of investigations are now carried out by separately managed units for which costs are known.

  £ million

  1992–93

  66

  1993–94

  69

  These figures include staff and running costs, but not accommodation. Benefit savings for the same periods were £558 million and £654 million respectively.
  473
  The cost of Employment Service fraud investigations is available for the past seven years. The figures (including benefit savings for the same periods) are:

  Costs £ millions

  Savings £ millions

  1987–88

  15.9

  70.5

  1988–89

  18.7

  81.27

  1989–90

  20.6

  70.72

  1990–91

  21.4

  64.94

  1991–92

  21.5

  55.88

  1992–93

  26.4

  71.15

  1993–94

  26.8

  80.12

  These figures include staff, accommodation and running costs.

  War Widows
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many post-1973 war widows have subsequently re-married in each year for which figures are available.

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

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of living post-1973 war widows.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  At 1 March 1995 war widows pensions were in payment to 3,151 widows of men whose

  Average weekly income from state benefit and occupational pensions1

  Benefit income

  Occupational pension2

  Over state pension age

  55 to state pension age

  Over state pension age

  55 to state pension age

  Couples3

  107.40

  74.00

  92.00

  129.20

  Single people

  71.40

  69.40

  52.90

  63.20

  Notes:

  1 £ per week at July 1992 prices.

  2 No separate information available on receipt of personal pensions and annuities.

  3Where the husband is aged over state pension age or between 55 and state pension age.

  Source:

  1992 family expenditure survey.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he(a) expects the. regulations restoring entitlement to part-time school workers for family credit to come into effect; if they will be retrospective; and if he will consider making ex gratia payments to those who do not qualify for income support.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1995—SI 1995 No. 516—were laid before Parliament on 10 March 1995. Regulation 11 of these regulations provides for the hours of school workers and others with a similar pattern of employment to be averaged over termtime only for the purpose of determining whether or not they satisfy the condition of entitlement to family 474
  Service in the armed forces ended on or after 31 March 1973.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the additional cost of a flexible decade of retirement between the ages of 60 and 70, compared with the Government's proposals to equalise state pension age at 65.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government's plans already allow for indefinite flexibility after state pension age. From 2010, people will receive a 10 per cent. increase in their state pension for every year that they defer drawing it. To allow people to claim their full state pension from age 60, even if the flexibility were limited to a decade, would cost £13 billion a year more by 2030 than age 65.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total income of(a) pensioners and (b) others aged 55 years and over in 1992 from (i) retirement pension, (ii) invalidity benefit, (iii) disability benefits, (iv) widows' and widowers' benefits, (v) income support, (vi) occupational pensions and (vii) personal pensions and annuities.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table shows average net weekly incomes from all state benefits and from occupational pensions for people receiving those incomes aged over state pension age and between 55 and state pension age.

  credit commencing on or after 11 April 1995. It will not be retrospective. As all families have been able to claim their legal entitlement, we have no plans to make ex gratia payments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Apple Orchards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many acres of apple orchards were grubbed up in each of the past three years; what is the present level of application for the EU's grubbing-up grant; and if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Ulster apple industry.

  Mr. Ancram
  No apple orchards were grubbed up in Northern Ireland in the last three years.

  The current apple orchard grubbing-up scheme has attracted three applicants with a total entry of 45.15 acres,

  475
  or 18.28 hectares. I am hopeful that the industry will continue to make a valuable contribution to the Northern Ireland horticultural sector and to the food processing industry.

  Hospitals Review
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the terms of reference of the McKenna review into closer working relations between the Royal and City hospitals, Belfast.

  Mr. Moss
  The terms of reference for the acute services reorganisation project chaired by Dr. McKenna are as follows:
  "To develop and oversee the implementation of a coherent strategy for the reorganisation of services at the Royal Group of Hospitals Trust and the Belfast City Hospital Trust to provide a sound basis for their future development, having regard to services presently located at other hospitals in the Greater Belfast area where relevant".

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what humanitarian aid and development assistance is currently being given or is planned by the European Union for Angola.

  Mr. Baldry
  Angola has a national indicative programme of 115 mecu, or (£93 million, under EDF VII—1991 to 1995—for long-term development assistance. In addition, a special six months humanitarian plan for 6 mecu, or £4.9 million, was agreed for Angola on 30 November 1994.

  European Development Fund
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the obstacles to agreement at the special Foreign Affairs Council in February on the size of the eighth European development fund for 1995 to 2000; and what are the time scale and approach that are going to be used to settle these disagreements.

  Mr. Baldry
  The size of EDF VIII was not settled in February since the contributions offered by member states did not reach the target figure tabled by the presidency. Further discussions are envisaged at the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers on 18 and 19 March and at the Foreign Affairs Council on 10 April.

  Iraq
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent relief agencies providing humanitarian aid for the Kurds have been endangered by Iraqi Government shelling of Arbil in contravention of the safe haven policy instituted after the Gulf war.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are concerned that relief workers may be endangered by indiscriminate Iraqi Government shelling of northern Iraq. We continue to press Iraq to abide by Security Council resolution 688, which calls on the Iraqi regime to cease repression of its own people.

  Arun III Project, Nepal
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the German Federal Audit Office's investigation into the value for money represented by the planned Arun III hydropower project in Nepal; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the independent reports comparing the relative value for money of the Arun III hydropower project and the various possible alternative investments in Nepal's energy sector proposed by the Alliance for Energy and the Arun Concerned Group.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have not seen the reports referred to.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the board of the World bank to consult as widely as possible to identify the most appropriate and effective power scheme for the sustainable development of Nepal before taking any final decision on funding for the Arun III hydropower project.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 January,Official Report, columns 480–81.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank to vote to allow the inspection panel to complete necessary field work for their investigation into the Arun III hydropower project before the Government of Nepal reach a final decision on funding.

  Mr. Baldry
  The board has already decided that field work should commence only after the bank has received a decision from the Government of Nepal as to whether they wish to request IDA funding for the Arun III project.

  Palestinians
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what plans he has to provide further aid to the Palestinians.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today announced a new £7 million bilateral aid package for the Palestinians. Some £2 million of this will be provided for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's peace implementation programme. Some £5 million will be allocated to a know-how programme covering assistance for management training for the ministries of the Palestinian Authority, small-scale water and sewage treatment plants and water leak detection, health management and education, including English language teaching. We are also hoping to promote joint projects with UK private sector companies to help generate exports and employment in the west bank and Gaza strip. Basic training for the civil police will also be considered. In addition, $1 million will be given towards the costs of UNRWA's moving offices to Gaza.

  This will bring our total aid to the Palestinians in support of the peace process to £82 million.

SCOTLAND

  Health Care International
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) by what method the contract for orthopaedic
  477
  out-patients was awarded to Health Care International by Forth Valley health board; and on what terms NHS providers were allowed to compete for the contract;

  (2) if he was consulted by Forth Valley health board before it provided Health Care International with the names and addresses of NHS orthopaedic out-patients awaiting appointments; and if he consented to this information being given to HCI without the knowledge of the patients concerned.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter for Forth Valley health board. It is appropriate for health boards to buy services from independent hospitals in order to reduce waiting times. I understand that in order to meet patients charter waiting time guarantees for orthopaedic out-patient appointments, the board carried out a tendering exercise, including NHS and independent providers, which was won by Health Care International.

  Individual patients, were then offered the choice of orthopaedic out-patient treatment at HCI. There is no requirement for the board to consult the Secretary of State before providing HCI with the names and addresses of those patients awaiting appointments.

  National Continence Day
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has concerning the promoting and publicising of National Continence Day on Wednesday 21 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office is providing funding for the staffing of a telephone helpline at the continence resource centre, Southern General Hospital NHS trust, Glasgow from 6 March for a four-week period, including National Continence Day. Leaflets advertising the helpline and encouraging sufferers to seek help will be distributed to a range of outlets within and outwith the health sector. Advertisements are being placed in some Scottish newspapers and a press release will be issued on 20 March. The press release will include details of local continence adviser contact numbers and ethnic minority helpline numbers. A number of events are also being organised across the country by local health service professionals. The Scottish Office is happy to promote the campaign to increase awareness of this distressing condition and to encourage sufferers to seek advice and treatment.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will present to the Select Committee on National Security the information from the Crown Office which caused Sheriff John Mowat QC to uphold the objection of Mr. Colin McEachran from the Department of Transport to any evidence in the Lockerbie case relating to the operation of intelligence agencies into the United Kingdom, as being contrary to the national interest, as stated on page 14 of the determination in the fatal accident inquiry relating to Lockerbie.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such information was placed before Sheriff Principal Mowat QC by the Crown Office. The objection to evidence relating to the operation of the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom was made by counsel appearing on behalf of the Home Office and the Department of Transport. The fatal 478
  accident inquiry relating to Lockerbie was heard entirely in public and all information and evidence presented to the inquiry was heard in public.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it was with the agreement of the Crown Office that ex-Chief Constable George Esson gave an interview to the Glasgow Herald on Lockerbie published on Monday 20 February.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Mr. George Esson, formerly chief constable, Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, did not seek the agreement of Crown Office in giving the interview to the Glasgow Herald published on 20 February 1995.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study the Crown Office have made of Mr. Alan Francovitie's response to ex-Chief Constable Esson, a copy of which has been sent to the Lord Advocate.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This article, like all items in the media relating to Lockerbie which come to their attention, has been considered by the prosecuting and investigating authorities.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of probabilities, referred to in charge 10, page 15 of the report of the fatal accident investigation into the Lockerbie air disaster, of a suitcase with explosives arriving at Frankfurt on a flight or an airline, other than Pan American.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The assessment of probabilities by my noble and learned Friend the then Lord Advocate was reflected in the instruction to the procurator fiscal at Dumfries to request petition warrants for the two named accused on charges which alleged that the suitcase containing an improvised explosive device was placed on board Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt am Main airport at Luqa airport, Malta and was at Frankfurt am Main airport placed on board Pan American World Airways flight 103A to London Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what record the Crown Office has of any onward confirmed ticket to New York from Luqa airport, Malta, in December 1988 via Frankfurt and Heathrow; and what estimate he has made of the evidence of Miss Milne on page 41 of the determination by Sheriff Mowatt QC in relation to Lockerbie and whether a bag could enter the inter-line system unless an onward confirmed ticket had been issued.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not the position of the Crown Office as reflected in the criminal petition against the two Libyan accused that the suitcase which contained the improvised explosive device was loaded at Luqa airport as luggage relating to a passenger travelling on such a route. The evidence of Miss Milne was considered along with all other evidence which was available to the Crown prior to the commencement of criminal proceedings.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what official apologies have been given by the Scottish Office and the Crown Office to Dr. David Fieldhouse, police surgeon of Bradford, in relation to Lockerbie.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. Counsel appearing on behalf of the chief constable for Dumfries and Galloway constabulary withdrew the suggestion the Dr. Fieldhouse had been unaccompanied during his searches at Lockerbie at the conclusion of his cross-examination of Dr. Fieldhouse on day 47 of the fatal accident inquiry.

  Forestry
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares the Forestry Commission has planted during the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In the 10 years to 31 March 1994, the Forestry Commission planted 116,201 hectares of woodland.

  Planning Application Fees
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the devolution of planning application fees to local authorities, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  In December 1993, my right hon. Friend announced that he would consider the issue of a consultation paper on the devolution of planning fees to local authorities. The policy initiative is still under consideration and further discussions will take place with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other interested parties before a decision is taken on the most appropriate way forward.

  In the meantime, fees will continue to be set centrally.

  Shipping Subsidiaries
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his decision following the shipping subsidies review in relation to shipping services on the west coast of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  After very careful and detailed consideration, I have concluded that tariff rebate subsidies on bulk freight to and from the west coast of Scotland should be progressively withdrawn. In order to avoid the possibility of immediate freight rate increases affecting commodities of significance for island residents, I intend to phase out the payment of TRS on some commodities over a period of three years. The TRS rate is currently 40 per cent. for imports to the Western Isles and 30 per cent. for exports from the Western Isles. As from 1 May 1995, I intend to set both rates at 30 per cent. followed by annual reductions to 20 per cent., 10 per cent. and zero from the beginning of each subsequent financial year. The tapering of subsidy over three years should provide existing companies with the opportunity to consolidate their market position, and make efficiency improvements, while at the same time enabling other companies to become increasingly competitive with those companies whose subsidy is reducing. I would expect to see a competitive market develop which would act as a constraint on freight rate increases.

  I have, however, concluded that there is scope for the exclusion of certain commodities from being eligible for TRS in a shorter period. As from 1 September 1995 the transport of raw timber, quarry products and road salt will no longer be eligible to receive TRS.

  I do not consider that the export of primary commodities requires continued subsidy. There are currently very substantial amounts of timber being extracted from the west coast of Scotland and forestry extraction is expected to more than double over the next
  480
  15 years. The shipping market needs to adjust to the scale of these operations; and I believe that continuation of TRS on timber is unnecessary and would distort the market. Quarry products and road salt currently receive a lower rate of subsidy than generally available. Given the low amount of subsidy currently payable on these commodities, I would expect efficiency savings to restrain any price increase.

  After consideration of representations received, I have been persuaded by the evidence put to me, that in relation to movements of fishmeal and fish oil from Shetland, complete withdrawal of subsidy on 1 May would be likely to have significant adverse effects on the industry; and that a period of adjustment is required. I have concluded that subsidy should be retained; and set, with effect from 1 May, at a rate of 30 per cent., followed by reductions to 20 per cent., 10 per cent. and zero from the beginning of each subsequent financial year.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for shipping subsidies for sea transport services in the highlands and islands other than those provided by Caledonian MacBrayne; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the estimates, I propose to make available in 1995–96 total subsidy provision under the tariff rebate subsidy scheme of £9.1 million. For services to Orkney and Shetland, tariff rebate subsidies of up to £8.3 million will be made available, and up to £800,000 will be available for bulk shippers operating on the west coast of Scotland and to and from the Northern Isles.

  The provision includes subsidy of up to £7.6 million to P and O Scottish Ferries Ltd. for the operation of passenger and accompanied car services for the year to 31 March 1996 and for freight services to 30 April 1995. As previously announced, I intend subject to the approval of Parliament and of the European Commission, to change the method of subsidy for passenger and accompanied car services to a block grant payable over a period of years in accordance with a contract to operate a specified level of service. I propose in due course to put the service out to competitive tender.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for an assessment of hygiene standards in Scottish abattoirs.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The hygiene assessment carried out on behalf of my Department covers five specific aspects of abattoir operations. These are ante-mortem inspection, slaughter and dressing, personnel and practices, maintenance and hygiene of premises and general condition and management.

  Hygiene standards in Scottish abattoirs are generally good, although my Department is making specific efforts to encourage those with lower scores to improve their standards. The table shows the results recorded at the latest inspection visit to each slaughterhouse in Scotland for the period ending November 1994.
  481

  Numbers by category of slaughterhouses

  Scores band

  All Scottish abattoirs

  Full EC approval

  Low-throughput1

  Temporary derogated2

  21–30

  0

  0

  0

  0

  31–40

  0

  0

  0

  0

  41–50

  0

  0

  0

  0

  51–60

  10

  4

  1

  5

  61–70

  16

  11

  4

  1

  71–80

  16

  12

  1

  3

  81–90

  5

  4

  1

  0

  91–100

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1Throughput = 20 livestock units, or less, per week.2 Abattoirs operating under workplan to upgrade to the structural standards laid down in the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992. Completion of work is required by 31 December 1995.

  Sickness Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) Registers of Scotland, (b) the Scottish Prison Service, (c) the Scottish Record Office (d) the Lord Advocate's Department and (e) the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: Sickness absence is taken seriously by management and a number of local initiatives have been introduced with a view to reducing it to a minimum. In the Scottish Office, for example, managers are provided with regular information which enables them to monitor absences in their area. As well as taking steps to ensure greater control and management of sick absence, a number of health initiatives have been introduced, including the introduction of an alcohol policy, health screening for staff, the promotion of the benefits of exercise, a healthy life style and eating, the creation of a smoke-free environment and training in stress management.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 February 1995]: A total of 474 letters were received from hon. Members in January 1995.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 February 1995]: The information requested for January 1995 is as follows:

  Minister

  Number of letters sent to hon. Members

  Secretary of State

  54

  Minister of State

  119

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  62

  Sir Hector Monro

  47

  Mr. Allan Stewart

  51

  Number of grant offers

  Number of grant offers accepted

  Jobs created

  Value of grants£000

  Total Project costs £000

  Dover and Deal

  4

  2

  35

  140

  1,248

  Sittingbourne and Sheerness

  21

  16

  304

  844

  8,784

  Folkestone

  6

  4

  115

  460

  4,288

  Thanet

  14

  12

  187

  1,545

  8,350

  Isle of Wight

  10

  9

  142

  738

  5,688

  Special Advisers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the role of his special advisers employed to serve his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: My special advisers assist my colleagues and me with that part of their work which is partly governmental and partly political. Their duties vary.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to prevent delays in the Government office on Merseyside in processing objective 1 applications for ERDF funding.

  Mr. Eggar
  One hundred and six applications have been approved in principle. Two have since been withdrawn. Forty-three grant offer letters have been issued. On 26 applications, further information is awaited from applicants. Thirty-five applications are currently with the Government office, where further information provided recently is being urgently assessed. These will be cleared as quickly as possible. Partners have been asked to ensure early provision of outstanding information, so that processing of all applications can be completed as soon as possible.

  Assisted Areas
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many grants have been offered under assisted area status; how many have been accepted; what estimate he has made of the number of jobs which should be created; and what was the total of public money spent and the total of the projects costs for(a) Dover/Deal, (b) Sittingbourne/Sheerness, (c) Folkestone, (d) Thanet and (e) the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested, as at the end of January 1995, is as follows:

  Iraqi-British Interests Group
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates he or his representatives(a) met and (b) plan to meet members of the Iraqi-British Interests Group after its visit to Baghdad.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My officials met members of the Iraqi-British Interests Group on 7 and 9 March; there are no further meetings currently planned.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the terms of the communications licences issued by him to the Iraqi-British Interests Group before its recent visit to Baghdad; who were the members of the group; and which firms they represented.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to comment on individual licencing cases unless the public interest outweighs the need for confidentiality.

  Arms Exports to Indonesia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requests for export licences for the export of arms to Indonesia have been refused in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The table shows the total number of export licence applications for goods on the military list of the Export of Goods (Control) Orders variously in force at the time.

  Information for earlier years is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Refused

  1991

  2

  1992

  1

  1993

  0

  1994

  5

  1995

  0

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the purpose and outcome of the recent Department of Trade and Industry supported delegation to Angola.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The recent mission to Angola was the first foreign delegation to visit the country since the peace agreement was signed and the first UK mission since 1992. The mission was led by one of the Department's export promoters, David Chambers, on secondment from Hull Blythe—Angola.

  The purpose of the mission was to explore opportunities in the Angolan oil sector, a sector which has remained unaffected by the civil war and Angola's economic difficulties and which has been an area of considerable success for UK companies in the past. Our decision to mount the mission was prompted by increased interest in the area among UK companies, including recent new investment by BP and a joint venture success involving AMEC, and it proved to be a success. Mission members identified at least $1.5 billion worth of new business in the oil sector and the trip is expected to give rise to further business in due course.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the US authorities since 1992 about concerns from British industry and commerce that Menwith Hill station, in north Yorkshire, is engaged in communications monitoring to the disadvantage of United Kingdom commercial interests.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 9 March 1995]: My Department is investigating a report of interference from a radio station at Menwith Hill to a nearby radio station. The latter forms part of a network which provides a radio telephone service to airline passengers. No representations have been made to the US authorities.

  Commercial Espionage
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from United Kingdom industry and commerce about commercial espionage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 9 March 1995]: None.

  Unpaid Telephone Bills
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the percentage of unpaid telephone bills, in arrears, at the end of the last financial year.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: This is a matter for the telecommunications operators.

  Sickness Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism in(a) Companies House, (b) the National Weights and Measures Agency, (c) the Accounts Services Agency, (d) the Patent Office, (e) the Insolvency Service, (f) NEL and (g) his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 9 March 1995]: I have asked the chief executives of the agencies to write to the hon. member. As far as my Department is concerned the management of sickness absence has been identified as a priority for line managers, with an overall target of reducing this absence to the current level of similar organisations in the private sector.

  Letter from John Hobday to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 March 1995:
  I refer to your question of 28 February to the President of the Board of Trade about the measures he is taking to combat sickness absenteeism. I am answering in respect of the Accounts Services Agency (ASA).ASA employs approximately 100 staff. In recent years the Agency's sickness absence rate has been exacerbated by the breakdown in health of, or injury to, a number of them. Alcoholism, burns, cancer, fractures, myocardial infarction, pregnancy complications and stress were involved. Over the period one officer died, three others were medically retired and one short term contract was not renewed, the officer concerned accounting for a significant amount of sick leave. Additionally, two officers are in the process of being medically retired and another has been given notice of dismissal on the grounds of poor attendance.ASA fully recognises the problems generated by absenteeism and is addressing them.485
  Letter from David Durham to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 14 March 1995:
  In his response to your recent PQ, the President of the Board of Trade asked me as Chief Executive of Companies House, to write to you outlining the measures taken by this Agency to combat sickness absenteeism.Our sickness absence at Companies House for the last twelve months has been 4.41%. In considering this figure you should be aware that some 30% of our employees work part-time, and some 10% work on a shift basis. Traditionally in both private and public sectors, absenteeism rates are higher within these employment systems.Our actual sickness absence record over the last few years has been as follows.

  1994: 4.4%

  1993: 4.6%

  1992: 5.3%

  As you will see there has been a gradual improvement but this should not indicate that we are either satisfied or complacent with the latest figure.We implement a comprehensive management framework to address the problem of absenteeism which includes the following measures:

  1. All absenteeism is monitored on a regular basis and monthly league tables on sickness absenteeism are presented to managers of every section throughout Companies House. Managers of sections which are regularly above the average for our organisation are asked to explain the reasons for that discrepancy and to report on the actions they will be taking to improve their record.

  2. All new managers attend a training programme in developing skills and expertise in "Managing Sickness Absence".

  3. Follow up or refresher sessions are available for more experienced managers.

  4. Our Personnel Section regularly monitors absence trends, long-term sickness and any dubious attendance patterns. During the last twelve months we have dismissed four people from our organisation as a result of unacceptable sickness absence.

  5. For cases of genuine sickness absence, we offer advice to employees either through our Personnel Section, the staff counselling service or a locally based Civil Service doctor.

  6. We encourage staff to take advantage of a variety of Health Screening opportunities and the Civil Service Sanatorium Society.

  7. We have an on-site gymnasium and our social club offers a range of fitness classes throughout the year.

  8. During the longer school holidays we operate play school facilities to ensure absence levels are not influenced by young family commitments.

  9. We have set ourselves a target to reduce absenteeism below 4% by the beginning of 1996 and at least maintain, and hopefully improve, that record throughout the year.

  I hope this information is what you require.
  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 7 March 1995:
  In the absence of Peter Joyce, the Chief Executive, the President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question which asked what measures The Insolvency Service is taking to combat sickness absenteeism.In recent years The Service has run Wellperson clinics which have helped to promote an understanding of health issues amongst our staff. At the same time we have been actively seeking to reduce the level of sick leave absences. We have clearly defined threshold points at which action by personnel managers is taken with regard to sick leave including, where appropriate, the involvement of staff counsellors. In more extreme cases such action has culminated in termination of services or medical retirement.The active management of sick leave absences and the reduction of sick leave to the current level of The Service's private sector have been identified as priorities for all our line managers.486
  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 14 March 1995:
  I would refer to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade on the subject of sickness absenteeism. I would confirm that NEL's policy is in line with that of the DTI and that the management of sickness absence has been identified as a priority of all line managers in NEL with the objective of reducing this form of absence to a level similar to that found in well run organisations in the private sector. To assist Managers in the task of affecting this reduction the frequency of information provided to each Manager showing the recorded sickness levels within his command has been increased and a quarterly review of the position is made at the Directorate and Divisional Managers meetings.
  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 14 March 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your Parliamentary Question about the management of sickness absenteeism.This Agency had one of the lowest absenteeism rates in DTI until the last two years, when the average figure has been distorted by the inclusion of one member of staff (of a complement of 48) who was on long-term sickness absence leading to eventual retirement on medical grounds. His absence accounts for the greater part of the increase seen in the average figure for NWML.Nevertheless, I have identified the management of sickness absence as a priority for line managers within this Agency in line with the action to be taken in the rest of DTI. Other proactive steps are being taken here to ensure that sickness absence is maintained below the level of similar organisations elsewhere.
  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 14 March 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to respond on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question about sickness absence.The management of sickness absence is a priority for line managers within the Patent Office and we have a manual to help managers deal with unsatisfactory attendance. In addition we have a sickness counselling scheme which is effective in addressing short term absences and we also use staff counselling to help staff with long-term health difficulties.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an account of decisions taken in the European Community Council of Ministers meeting on 9 March; if he will make it his policy that the United Kingdom will not accept majority voting on European Community immigration policy or visa policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The main results of the Council were as follows.

  The member states signed a convention on simplified extradition procedures. This was the first convention to be adopted under the third pillar of the treaty on European Union.

  In accordance with proposals originally put forward by the United Kingdom, the Council agreed in principle to focus in the short term on the preparation of a legally binding instrument on fraud affecting the Community budget that would deal only with key elements. This should enable the Council to meet the European Council's request that agreement on a legally binding instrument on this subject should be reached in the first half of 1995, and would be without prejudice to the continuation of

  487
  more detailed work on fraud against the Community budget. The Government welcome this further progress in the fight against fraud.

  The Council noted progress on the development of a convention covering jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial cases, known as the Brussels convention II. It agreed that officials should continue work with a view to the first part of the convention covering scope and jurisdiction, being concluded by June.

  The Council adopted a joint action extending the remit of the Europol drugs unit in The Hague to cover the fight against illegal trade in radioactive and nuclear materials, the smuggling of persons, vehicle trafficking and associated money laundering operations.

  The Council considered the outstanding issues arising from the draft Europol convention and instructed officials to continue to work to resolve them in the light of the views that had been expressed.

  The Council requested the Committee of Permanent Representatives to consider remaining points of difficulty on the draft convention establishing a customs information system.

  The Council reached broad agreement on the text of a regulation on a uniform format for visas, subject to a parliamentary scrutiny reserve entered by the UK pending debate in Parliament on the draft external frontiers convention and related matters.

  The Council adopted a resolution on minimum guarantees for asylum procedures. The UK made a declaration that it would apply the prescribed procedures relating to any applications by nationals of member states to the extent permitted by domestic legislation.

  Significant differences of view emerged during discussion of a draft resolution on burden sharing of temporarily displaced persons, on which the Council commissioned further work by officials.

  The Council approved the third pillar contribution to the European Union's strategy on racism and xenophobia which will be considered by the European Council meeting at Cannes.

  Immigration and visa matters are generally handled, in the European Union context, under the provisions of title VI—the third pillar—of the treaty of European Union. Proceedings under title VI are subject to a unanimity voting regime, and it is the Government's policy to ensure that this is maintained. The Community has competence under article 100c of the treaty of Rome only in relation to the common visa list and a uniform visa format. Article 100c provides that the uniform visa format is already subject to qualified majority voting: the common visa list will be subject to qualified majority voting from 1 January 1996.

  Community Sentencing
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on community sentencing.

  Mr. Howard
  I will tomorrow lay before Parliament and publish a Green Paper which invites views on wide-ranging proposals intended to strengthen and simplify the arrangements for the punishment of offenders in the community.

  Policing, Powys
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future policing arrangements for the new unitary district of Powys.

  Mr. Howard
  I have consulted the forces, police authorities and local authorities in the area on the future policing arrangements for the new unitary district of Powys. In the light of the replies received, I have decided that the Dyfed Powys constabulary shall be responsible for policing the whole of the new district from 1 April 1996.

  An order will be made in due course, under section 21A of the Police Act 1964, as inserted by section 14 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, to give effect to this decision, following discussions with the police authorities and forces concerned on the details of its content.

  Police (Truck Cargo Vehicles)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution is made by his Department to local police authority budgets to cover their responsibilities in providing necessary assistance to truck cargo heavy duty mark II vehicles.

  Mr. Maclean
  The level of assistance provided is an operational matter for the chief constable. Any costs are provided for in the same way as for other forms of policing.

  Cautions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cautions were issued by police forces in England and Wales in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of persons cautioned by police force area is published annually in the "Criminal Statistics England and Wales", supplementary tables, Vol 3; table S3.7A of the 1990 edition and table S3.6A of the 1991 to 1993 editions refer to this. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  1994 data will not be available until autumn 1995.

  Intercepted Telephone Calls
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Government Communications Headquarters staff at Menwith Hill station are required to obtain warrants signed by him before intercepting domestic and international phone calls made in or from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: No. All interception of communications on public telecommunications systems in the United Kingdom is subject to the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, but ministerial responsibility for GCHQ is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the
  489
  number of applications for asylum in 1994 by (a) nationality and (b) location of application.

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

  Applications1 for asylum, received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by nationality and location where made, 1994

  Number of principal applicants

  Applied at port

  Applied in-country

  Total

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  15

  215

  235

  Colombia

  275

  130

  405

  Czechoslovakia

  5

  5

  10

  Poland

  140

  220

  360

  Romania

  60

  300

  355

  Former Soviet Union

  50

  540

  595

  Turkey

  595

  1,450

  2,045

  Former Yugoslavia

  310

  1,075

  1,385

  Others

  300

  560

  865

  Total

  1,755

  4,495

  6,250

  Middle East

  Iran

  135

  385

  520

  Iraq

  250

  300

  550

  Lebanon

  70

  145

  215

  Others

  340

  355

  695

  Total

  795

  1,185

  1,985

  Africa

  Algeria

  130

  865

  995

  Angola

  155

  455

  605

  Cameroon

  10

  65

  75

  Ethiopia

  150

  580

  730

  Ghana

  445

  1,590

  2,035

  Ivory Coast

  425

  280

  705

  Kenya

  655

  475

  1,130

  Liberia

  80

  55

  140

  Nigeria

  500

  3,840

  4,340

  Sierra Leone

  960

  850

  1,810

  Somalia

  785

  1,055

  1,840

  South Africa

  40

  45

  85

  Sudan

  75

  255

  330

  Togo

  10

  45

  55

  Uganda

  105

  255

  360

  Zaire

  360

  415

  775

  Others

  370

  585

  950

  Total

  5,245

  11,715

  16,960

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  250

  75

  325

  China

  275

  150

  425

  India

  275

  1,755

  2,030

  Pakistan

  200

  1,610

  1,810

  Sri Lanka

  1,270

  1,080

  2,350

  Others

  40

  530

  575

  Total

  2,310

  5,205

  7,515

  Other and unknown nationalities

  125

  —

  125

  Grand Total

  10,230

  22,600

  32,830

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants refused asylum, having lost their appeal against the asylum decision, subsequently appealed against deportation in 1994.
  490
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available in the form requested.

  Hunger Strikes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what definition of a hunger strike is used by his Department; and what action is taken by police or prison staff when hunger strikes occur.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A hunger strike is a situation in which an individual refuses to take food and/or fluid.

  The management and care of prisoners in Prison Service custody who refuse food and/or fluid is governed by the necessity to identify the underlying reasons for such refusal to eat or drink. There is also a necessity to distinguish between those who refuse while of sound mind and those who refuse at a time when, because of a mental illness, they are unable to make a rational judgment.

  The governor and prison medical officer are informed of any prisoners not taking food or fluids. The refusal is recorded in the returned food book, which is signed daily by a medical officer. If the food and/or fluid refusal continues, the prisoner will be admitted to the health care centre or transferred to another prison with a higher level of nursing care. For those patients with impaired capacity for rational judgment, arrangements will be made to transfer them to a national health service psychiatric hospital for treatment under the terms of the Mental Health Act.

  Once in the health care centre, the patient's condition is monitored on a daily basis by the prison medical officer, together with a consultant psychiatrist. If refusal persists, a specialist physician will be called in. Fluid is always available, and food is available each meal-time. The patient will be given every encouragement to resume feeding.

  In the case of those whose mental capacity is not impaired, the medical officer will clarify the extent of the refusal, and inform the patient of the following:
  that they will continue to receive medical supervision and advice;that the medical officer, except in the most limited and exceptional circumstances, will not force-feed, hydrate, or otherwise artificially provide nutrition without the patient's consent;that they will be warned of the medical consequences of continuing refusal, and of the inevitable deterioration in health which will follow, until and unless medical intervention is requested.
  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 limits the amount of time that a suspect can be held in police detention, normally to a maximum of 24 hours. It places responsibility for the welfare of people so detained on the custody officer, who is required to immediately call a police surgeon or, in urgent cases send the person to hospital, if a detained person appears to need medical attention.

  There is no specific guidance issued to police for hunger strikes. As the Police and Criminal Evidence Act prescribes time limits for holding a suspect in police detention, a detained person is unlikely to be held long enough in police cells to be able to undertake a hunger strike.

  Fines
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total of fines(a) imposed and (b) collected by magistrates and Crown courts in Wales in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information held centrally, which is given in the table, shows the number of fines and the value of the amounts issued by type of court in Wales for 1990 to 1993.

  1994 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Information is not collected centrally by my Department on the amounts of fines paid.

  Fines data for Wales by type of court 1990 to 1993

  Court/year

  Number of fines

  Amount issued £

  Magistrates courts

  1990

  129,277

  8,851,600

  1991

  102,425

  7,077,700

  1992

  117,729

  8,586,000

  1993

  100,893

  9,082,700

  Crown court

  1990

  640

  162,400

  1991

  610

  231,000

  1992

  651

  130,300

  1993

  356

  91,800

  Source:

  Home Office.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were employed by the Welsh police forces in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of special constables employed by the Welsh police forces in each year since 1990 is as follows:

  As at 31 December

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Dyfed-Powys

  210

  315

  260

  271

  306

  Gwent

  76

  80

  101

  109

  124

  North Wales

  199

  256

  295

  298

  315

  South Wales

  257

  352

  432

  534

  488

  Total

  742

  1,003

  1,088

  1,212

  1,233

  The Government have set forces a target of increasing the number of special constables in England and Wales to 30,000 by 1996. This is an increase of 10,000 on present strength.

  As a result of the current national advertising campaign comprising both television commercials and press advertisements, inquiries and preliminary application forms received to date are as follows:

  As at 3 March 1995

  Enquiry

  Application

  Dyfed-Powys

  35

  14

  Gwent

  199

  60

  North Wales

  20

  4

  South Wales

  772

  265

  Total

  1,026

  343

  Bilateral Agreements
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 655, when he proposes to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the Republic of Ireland; and if he will list those countries (a) with which the United kingdom has negotiated such bilateral agreements and (b) with which bilateral agreements are being negotiated.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: Following the implementation of the Football Spectators Act 1989, which extends only to England and Wales, we invited all countries who were members of the Union of European Football Associations, including the Republic of Ireland, to enter into bilateral agreements on corresponding offences. Following the disorder in Dublin on 15 February, my officials will again be raising with their Irish counterparts the prospects of an agreement.

  We have also encouraged other member states which have ratified the 1985 European convention on spectator violence and misbehaviour at sports events and in particular at football matches to enter into such agreements with us.

  Currently, we have bilateral agreements only with Scotland, Sweden and Italy. Unfortunately, it has not so far proved possible to reach more agreements. The negotiations themselves are usually long and tortuous, exacerbated by the fundamental differences between our legal system and that of the other country. Some countries see the restriction order, as set out in the 1989 Act, as a further criminal penalty which could be in breach of their own legal code through punishing a person twice for the same offence. There are also difficulties in the definitions of what constitutes a football-related offence in another country and whether they correspond to those offences set out in schedule 1 to the 1989 Act. Some countries, where hooliganism is not a significant problem, may not share the same priority in reaching an agreement over something which does not concern their own citizens, but only hooligans from this country. In some cases, on all but the most serious offences, a country may simply prefer as a matter of policy to deport a hooligan quickly without a court appearance, thereby removing the basis of a possible bilateral agreement.

  Football Violence
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 408, what proposals he has to introduce legislation to provide a separate power to prevent a person subject to a restriction order from leaving the country at the stipulated time.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: I refer the hon. member to my written answer of 2 March, Official Report, column 656. Although I sympathise with the hon. Member's desire for immediate action, it is important to consider carefully the full range of options, both legislative and administrative, that may be necessary to deal effectively with the problem of football hooliganism.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, columns 655–56, if the restriction orders authority is now in a position to confirm whether the

  493
  second person subject to a restriction order breached the terms of that order.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: I understand that the restriction orders authority has not yet received confirmation that the person concerned reported to a police station as required. The authority has therefore notified the police station nearest to his home address. It is for the local police to consider investigating the relevant circumstances and to determine whether a criminal offence has been committed under section 16 of the Football Spectators Act 1989.

  Live Animal Transport, Shoreham
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the police received 26 hours' notification of the intended arrival of six cattle trucks at Shoreham port on the night of 6 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: No. I understand that Sussex police were informed at 3.30 pm on Monday 6 March that six lorries carrying live animals would be arriving at Shoreham that night. In the event, Sussex police instructed the lorries to turn back for operational and public safety reasons associated with the presence of demonstrators at Shoreham. Policing of the demonstrations is the responsibility of the chief constable of Sussex.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training providers existed as contractors for training for work provision during 1994–95; and how many contracts are being offered for 1995–96.

  Mr. Paice
  The Department contracts with training and enterprise councils for the delivery of training programmes including training for work. As private companies, TECs decide their own contracting arrangements with training providers. The Department does not collect information on TECs' contracts with providers.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for transfers from training for work to supported self-employment for the year 1995–96 to attract a payment for training providers.

  Mr. Paice
  The Department makes payments to training and enterprise councils, not directly to training providers. The Department will make an outcome payment to TECs in respect of trainees who have been in unsupported self-employment for the 13 weeks immediately after leaving training for work.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated number of start-ups for training for work schemes for 1995–96 who will receive enterprise allowance or equivalent support.

  Mr. Paice
  There are no targets set for the number of starts for trainees who will receive support during a period of self-employment while on training for work. It is for training and enterprise councils to determine the volume of such starts in the light of prevailing local circumstances.

  Remploy
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the process of awarding contracts to Remploy and other clothing contractors has been altered in the current year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Contracts arrangements in the private sector are a matter for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, at the Department of Trade and Industry. As to contracts in the public sector, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 29 November 1994,Official Report, columns 637–39 when I announced the introduction of the special contracts arrangement.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has to review the effectiveness of the current legislation protecting workers from the dangers of asbestos.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive is satisfied that current legislation and guidance provide an adequate framework for preventing and controlling the risks posed by exposure to asbestos dust. There are no plans to review the main legislation. However, the HSE is concerned to ensure compliance with the precautions required by legislation and that the risks posed by asbestos are properly understood. A campaign to this end is currently underway.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for how long the current Health and Safety Executive publicity awareness campaign concerning the risks of asbestos dust is expected to run.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive launched its asbestos awareness campaign targeted at building maintenance, repair and refurbishment workers on 6 February 1995. Its initial phase comprised advertisements in the national press and in some trade journals and a press conference on 2 March 1995. In the second phase of the campaign over the coming months, HSE inspectors and other appropriate enforcement authorities will publicise the dangers of exposure to asbestos dust, especially in their visits to premises where building renovation work is carried out.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many start-up businesses were supported by the enterprise allowance scheme or any of its renamed successors in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Paice
  The number of start-ups in England supported by the enterprise allowance scheme, known as the business start-up scheme since 1992, are shown in the following table:

  1989–90: 63,500

  1990–91: 50,300

  1991–92: 41,800

  1992–93: 33,600

  1993–94: 34,500

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will be able to make an
  495
  announcement on whether he supports the proposal that the Health and Safety Executive should report data on industrial accidents to both the European Commission and the European Environment Agency.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 28 February 1995,Official Report, column 557.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many career development loans were made in(a) Wales and (b) Britain, between April 1993 and September 1994; what was their total value in each case; and what proportion of the total funds taken up by such loans for Britain was for lending in Wales.

  Mr. Paice
  Between April 1993 and September 1994, 17,607 career development loans with a total loan value of £52,074,087 were approved nationally.

  This includes 656 loans approved in Wales with a total loan value of £1,929,244.50. This represents nearly 4 per cent. of the national total.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to introduce legal forms of positive discrimination to enable companies to advertise for disabled employees specifically so that they could ensure that disabled quotas are reached.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Not enough people have chosen to register as disabled for all employers to meet the quota requirement. Employers are free to discriminate in favour of people with disabilities when recruiting; the Disability Discrimination Bill will not alter this position. The Bill will, however, make it unlawful for an employer to treat a disabled person less favourably than other people because of their disability, unless there are justifiable reasons.

  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what help his Department gives in making companies more aware of the benefits of employing disabled people.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has an on-going programme of education and persuasion designed to make employers aware of the benefits of employing disabled people. Placing, assessment and counselling teams promote the "Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People" to employers. As well as giving advice to employers about recruitment and general practices relating to the employment of people with disabilities, the code also includes information about the full and effective role of people with disabilities at work. The Department has also mounted advertising campaigns this year, and in the previous two years, focusing on demonstrating the abilities of disabled people at work.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) of 7 March,Official Report, column 133–35, if he will place in the Library (a) the memorandum on social clauses in trade agreements, (b) the resolution on implementation of legislation in the social field to be discussed at the EU
  496
  Social Affairs Council on 27 March and (c) all relevant United Kingdom and EU documents pertaining thereto.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The presidency has not yet finalised the texts to be put to the Council. I shall be writing to the scrutiny committees about the state of play on these and other matters in advance of the Council. I shall place both documents in the Library when they become available.

  Bereavement Leave
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much time an unemployed person is granted for bereavements, without being discounted as available for work.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Colin Pickthall, dated 14 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the amount of time an unemployed person is granted for bereavements, without being discounted as available for work.It may help if I explain that the receipt of unemployment benefit, National Insurance contribution credits and income support when unemployed, is conditional upon a person being available for and actively seeking work. This means that the individual must be available to start work immediately; must not place such restrictions on the work they are willing to do as to leave them with no real prospects of finding a job; and must take those steps each week that offer them their best prospects of being offered work.Availability is a daily condition which means that the client must be available to do some work on every day of claim, usually Monday to Saturday.If a client declares to my people in local offices that they are not available for work for any day(s), Social Security regulations provide for their claim to be referred to an independent adjudication officer for a decision about entitlement.However, my local office and section managers have some discretion in deciding whether a claim is referred or not. If a client is unable to attend on their normal signing day, or cannot attend a pre-arranged interview, because of a domestic crisis such as a bereavement, my people have discretion to treat the claim as straightforward, without reference to an adjudication officer. In such circumstances there are no time limits. I expect my people to use judgement and decide what is reasonable in the light of the circumstances of each case.I hope this is helpful.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each standard region for each year since 1979 the average(a) hourly and (b) weekly (i) full-time and (ii) part-time (1) male and (2) female earnings, the total number and proportion of (c) male and (d) female (iii) part-time employees earning less than £5.88 per hour and (iv) full-time employees earning less than £221.50 per week, and the average weekly earnings of the top and bottom deciles of (e) full-time and (f) part-time, (v) male and (vi) female employees.
  497
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Analyses by standard region of the new earnings survey results for full-time employees are published in part E of the report.

  Tables 110 and 113 contain average gross weekly and hourly earnings, and the top and bottom deciles of weekly earnings, for men and women respectively.

  Table 114 contains the sample numbers and the percentages with weekly earnings below a range of levels. These include £220 in 1994 but in 1979 the top of the range was £200 for men and £100 for women.

  Table 115 contains similar information on a range of hourly earnings that included £6 per hour in 1994 but in 1979 the top of the range was £3.50 for men and £2.20 for women.

  Information for part-time women is published in part F. Table 180 contains information similar to table 113 and table 175 contains information similar to table 115.

  Copies of the new earnings survey reports can be found in the Library.

  The information is not available for part-time men.

  Pilot

  (b) the number of places taken up1

  (c)the number of people still participating

  (d)the number of employers involved2

  Kent

  468

  238

  380

  Devon and Cornwall

  626

  433

  309

  Tyneside

  243

  137

  130

  South west and south London

  238

  108

  144

  1Figures February 1995.2 Figures September 1994 (evaluation completed in September).

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March 1995.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 March.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently on an official visit to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan. He is also accompanied by a large delegation of British business men.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister who authorised the approach by police to the journalist, David Johnston, of Radio Forth, to be offered the facility of direct communication with the then Prime Minister, in order to induce him to reveal the source of certain information relating to Lockerbie in December 1988.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  As has been repeatedly made clear it is not appropriate for the investigating authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl attempts by the Bundeskriminalamt and the Verfassungschütz to deflect blame for the Lockerbie crime from the Rhein-Main airport in Frankfurt, and the statement by the

  Workstart
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the number of places available each year, (b) the actual number taken up, (c) the number of people involved in the programme who are presently in employment and (d) the number of different employers involved in the programme, in respect of each pilot workstart programme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Workstart was piloted in four areas between July 1993 and December 1994: Devon and Cornwall, Kent, Tyneside and south and south-west London. The figures requested are shown in the following table. All available places were taken up. In the survey of employers, published on 12 December 1994, over 80 per cent. of employers interviewed said they intended to keep the workstart employee on after the subsidy ended. The follow-up survey due to report in November 1995 will give more information on this matter. Five thousand places will be available on the further pilots, announced in the Budget, which will begin in April 1995.

  Bundesministerium of Justice on 20 February 1995 letter Geschäftzeichen 111 BLA 4038 E 634/88 about the absence of knowledge by the investigators of the public prosecutors office in Frankfurt of whether explosives which led to the crashing of the Pan Am plane got on board the feeder plane in Frankfurt am Main.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To aks the Prime Minister what assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving to relatives of the British Lockerbie victims in their presentation of a petition to the European Parliament, drawing attention to six years of effort to find the truth about Lockerbie.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have received no request to assist in this matter.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if a vet from his Department was present at Shoreham port on the night of 6 March for the arrival of six cattle trucks;

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the transport plan for the six truckloads of cattle destined to leave from Shoreham port on the night of 6 March was. capable of being fulfilled, and whether the cattle were rested, fed and watered after 15 hours; what happened to the cattle; and if he will make a statement.
  499
  Mrs. Browning
  A veterinary officer was at the port awaiting the arrival of six trucks containing calves. In the event, a demonstration prevented two livestock lorries already on their way to Shoreham from reaching the port. I understand that these lorries returned with the calves to the premises or origin in Oxfordshire. Officials were satisfied that all the animals could be returned to their home premises within the 15-hour limit by which time the animals would have had to be fed and rested.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what time loading commenced of a consignment of calves which arrived in Brightlingsea on 3 March on to the vehicle which transported them to Brightlingsea; how many calves were on the vehicles; at what time and from where the journey to Brightlingsea began; what time they arrived at the port; what subsequently happened to them; when feeding of all the calves was completed; what time the vessel designated to ship the calves to the continent arrived at Brightlingsea; what time loading of the vessel commenced; what time loading of the vessel completed, and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  I understand that the journey of the 194 calves began at 05.30 hours from premises in Kent. The lorry carrying calves arrived at a lairage near Harwich shortly after 10.00 hours where it waited until convoyed to the port, arriving at about 14.00 hours. The calves were fed aboard the lorry between 18.00 hours and 19.50 hours. The vessel berthed at 23.10 hours and the calves were loaded from 23.30 hours and fed immediately. All were aboard by 23.45 hours. Sheep were loaded between 23.45 and 01.20 hours.

  The other four livestock lorries were at local lairages ready to load calves already resting there. In the circumstances, loading of those animals for Shoreham did not even begin.

  Journey plans had been scrutinised by officials before the proposed export journeys started and were satisfactory.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the aggregate estimated annual cost of the Meat Hygiene Service;

  (2) what is the aggregate annual cost of all Meat Hygiene Service staff in the financial year 1995–96.

  Mrs. Browning
  The total estimated cost of the Meat Hygiene Service in 1995–96 is £53.4 million. Within this figure, £26.5 million relates to the cost of employed staff—excluding relief cover for holidays, sickness and so on—and £10.2 million is for contracted veterinary services.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what protection has been written into staff contracts of employment to cover the eventuality that the Meat Hygiene Service does not receive parliamentary approval.

  Mrs. Browning
  Parliamentary approval is not required for the setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service, which will be an agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Changes to secondary legislation are required to place responsibility for fresh meat and welfare enforcement on Ministers.
  500
  The majority of Meat Hygiene Service employees will be meat inspectors transferring from their local authority employers to the agency on 1 April 1995 in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Meat Hygiene Service staff employed by MAFF in advance of launch are subject to the Ministry's standard terms, which provide for three months notice or payment in lieu.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what date the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service was appointed;

  (2) what is the total remuneration package for the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service.

  Mrs. Browning
  The appointment of the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service for an initial period of five years was announced on 19 May 1994 and he took up his post full time on 1 September 1994. The chief executive's annual salary is £70,000. In addition, he is eligible for an annual, non-pensionable performance-related bonus of up to 12.5 per cent. of basic pay.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1) what is the total number of staff appointed to the Meat Hygiene Service;

  (2) what is the ultimate complement of full-time and part-time staff to be appointed to the Meat Hygiene Service.

  Mrs. Browning
  At launch, the Meat Hygiene Service will employ 947 staff, comprising 872 meat inspectors and veterinarians and 75 management and support staff. Veterinary services will be obtained also through contracts with veterinary practices. The complement of the Meat Hygiene Service will be subject to adjustments to reflect any changes in the number of licensed fresh meat premises and the requirements of the relevant legislation.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1) on what date it is proposed that the Meat Hygiene Service will become operational;

  (2) on what date he made it his policy to establish the Meat Hygiene Service.

  Mrs. Browning
  In March 1992 the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) announced the intention to create a national meat hygiene service, constituted as an agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to take over the fresh meat hygiene enforcement currently carried out by local authorities.

  The Meat Hygiene Service will become operational on 1 April 1995.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what premises have been acquired or leased by the Meat Hygiene Service.

  Mrs. Browning
  None. The Meat Hygiene Service is a minority occupier in Government offices in York, Cambridge, Wolverhampton, Taunton, Edinburgh and Cardiff.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what subordinate legislation is required to give effect to the Meat Hygiene Service; and what is the timetable for its introduction.
  501
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer on 13 March 1995]: Changes are needed to make Ministers responsible for the enforcement of fresh meat hygiene and welfare at slaughter legislation. The following regulations, which include other changes not relevant to the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service, are being laid before Parliament to come into force on 1 April 1995:
  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 The Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 and The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995.
  The following regulations will provide for Ministers to enforce controls in fresh meat plants over unfit meat and bovine offals.
  The Animal By Products (Identification) Regulations 1995, and The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1995.
  The Meat (Hygiene, Inspection and Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/361) were laid before Parliament on 17 February and will, mostly, come into operation on 1 April 1995. Regulations 12 and 13 of these regulations, which provide for formal consultation on charges, come into operation on 13 March 1995.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) negative and (b) affirmative statutory instruments have been laid by his Department in each year since 1970; what proportion of the negative statutory instruments were the subject of prayers for their annulment; and what proportions of those prayers were debated.

  Mr. Jack
  Figures can be provided only from the year 1986 onwards without incurring disproportionate costs. These are as follows:

  Type of statutory instrument

  Year

  Negative resolution

  Affirmative resolution

  1986

  78

  19

  1987

  66

  13

  1988

  57

  11

  1989

  72

  22

  1990

  91

  14

  1991

  71

  12

  1992

  98

  6

  1993

  94

  5

  1994

  108

  6

  It should be borne in mind that not all statutory instruments impose requirements on business and some amend, replace or revoke existing statutory instruments.

  No central records are kept of the number of negative statutory instruments which were the subject of a prayer and therefore no information can be supplied on the proportion debated.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the consultants, (b) the tasks for which they were employed and (c) the payments made to them from the budget of his Department in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.
  502
  Mr. Jack
  Details of consultants employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the years 1992–93 and 1993–94 and their tasks and of consultants employed by MAFF's executive agencies will be placed in the Library. The total cost to MAFF and the agencies in each year is as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  MAFF (excluding ITD)

  1,903,204

  1,988,234

  Information Technology Division

  5,200,000

  8,300,000

  ADAS

  387,000

  985,845

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  546,833

  463,037

  Central Science Laboratory

  17,100

  149,731

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  41,272

  34,281

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  —

  170,469

  Total

  8,095,409

  12,091,597

  Agriculture, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people were employed in agriculture in the Harrogate borough council area in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of persons employed in agriculture in the local government district of Harrogate at June in each of the years from 1987 to 1994 is given in the table. Data for earlier years are not available.

  Number of person employed in agriculture in the Harrogate LCD 1987 to 1994

  Year

  Number

  1987

  4,777

  1988

  4,738

  1989

  4,571

  1990

  4,457

  1991

  4,362

  1992

  4,285

  1993

  4,256

  1994

  4,162

  Source:

  June Census of Agriculture and Horticulture.

  Notes:

  1. Data relates to main holdings (minor holdings excluded).

  2. Figures include all categories of workers—i.e. farmers, partners, directors (including spouses); salaried managers; hired workers; family workers; seasonal or casual workers.

  Bio-fuel
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current estimated figures in hectares of land under crops used for bio-fuel purposes; what were the figures in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The main crop sources for bio-fuels are oilseed rape and short rotation coppice.

  Prior to 1993 and the introduction of the arable area payments scheme oilseed rape grown for non-food uses was not recorded separately. In 1993, 24,087 hectares of oilseed rape, excluding high erucic acid rape grown primarily for use as a slipping agent, was planted on

  503
  set-aside land for non-food outlets and oil produced will mainly have been used for bio-fuels and in pharmaceuticals. In 1994 this had risen to 78,402 hectares.

  There is no scheme information on the amount of short rotation coppice grown for bio-fuels but it is estimated that in 1993 90 hectares had been planted for this purpose, and increased to 230 hectares in 1994. Under the third order under the non-fossil fuel obligation, NFFO 3, it is expected that over the next few years 5,000 to 7,000 hectares of short rotation coppice could be established.

  The use of agricultural crops are renewable raw materials for industry and energy is a new development which the Government are keen to foster.

  Milk
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of milk quota is currently owned by persons who are not active dairy farmers; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Jack
  The intervention board keeps a record of individual producer's milk quota but not their milk production. Information on the percentage of milk quota owned by non-producing quota holders is therefore not available.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are currently being taken in respect of the black market in milk.

  Mr. Jack
  The industry has taken excellent advantage of the intervention board's fraud freephone and provided many reports of trading in black market milk. The agency's team of investigators are vigorously following up a number of leads.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies for which it is responsible, in 1994, giving in each case the total cost to the Exchequer of their production publication and distribution and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 2 march 1995]: In respect of those White Papers, Green Papers and other publications published by HMSO all costs are borne by HMSO who aim to recover these from sales revenue. In addition, MAFF produces a wide range of reports, information booklets and other publications which are listed in the Department's publications catalogue, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The cost of producing, publishing and distributing such material in 1994–95 is expected to be about £2.2 million. Expenditure relating to all individual items could be ascertained only at disproportionate cost, but I should be happy to provide the hon. Member with further details relating to any publications in which he is particularly interested.

  Publications produced by MAFF agencies are the responsibility of their chief executives. I have asked them to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Figures for 1980 are not available in a comparable form.
  504
  Letter from Dr. P. 1. Stanley to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 13 March 1995:

  EXPENDITURE IN 1994 BY MAFF AND ITS AGENCIES ON WHITE PAPERS, GREEN PAPERS AND PAMPHLETS
  No White Papers or Green Papers were published by the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) in 1994. However the Agency produced several information pamphlets including a Statement of Standards and several information pamphlets including a Statement of Standards and Quality of Service. The total cost of producing, publishing and distributing such material in the 1994–95 financial year is about £9,500.CSL was launched as an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) on 1 April 1992 and therefore no comparable figure is available for 1980, when CSL formed part of the Department.
  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 13 March 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about White Papers, Green Papers and Pamphlets issued by Agencies in 1994.CVL publishes a number of pamphlets aimed at assisting the marketing of its services. In 1994 the cost of production of these items was £8,900 including VAT. The material is distributed in a wide variety of ways including handing-out at conferences and exhibitions, mailed with other material or collected from CVL Reception. Costs of distribution are not therefore kept separately.CVL became an Agency in 1990 and so it is not possible to provide comparable costs with 1980 when CVL was part of the Department.
  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 13 March 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate, to your question about expenditure on selected publications.The Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) has not produced any White papers or Green papers in 1994/95. It has produced two pamphlets; one setting out our customer service standards and one describing the work of the agency. The cost of producing these pamphlets was £1,655. Costs of other pamphlets with a wider Food Safety emphasis have been borne centrally and therefore covered in the return from MAFF.As PSD was established as an agency on 1 April 1993 comparable figures for 1980 are not available.
  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 6 March 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the cost of the production, publication and distribution of certain publications by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.The Directorate was not established as a Next Steps Agency until 2 April 1990, nor does it issue any white papers or green papers. In 1994, the VMD issued the following pamphlets:Sheep Dipping— published jointly in May 1994 with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Department of the Environment. Production costs were met by the HSE, but the VMD paid for the distribution of copies to the 90,000 registered sheep farmers in the UK. The total cost of this distribution was £22,153.62.VMD Customer Service Statement£ published in July 1994. The total production and distribution costs for 7,000 copies was £3,453.13.Two further pamphlets were published in house during 1994 at no extra cost.AMELIA I— Provisional Marketing Authorisations.(A guidance note on new authorisation arrangements for veterinary medicines published in September 1994).Veterinary Medicinal Products (Dips, injectables, pour ems and sprays) available in the UK for use as ectoparasiticides in sheep—(Published in December 1994).505
  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 13 March 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about publications issued by the Ministry and MAFF-related agencies, as the information for the Intervention Board is a matter within my operational responsibility.In 1994 HMSO published the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts 1993–94; the cost of copies for general sale was borne by HMSO, but the Intervention Board paid £12,500 for producing copies for the Agency's use. HMSO also published the Intervention Board's Annual Report for 1980 (Cmnd 8283). No expenditure was incurred by the Board.The Agency itself publishes a range of scheme and information leaflets. These are listed in our Annual Reports, which are available in the Library of the House. Printing costs in 1994 were £28,225. Figures for 1980 are not available in a comparable form.
  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Mr. Roland Boyes, dated 13 March 1995:
  I have been asked by the Minister of Agriculture to reply direct to you concerning the question you tabled on Thursday 2nd March. In this you asked for a list of all white papers, green papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies, in 1994, giving in each case, the total cost to the Exchequer of their production, publication and distribution. You also required the total equivalent cost in 1980.As an Agency, ADAS has not produced any white papers, green papers or equivalent pamphlets. ADAS was formed as an executive agency in 1992 so no comparison would be possible with the year 1980. ADAS continues to produce a number of leaflets in support of the marketing related to its commercial activity.

  Lambs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has put forward in the European Council of Ministers to eliminate the

  Lamb marketings 1989 to 1994

  thousand head

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total UK Lamb marketings1

  18,296

  18,564

  19,937

  18,840

  17,892

  n/a

  of which;

  Lamb Slaughterings2

  England

  12,130

  12,556

  13,315

  12,349

  11,345

  11,062

  Wales

  2,177

  2,102

  2,276

  1,673

  1,868

  1,705

  Scotland

  2,815

  2,787

  3,048

  2,989

  3,104

  3,271

  Northern Ireland

  731

  733

  617

  955

  978

  776

  UK

  17,853

  18,177

  19,255

  17,966

  17,295

  16,814

  Live exports3 UK

  442

  386

  681

  874

  597

  n/a

  1 Home killed slaughter plus recorded live exports.

  2 Home killed slaughter of other sheep and lambs.

  3Source:

  1989–1992 Central Statistical Office, 1993 MDS Transmodal. Sheep under 1 year.

  1993 data, based on the new system of recording trade between EU countries (lntrastat),are provisional. They are thought to under-recorded the true level of exports.

  Data for 1994 are not yet available.

  Live exports are not broken down below the UK level.

  Alkaloids in Foods
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what research his Department is currently funding or initiating into the effects of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in foods: who is undertaking that research: what is its purpose: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is currently funding one project at the university of Glasgow on pyrrolizidine alkaloids in foods. The 506
  additional grants available for slaughtering in continental countries, after a short period of residency, of lambs reared in Wales but which thereafter qualify as lambs of these other countries and benefit from grant eligibility for which they would not have qualified had they been slaughtered in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I am not aware that any member state of the EU is paying slaughter premiums on lambs slaughtered in its abattoirs. Such premiums would distort competition and constitute an illegal state aid. I would not hesitate to encourage the Commission to take action in the face of evidence that any such grants were paid.

  Welsh lamb slaughtered in, say, France currently attracts a premium price on the market as compared with Welsh lamb exported to France in carcase form. This is because lambs slaughtered in France carry a French health stamp and can legitimately be described as "home killed", whatever their origin.

  The Meat and Livestock Commission is making every effort to promote the image of British carcase meat exports on EU markets and has the full support of the Government in doing so.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many lambs were sold to market from farms in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in each of the past five years; and how many of the lambs from each country were exported.

  Mr. Jack
  The total number of United Kingdom lamb marketings are given in the following table. These are then broken down by those slaughtered in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and those exported live from the UK as a whole.

  The number of lambs exported live is not broken down below the UK level.

  project will study the relative toxicities of different pyrrolizidine alkaloids and should improve assessment of risk from ingestion of these alkaloids. Results of recent surveillance of levels of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in UK honey were published in the February edition of the Food Safety Information Bulletin.

  Juice Plus
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what correspondence has
  507
  been exchanged or received by or between Ministers in his Department in the last three years on the use, distribution or approval of Juice Plus.

  Mrs. Browning
  None.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of cases of food poisoning reported from(a) salmonella and (b) campylobacter in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  Data for 1981 to 1993 are published in the Steering Group on the Microbiological Safety of Food Annual Report 1993, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The confirmed total for 1993 for all salmonellas is 30,654 and the provisional figure for 1994 is 30,427.

  The provisional figure for 1994 for campylobacter is 44,315. The 1993 figure is still provisional at 39,383.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of anthrax have been reported in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of confirmed cases of anthrax reported in England for the years in question is:

  1985: 1

  1986: 7

  1987: 3

  1988: 3

  1989: 3

  1990: 3

  1991: 1

  1992: 1

  1993: 1

  1994: 3

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  VAT (Accommodation)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to press for a reduction in value added tax rates in the accommodation sector, following the report by McKinsey Inc.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The McKinsey study concluded that the effect of a reduction in VAT on our tourism revenues would be uncertain. It is not clear that taxation places our operators at a competitive disadvantage without comparing the total tax burden on them with that carried by their European competitors, who have to bear the costs of the social chapter; and it is not clear that the benefits of a VAT reduction would be passed on to customers. I intend to help the accommodation sector improve value for money by means of the measures I announced on 1 March.

  Children's Play
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many responses he received with regard to the restructuring of children's play, showing(a) the total number of responses, (b) the number of responses, (i) in
  508
  favour of creating a national body and (ii) opposing the creation of a new national body and (c) the number of responses (1) in favour of extending national lottery funding to children's play activities and (2) opposing the extension of national lottery funding to children's play activities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has received a total of 135 responses regarding future arrangements for children's play. Sixty-five of the individuals and organisations which responded were in favour of the creation of a national body and 24 were in favour of children's play activities being eligible for national lottery funding. None of the responses opposed either of these ideas.

  English Heritage Commission
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1165, who replaced Sir Hugh Cubitt when his appointment as a member of the English Heritage Commission ended on 31 December; and if regard was given in making this appointment, to the desirability of at least one member of this commission having knowledge of local government.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am currently considering new appointments to the English Heritage Commission, including a replacement for Sir Hugh Cubitt, and will give due regard to the desirability of at least one member having knowledge of local government when making these appointments.

  Cultural Property Ownership
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the negotiations to be held next June in Rome when the final draft of a treaty on cultural property ownership will be considered; and what is his assessment of their effect on the buying and selling of antiquities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 March 1995]: I can confirm that there will be a diplomatic conference in Rome from 7 to 24 June this year, to discuss the draft Unidroit convention on the international return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. It is our present intention that the UK will be represented. As the convention will be subject to further amendment at the conference, I cannot anticipate whether the UK will become a signatory or what effect its provision might have on the buying and selling of antiquities in the United Kingdom.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Tranquilliser Addiction
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to provide legal aid to help people addicted to tranquillisers to pursue their cases against drug companies.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Civil legal aid is available for almost all proceedings through the courts of England and Wales, subject to tests as to the means of the applicant,
  509
  and the merits of his or her case. Decisions on the grant or refusal of civil legal aid are taken by the Legal Aid Board, and I cannot intervene in its decisions.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases are currently being pursued in the courts by people addicted to tranquillisers against drug companies.

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Former Prisoners of War
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what backing Her Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo gave to former British prisoners of war of the Japanese when they visited Japan recently to claim compensation for their treatment and that of other prisoners of the Japanese in the second world war.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Ambassador met and briefed the former prisoners during their visit to Japan. He helped them to meet a representative of the Japanese Government and to pay tribute to their fallen comrades at the Commonwealth war graves cemetery.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define what he means by the word "dud" in his reply to the Adjournment debate on 1 February, referring to a document of air intelligence unit of the US air force in relation to payment by Ali Akbar Mostashemi to terrorist groups for a contract to bomb an airliner.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  When the report in question was assessed, it was found to be no more than an unsubstantiated rumour of no intelligence value.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will submit to the Committee on Intelligence the transcripts of conversations, in 1988, between Iranian Government officials recording their satisfaction with the Lockerbie explosion.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not comment on such matters.

  Embassy, Berlin
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to develop the British embassy in Berlin; what is the estimated value of the present site; what is the projected cost of the redevelopment work; how many staff will be employed in the embassy; how much office space, residential accommodation and what recreational and restaurant facilities will be provided; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We own the site of the former embassy in Berlin, destroyed during world war two. Its value is estimated at £11 million. The cost of construction of a new building on that site together with the cost of an adjoining site which is being acquired, is estimated at £21 510
  million. This will enable a fully functioning embassy to be built and provide office accommodation for 80 UK-based and 80 local staff. No residential accommodation will be built. A staff canteen, recreation room and library will be provided. Conference and exhibition facilities will also be provided for use by British exporters and other organisations.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sites were considered for the new British embassy in Berlin; who made the decision on the site and on what advice; what provisional arrangements will be made and at what cost to ensure the effective continuation of the embassy's work during the period of redevelopment; and for how long it is expected to last.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Various possibilities were considered for the establishment of a new embassy in Berlin. The most cost-effective option was chosen. The decision we took was to construct a new building on a site we already part owned.

  The work of the British embassy will continue in Bonn and at the present British embassy, Berlin office, at 32/34 Unter den Linden, until the opening of the new building, planned for early 1999, when staff will be transferred.

  Social Development Summit
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the world summit for social development which was held in Copenhagen from 6 to 12 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The world summit for social development provided an opportunity for discussion of the key development issues of poverty reduction, job creation and improving social cohesion, and for ideas to be shared at a high level on how these problems might be overcome. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey represented the Government and made a keynote speech setting out the Government's good record on tackling problems of poverty and unemployment at home, and our support through the aid programme for developing countries' efforts to achieve sustainable people-centred development

  The Government are pleased that the summit's documentation includes strong references to human rights, good governance, developing country debt, trade liberalisation and the need for economic growth.

EDUCATION

  Local Education Authority Budgets
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each local education authority budgeted spending for 1995–96.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on local authorities' budgets for 1995–96 will become available centrally later in the year.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the average level of hold-back from local education authority educational budgets for local authorities controlled by(a) Conservative, (b) Labour and (c) Liberal Democrat administrations;
  511
  (2) what is the level of hold-back within the expenditure of the Coventry education authority;

  (3) what is the level of hold-back within the education expenditure of (a) Coventry, (b) Solihull, (c) Birmingham, (d) Warwickshire, (e) Wandsworth, (f) Westminster, (g) Sandwell, (h) Wolverhampton and (i) Walsall local education authorities.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The percentage of the potential schools budget retained centrally for 1994–95 by the LEAs in question is as follows:1

  Percentage

  Coventry

  12.9

  Solihull

  9.6

  Birmingham

  13.2

  Warwickshire

  14.3

  Wandsworth2

  17.7

  Westminster

  11.5

  Sandwell

  13.5

  Wolverhampton

  11.3

  Walsall

  12.3

  1 The figures are taken from the answer given on 17 October 1994 to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) Official Report, columns 27–36.

  2 In the case of the inner London authorities (other than Westminster) the introduction of local management of Schools was deferred until April 1992, and the delegation requirements applicable to those authorities differ from those applicable elsewhere.

  I will write to my hon. Friend about average hold-back by LEAs according to political control.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many education authorities have made representations that their budgets of 1995–96 are insufficient for their(a) education and (b) youth services.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My colleagues and I have received representations from a large number of local education authorities about aspects of their budgets for 1995–96.

  European Proposals
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the state of negotiation of the EC SOCRATES and Youth for Europe III proposals.

  Mr. Boswell
  Both proposals were finally adopted at the Council of Ministers' meeting on 10 March. The Council agreed that the SOCRATES decision should contain a finance article setting the programme's budget at 850 million ECU—£689 million1—over five years, subject to neutral review by the Council and the European Parliament after two years. A finance article was also agreed for Youth for Europe III setting its budget at 126 million ECU—£102 million—over five years. The proposals had previously been approved by the European Parliament on 1 March.

  SOCRATES is the first major European Union initiative to encourage practical co-operation at all levels of education across Europe. While each member state will keep its distinctive education system, schools will benefit from developing new partnerships with schools from other European countries. These partnerships will particularly help children learning the languages of the European Union.

  In addition, there will be continuing support throughout the education system for teachers, colleges and
  512
  universities, including continuation of the ERASMUS programme. I hope, later this month, to launch the national agencies which will distribute money to institutions which bid successfully.

  1 converted at 1 ECU = £0.8103.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many applications for loans the Student Loans Company received for the year 1994–95; how many were accepted; and how many of these have not yet been paid to the applicant.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the acting chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Nursery Education
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 392, how much Government proposals on the provision of nursery education will cost (a) nationally and (b) in Norfolk in 1995–96.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been consulting a wide range of practitioners and professionals to inform the development of detailed proposals on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's commitment to provide, over time, a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take it up. The nature of the proposals will determine the costs.

  Schools (Transfers)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools are being transferred from Hereford and Worcester local education authority to Birmingham local education authority from April.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Five.

  Birmingham LEA
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total capital allocation for education to Birmingham local education authority since 1984–85; what has been the actual capital expenditure on education in Birmingham in the same period; and what information she has on the cost of dealing with the backlog in repairs and renovations in Birmingham's schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total capital allocation for education and actual capital expenditure on education in Birmingham has been as follows:

  £ million

  County and controlled schools1

  Voluntary aided schools5

  Total allocation

  Actual outturn6

  1984–85

  26.5

  0.2

  6.7

  7—

  1985–86

  3.7

  1.1

  4.8

  9.9

  1986–87

  5.0

  0.6

  5.6

  7.5

  1987–88

  3.9

  1.0

  4.9

  7.5

  1988–89

  4.4

  1.8

  6.2

  5.5

  1989–90

  5.2

  2.0

  7.2

  10.7

  1990–91

  310.5

  1.2

  11.7

  14.7

  1991–92

  11.1

  1.1

  12.2

  14.9

  513

  £million

  County and controlled schools1

  Voluntary aided schools5

  Total allocation

  Actual outturn6

  1992–93

  10.9

  1.8

  12.7

  13.4

  1993–94

  46.2

  1.4

  7.6

  813.3

  1994–95

  10.9

  1.1

  12.0

  9—

  1995–96

  9.2

  0.4

  9.6

  9—

  Notes:

  1All totals given relate to the announced annual allocations only, and therefore exclude any supplementary funding, either in the form of supplementary credit approvals (post-1990), or prescribed additional funding (pre-1990).

  2 Figures up to and including 1989–90 represent annual notional capital allocations. The figures prior to 1993–94 also include an element of further education and sixth-form college funding.

  3 The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 introduced annual capital guidelines as a means of allocating borrowing power to local education authorities. This took effect from 1 April 1990.

  4 The establishment of the Further Education Funding Council in 1993 resulted in the separate determination of funding for further education and sixth-form colleges. ACG figures from 1993–94 therefore exclude this area of funding.

  5 Figures for voluntary aided education are as originally announced. They exclude any later allocations made in the year as a result of, for example, the approval of statutory proposals.

  6 Figures are derived from capital outturn returns submitted by LEAs to the Department of the Environment. Capital expenditure represents gross outturn on all areas of education, including the urban programme.

  7 Department of Environment data not available.

  8 1993–94 figure provisional only.

  9 Figures relate to financial years. As 1994–95 FY is not yet complete, figures are not available after 1993–94.

  Expenditure on repairs and renovations is a matter for the LEA.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many surplus school places there are in Devon.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There were 9,032—10 per cent.—primary surplus school places and 4,160—7 per cent.—secondary surplus school places in LEA maintained schools in Devon in January 1994. Data on surplus places in grant-maintained schools in Devon are not available.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the number of surplus school places proposed to be removed as a result of local education authority reorganisation plans submitted to her which were(a) approved and (b) rejected by her as a consequence of a parallel proposal for grant maintained status for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In case where there were both proposals to cease to maintain a school and parallel proposals for grant-maintained status, the table shows for each year since 1990 the school capacity proposed to be removed by local education authority school reorganisation plans which were(a) approved and (b) rejected and the proposals for grant-maintained status approved.

  Year proposals published

  (a) closure approved

  (b) GM application approved

  1990

  2,440

  5,046

  1991

  4,547

  3,504

  1992

  6,302

  0

  514

  Year proposals published

  (a)closure approved

  (b)GM application approved

  1993

  5,259

  1,278

  1994

  241

  37

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what proportion of pupils attended(a) state and (b) independent secondary schools in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985 and (iii) 1992;

  (2) what proportion of pupils attended (a) state and (b) independent primary schools in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985 and (iii) 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The percentage of pupils attending maintained primary and secondary schools and independent schools in England for the years requested is shown in the table. Independent schools are not classified into primary and secondary schools.

  Percentage of pupils attending maintained primary and secondary schools1 and independent schools in England 1979, 1985, 1992 and 1993

  position in January each year

  Maintained schools

  Independent schools

  Primary

  Secondary

  1979

  50

  42

  6

  1985

  48

  44

  7

  1992

  54

  37

  7

  1993

  54

  37

  7

  1 Excluding sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from April 1993.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the independent schools that have entered the grant-maintained sector, excluding religious schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To date, no independent schools have entered the grant-maintained sector under the provisions introduced last year by the Education Act 1993. A number of non-denominational independent schools have expressed an interest or sought further information.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to encourage independent schools to enter the state sector of education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Recent changes to the law now allow independent schools to apply to join the grant-maintained sector. Guidance on this has been made available to interested parties. All proposals which come forward are considered on their merits.

  Schools (Costs)
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current difference between the average annual cost of a secondary place in the state
  515
  sector, and the average annual fees for a day place in the private sector.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average spending per pupil in local education authority maintained secondary schools in England is estimated to be £2,250 in the financial year 1993–94. Comprehensive data from which the average annual fees for a day place in the independent sector could be calculated are not collected centrally; but the average fee charged for pupils in the assisted places scheme in the academic year 1993–94 was £4,112. For various reasons, however, the two figures quoted are not directly comparable, not least because the figure for maintained schools excludes significant items of school-related expenditure.

  Gross education expenditure from 1979–80

  Hampshire county council

  Gross expenditure (cash terms)

  Gross expenditure (1994–95 prices)

  Percentage increase on 1979–80 in real terms

  Percentage increase on previous year in real terms

  1979–80

  254,781

  638,033

  —

  —

  1980–81

  304,603

  644,688

  1.0

  1.0

  1981–82

  333,658

  643,896

  0.9

  -0.1

  1982–83

  352,599

  635,212

  -0.4

  -1.3

  1983–84

  366,578

  631,124

  -1.1

  -0.6

  1984–85

  379,401

  621,948

  -2.5

  -1.5

  1985–86

  397,771

  618,174

  -3.1

  -0.6

  1986–87

  427,445

  644,837

  1.1

  4.3

  1987–88

  470,240

  673.536

  5.6

  4.5

  1988–89

  515,039

  691,437

  8.4

  2.7

  1989–90

  516,959

  648,703

  1.7

  -6.2

  1990–91

  558,882

  649,285

  1.8

  0.1

  1991–92

  638,522

  697,950

  9.4

  7.5

  1992–93

  698,227

  733,984

  15.0

  5.2

  1993–941

  581,475

  593,105

  -7.0

  -19.2

  1 Provisional figures.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of pupils attended selective grammar schools in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The percentages of pupils who attended maintained grammar schools in England in the years requested are shown in the table.

  Percentages of pupils who attended maintained grammar schools in England

  Position in January each year

  Percentage

  1979

  4.8

  1985

  3.7

  1992

  4.1

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the average class sizes in(a) state secondary and (b) independent schools in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985 and (iii) 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average size of single teacher classes in maintained secondary schools in England for the years requested is shown in the table. Information on the size of classes in independent schools is not held centrally.

  Hampshire County Council
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the expenditure of Hampshire county council on education each year since 1979 expressed in cash terms, real terms and as a real terms percentage increase or decrease on 1979 and on the previous year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows total expenditure by Hampshire local education authority from 1979–80 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available, in cash and real terms, together with the percentage increases on 1979 and on the previous year. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Average size of single teacher classes in maintained secondary schools1 in England

  Position in January each year

  Class size

  1979

  21.2

  1985

  20.6

  1993

  21.2

  1 Excluding sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from April 1993.

DEFENCE

  Euro 2000 Plane
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the allocation of work on the Euro 2000 plane to each country involved, relative to their share of planes ordered;

  (2) how many Euro 2000 planes have been ordered by each participating country.

  Mr. Freeman
  The partner nations in the Eurofighter 2000 project agreed in 1988 that workshares in the development phase should be Germany 33 per cent., Italy 21 per cent., Spain 13 per cent. and the United Kingdom 33 per cent. These were based on declared offtakes of Germany 250, Italy 165, Spain 100 and United Kingdom
  517
  250 aircraft. Firm commitments and consequent workshare allocations for the production phase have yet to be decided.

  St. Helenians
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what correspondence there has been between his Department and defence contractors employing St. Helenians to work on the Falkland Islands about payment or other treatment of St. Helenians on a differential basis from British ex-patriates; and if he will place copies of that correspondence in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  A search has failed to bring to light any correspondence between my Department and the contractors in question about the conditions of employment of St. Helenians in the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy he has for ensuring that the contractors employed to work at the Falkland Islands garrison do not discriminate on a racist basis in the payment of salaries.

  Mr. Freeman
  Two Ministry of Defence contractors, Turners Ltd. and Kelvins International Services, employ St. Helenian workers in the Falkland Islands. Both contracts contain a non-discrimination clause.

  Gulf War
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what biological weapons detection assets were employed by Her Majesty's armed forces during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 14 March 1995:

  QUESTION 5, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what biological weapons detection assets were employed by Her Majesty's Armed Forces during the Gulf War, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The biological weapons detection assets deployed with the UK Armed Forces during the Gulf conflict comprised:

  a. The nine Biological Detection Systems which provided a capability to detect the presence of biological warfare agent in the atmosphere.

  b. Stand-by Assay Kits which were deployed both with the Biological Detection Systems and separately. The Stand-by Assay Kits provided a capability to analyse swab samples for the presence of biological warfare agent.

  c. SIBCA kits. Sampling and Identification of Biological and Chemical Agent (SIBCA) kits were deployed with the UK Armed Forces to the Gulf. These kits would have been used to obtain samples from a suspected attack. A chain of custody would have been provided for the return of the samples to the United Kingdom for analysis at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the United States Department of Defence nuclear, biological, and 518
  chemical log from the Gulf war, specifically of those incidents cited on (a) 18 January 1991 at 05.00 hours, (b) 19 January 1991 at (i) 04.30 hours and (ii) 16.10 hours, (c) 20 January 1991 at (i) 17.10 hours and (ii) 22.40 hours, (d) 3 March 1991 at (i) 15.15 hours, (ii) 18.10 hours and (iii) 18.20 hours and (e) 12 March 1991 at (i) 16.20 hours and (ii) 17.40 hours; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on what occasions information on chemical weapons compiled by monitoring teams during the Gulf War has been shared by the allies.

  Mr. Soames
  These are matters for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 14 March 1995:

  QUESTIONS 4 AND 6, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what assessment he has made of the United States Department of Defence Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Log from the Gulf War, specifically of those incidents cited on (a) 18 January 1991 at 0500 hours, (b) 19 January 1991 at (i) 0430 hours and (ii) 1610 hours, (c) 20 January 1991 at (i) 1710 hours and (ii) 2240 hours (d) 3 March 1991 at (i) 1515 hours, (ii) 1810 hours and (iii) 1820 hours and (e) 12 March 1991 at (i) 1620 hours and (ii) 1740 hours; and if he will make a statement and on what occasions information on chemical weapons compiled by monitoring teams during the Gulf War has been shared by the Allies, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The United States Department of Defence Nuclear Biological and Chemical log from the Gulf conflict was drawn upon by the US Department of Defence in preparing material used to brief the US Defence Science Board Task Force on Persian Gulf War Health Effects. An abbreviated selection of chemical/biological incidents extracted from these logs is contained in Appendix B, pages 1–6 of the report of the Defence Science Board issued in June 1994.

  4. As Director General and Chief Executive of CBDE Porton Down, I was invited to attend and participated as a specialist adviser to the Defence Science Board Task Force on Persian Gulf War Health Effects and was therefore present at the briefings to the Defence Science Board by the Department of Defence on the incidents reported in the US Department of Defence NBC log from the Gulf conflict and summarised in Appendix B to the Defence Science Board Task Force. The Defence Science Board Task Force concluded that they had found no evidence that either chemical or biological warfare was deployed at any level against the coalition forces or that there were any exposures of US Service members to chemical or biological warfare agents in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. The Task Force noted that they were aware of one soldier who was blistered, plausibly from mustard gas, after entering a bunker in Iraq during the post-war period. The report noted that the one plausible injury occurred during inspection and demolition of Iraqi bunkers and stated that "It seemed to be the result of accidental contact of the soldier with contaminated soil in a bunker that may have been used previously, (probably during the Iran-Iraq war) for storing mustard".

  5. The United Kingdom and the United States utilised a wide range of detectors so as to provide warning to our forces prior to exposure to a harmful concentration of agent. Such detectors are sensitive and there are carefully laid down procedures in the event of any single detector alarming for checks to be carried out so as to determine whether an alarm was indeed caused by a chemical or biological weapon attack. The incidents cited from the US Department of Defence NBC log from the Gulf conflict did not result in any confirmation that chemical or biological warfare agents had been used by Iraq against the coalition forces. The coalition forces in the Gulf War had arrangements whereby, had there been a

  519
  confirmed chemical or biological weapons attack in one area, this information would have been between the Allies and, in particular, appropriate warning would have been given to other units of the coalition forces in the hazard area. It is clear from examination of the US Department of Defence NBC log from the Gulf conflict that there was sharing of information on unconfirmed alarms arising from chemical or biological weapons detectors during the Gulf War with coalition forces. However, there was no confirmed use of chemical or biological warfare agents during the Gulf conflict.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his American counterpart concerning the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clarke, dated 14 March 1995:

  QUESTION 7, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what recent discussions he has had with his American counterpart concerning the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf War; and if he will make a statement, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The Ministry of Defence has had continuing discussions with the US Department of Defence concerning the Gulf conflict. Officials have participated in the US Defence Science Board Task Force on Persian Gulf Health Effects which was briefed by the US and by the UK participant on whether there was any evidence, which there was not, to suggest that chemical weapons had been used in the Gulf conflict. The UK view continues to be that there was no evidence of the use of chemical or biological weapons by Iraq against the coalition forces during the Gulf conflict.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of(a) allied air raids on Iraqi chemical weapons installations during the Gulf war and (b) whether chemical agents could have been released into the atmosphere as a result of these raids; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 14 March 1995:

  QUESTION 8, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what assessment he has made of (a) Allied air raids on Iraqi chemical weapons installations during the Gulf War and (b) whether chemical agents could have been released into the atmosphere as a result of these raids; and if he will make a statement, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical arid biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The Ministry of Defence during Operation GRANBY made assessments of the potential hazard to Service personnel resulting from the Allied bombing of Iraqi targets at which chemical weapons were produced or stored. These assessment were based on various assumptions for the quantity of agent that might be released as a result of a bombing attack and for the associated meteorological
  520
  conditions. The result of the assessment indicated that even assuming simultaneous release of the majority of agent from several bunkers under meteorological conditions which favoured the downwind travel of the agent cloud and ignoring the fact that chemical agents are organic materials which are destroyed by combustion, the maximum distance at which there would be any hazard was of the order of a few tens of kilometres. In practice, simultaneous release is unlikely to occur, agent will be destroyed by combustion and meteorological conditions will be less favourable resulting in a significantly reduced downwind hazard distance.

  4. Whilst chemical agents could have been released into the atmosphere as a result of the Allied air raids, there is no evidence to indicate that the resulting concentrations of agent in the atmosphere resulted in any harm to Iraqi personnel at those installations or in their vicinity, let alone the Allied Forces some hundreds of kilometres away from those installations.

  Iraq (Chemical Weapons)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has received any evidence concerning current Iraqi chemical weapons capabilities.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department continues to assimilate evidence on current Iraqi chemical weapons capabilities from a number of sources, including the published reports by the UN Special Commission.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when sand suspected of carrying traces of chemical weapons or radioactivity was sent to Britain from(a) Israel, (b) Saudi Arabia, (c) Kuwait and (d) Iraq for testing at CBDE Porton Down.

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 14 March 1995:

  QUESTION 10, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when sand suspected of carrying traces of chemical weapons or radioactivity was sent to Britain from (a) Israel, (b) Saudi Arabia, (c) Kuwait and (d) Iraq for testing at CBDE Porton Down has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. Information on the analysis of samples collected from Iraq and sent to CBDE Porton Down was provided in the Official Report, 2 March 1995, columns 684–686; the samples analysed at CBDE Porton Down were described as soil samples although they are likely to contain varying quantities of sand. Some of the samples analysed in support of the United Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq were in support of an investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons against the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq.

  4. No sand suspected of carrying traces of chemical warfare agents have been sent from Israel, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to CBDE Porton Down for analysis. No sand suspected of carrying traces of radioactivity from any of the countries named have been sent for testing at CBDE Porton Down.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received confirming the detection of chemical weapons use during the 1990–91 Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  This is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
  521
  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 14 March 1995:

  Question 13, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995

  1. Your parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what reports he has received confirming the detection of chemical weapons use during the 1990–91 Gulf War; and if he will make a statement, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. Although during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict there were unconfirmed reports of the detection of chemical warfare agents, no confirmed reports of the detection of chemical warfare agents have been received.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the report by the Ministry of Defence of Czech Republic stating that chemical weapons were used by Iraq during the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 14 March 1995:

  QUESTION 14, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what assessment he has made of the report by the Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic stating that chemical weapons were used by Iraq during the Gulf War, and if he will make a statement, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The report made by the Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic described the participation of the Czechoslovak anti-chemical unit in the Persian Gulf conflict The Czech report stated that:

  "On the basis of the stated facts it is possible to pronounce the conclusion that the event cannot be linked in any way with the use of chemical weapons, that is, their application in combat actions and that harm to individuals of the Czechoslovak anti-chemical unit influenced by toxic combat substances could not have occurred".In addition, we are aware that the United States Department of Defence has reviewed carefully the reports of the Czech detections. The US Department of Defence has recently concluded that they were unable to validate the Czech reports and state that the Czechs themselves never were able to identify the source of their detections. The UK conclusion continues to be that chemical weapons were not used by Iraq during the Gulf conflict.
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussion he has had with his Czech counterpart concerning the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Chemical, and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 14 March 1995:

  QUESTION 15, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what recent discussion he has had with his Czech counterpart concerning the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf
  522
  War; and if he will make a statement, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. There have been bilateral discussions between representatives of the Ministry of Defence and representatives of the Czech Republic in late 1994. In discussions with the Chief of the Czech Chemical Troops, it was said that it was improbable that a cloud could have blow from the Iraqi facilities to reach the Czech detectors and further that the trace amounts which had been detected by the Czech equipments could not have had any effect on the health of Service personnel. There was therefore no evidence that Iraq had used chemical weapons in the Gulf conflict.

  Service Personnel (Suicide)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many veterans of the Gulf war in(a) the Army, (b) the RAF and (c) the Royal Navy have committed suicide in each of the years since the Gulf war.

  Mr. Soames
  Since the Gulf war, one naval Gulf war veteran has committed suicide, in 1991. There have been no suicides by Army veterans of the Gulf war. The figures for the RAF are as follows:

  1991: 2

  1992: 0

  1993: 2

  1994: 1

  These numbers related only to those veterans of the Gulf war who were still serving with the armed forces at the time of their suicide.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of(a) the Army, (b) the RAF and (c) the Royal Navy have committed suicide in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of service personnel confirmed by the coroner to have committed suicide in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available are as follows:

  Royal Navy1

  Army

  RAF

  1984

  2

  18

  9

  1985

  5

  19

  7

  1986

  7

  19

  13

  1987

  4

  15

  8

  1988

  6

  28

  8

  1989

  4

  26

  6

  1990

  9

  23

  16

  1991

  7

  26

  10

  1992

  6

  22

  7

  1993

  1

  22

  10

  1 includes the Royal Marines

  University Bursaries Scheme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of those who took advantage of his Department's university bursaries scheme subsequently resigned before the minimum return of service period had expired for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: The numbers of students awarded Royal Navy and Royal Air Force bursaries who resigned before completing their

  523
  university course are given in the table. The number of students awarded Army bursaries who resigned before completing their university course or during their initial officer training are also given. The figures provided are those available for the years since 1979. No information is held centrally on the numbers who left the services after

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Calendar year

  Number withdrawn

  Financial year

  Number withdrawn

  Financial year

  Number withdrawn

  1983–84

  2

  1985

  5

  —

  —

  1984–85

  1

  1986

  6

  —

  —

  1985–86

  7

  1987

  6

  —

  —

  1986–87

  3

  1988

  2

  —

  —

  1987–88

  6

  1989

  10

  —

  —

  1988–89

  4

  1990

  8

  1989–90

  23

  1989–90

  2

  1991

  8

  1990–91

  27

  1990–91

  11

  1992

  8

  1991–92

  23

  1991–92

  6

  1993

  7

  1992–93

  28

  1992–93

  3

  1994

  10

  1993–94

  24

  1993–94

  8

  I995

  13

  1994–95

  128

  1994–95

  15

  Note:

  1To date.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the cost of his Department's university bursaries scheme for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: Expenditure on university bursary awards by my Department, in those years since 1979 for which figures are available, is as shown in the table:

  Financial Year

  Royal Navy £

  Army £

  Royal Air Force £

  1979–80

  —

  101,700

  —

  1980–81

  —

  99,900

  —

  1981–82

  —

  121,500

  18,900

  1982–83

  —

  134,100

  30,600

  1983–84

  —

  136,800

  45,900

  1984–85

  —

  163,800

  48,600

  1985–86

  —

  163,800

  67,500

  1986–87

  —

  212,400

  92,700

  1987–88

  —

  189,000

  106,200

  1988–89

  108,000

  542,400

  90,900

  1989–90

  158,400

  483,600

  278,400

  1990–91

  156,000

  555,600

  141,300

  1991–92

  153,600

  519,600

  236,400

  1992–93

  121,200

  478,800

  298,800

  Financial year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Civilian

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  79–80

  —

  —

  113

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  80–81

  —

  —

  102

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  81–82

  —

  —

  132

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  82–83

  —

  —

  145

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83–84

  —

  —

  138

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  84–85

  —

  —

  168

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  85–86

  —

  —

  160

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  86–87

  —

  —

  208

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  87–88

  —

  —

  193

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  88–89

  —

  —

  180

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  89–90

  —

  —

  168

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  524
  initial officer training, but before completing the required return of service, or of those in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force who left during initial officer training. No records are kept for civilians as, in common with other industry schemes, students are not required to complete any return of service.

  Financial Year

  Royal Navy £

  Army £

  Royal Air Force £

  1993–94

  90,000

  444,000

  265,200

  1994–951

  81,000

  606,000

  250,000

  It is not possible separately to identify comparable figures for my Department's civilian staff. Figures are available, however, which include bursary awards, running costs for MOD student engineer training centres, salaries during pre-university year and vacation placements with MOD, travel and subsistence on MOD duty and the production of MOD training literature. The figures are as follows:

  1992–93: 3,149,400

  1993–94: 2,610,200

  1994–95:1 2,256,000

  Note: 1 Figures are estimates.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of bursaries awarded to university students under his Department's arrangements for officer entry by ethnic status and gender in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: Details of bursary awards by ethnic origin are not held. A breakdown of bursary awards by gender, for those years since 1979 where information is available, is as follows:
  525

  Financial year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Civillian

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  90–91

  —

  —

  145

  34

  77

  9

  —

  —

  91–92

  —

  —

  151

  21

  87

  5

  —

  —

  92–93

  —

  —

  137

  14

  64

  7

  77

  10

  93–94

  —

  —

  139

  15

  40

  18

  75

  9

  94–95

  45

  9

  174

  26

  70

  7

  68

  7

  Hospital Units
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made on the choice of location for his Department's two new hospital units.

  Mr. Soames
  Taking account of a range of Defence-related factors, and in consultation with the Department of Health and the NHS, we have selected as the sites for the new Ministry of Defence hospital units the Frimley Park Hospital NHS trust in Surrey and the Peterborough Hospitals NHS trust in Cambridgeshire. Final contractual negotiations will now begin with the trusts concerned. We shall aim to have units fully established at these locations by April 1996.

WALES

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Welsh parliamentary constituencies in which lies each scheme in the Welsh Office's road programme.

  Mr. Gwilyn Jones
  Details of the forward trunk road programme were published in "The Departmental Report 1995 Welsh Office (The Governments's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98)". Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The information requested is as follows:

  Major trunk road improvements

  Scheme

  Partiamentary constituency

  In progress

  M4 Second Severn Crossing Approach Road

  Newport, East

  M4/A4042 Brynglas

  Newport, West

  Tunnels/Malpas

  Relief Road

  A5 Glyn Bends

  Clwyd, South-West

  A465 Aberdulais—Glynneath

  Neath

  A470 Pentrebach—Cefn Coed

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  A4042 Llantarnam Bypass

  Torfaen/Monmouth

  Programmed1

  M4 Magor—Coldra Widening

  Newport, East

  A40 Carmarthen Eastern Bypass

  Carmarthen

  A40 Fishguard Western Bypass

  ceredigion and Pembroke, North

  A40 Robeston Wathen Bypass

  Pembroke

  526

  Major trunk road improvements

  Scheme

  Parliamentary constituency

  A40 Whitland Bypass

  Carmarthen

  A55 Llanfair PG—West of Bryngwran

  Ynys Môn

  A55 West of Bryngwran— Holyhead

  Ynys Môn

  A55 Pont Dafydd-Waen

  Clwyd, North-West

  A470 Lledr Valley:

  Stage 1 (Concoed—Minffordd)

  Meirionnydd Nant conwy

  Stage 2 (Dolwyddelan— Pont yr Afanc)

  Meirionnydd nant conwy

  A477 Sageston—Redberth Bypass

  Pembroke

  A494/A550 Deeside Park— Drome Corner

  Alyn and Deeside

  A550 Deeside Park Interchange

  Alyn and Deeside

  A550 Deeside Park—Ledsham

  Alyn and Deeside

  A4060 Mountain Hare—Dowlais Top

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  in preparation1

  M4 Castleton—Coryton Widening

  Newport, West/Cardiff, North

  M4 Relief Road (Magor— Castleton

  Newport, East/Newport, West

  A55/A494 Ewloe Interchange

  Alyn and Deeside

  A55 Ewloe—Northop Widening

  Alyn and Deeside

  A458 Buttington Cross—

  montgomery

  Wollaston Cross

  A465 Abergavenny—Hirwaun

  Monmouth/Blaenau

  Gwent/Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney/Cynon Valley

  A470 Llangurig—Wern Villa

  Montgomery

  A470 Llanrwst Bypass

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  A470 Pontypridd—Cardiff

  Pontypridd

  A479 Talgarth Bypass

  Brecon and Radnor

  A483 Llandeilo Eastern Bypass

  Carmarthen

  A487 Llanwnda—South of Llanllyfni

  Carmarthen

  A487 Porthmadog/Minffordd/Tremadog Bypass

  Caernarfon

  A494 Drome Corner—Ewloe Interchange

  Alyn and Deeside

  Longer term consideration3

  A5 Bethesda Bypass

  Conwy

  A5 Corwen Bypass

  Clwyd,South-West

  A5 Halfway Bridge

  Conwy

  A5 Pont Padog Approaches

  Meirionnydd Nant conwy

  A40 Abergavenny Western Bypass

  Monmouth

  A44 Aberystwyth Bypass

  Ceredigion and Pembroke, North

  A470 Builth Wells Bypass

  Brecon and Radnor

  A470 Commins Coch Bypass

  Montgomery

  A483 Newtown Bypass

  Montgomery

  A487 Caernarfon—Bontnewydd Bypass

  Caernarfon

  527

  Major trunk road improvements

  Scheme

  Parliamentary constituency

  A487 Furnance Bridge— Eglwys Fach

  Ceredigion and Pembroke, North

  A494 Llanbedr Dyffryn Clwyd Bypass

  Clwyd, South-West

  A494 Mold—Ewloe

  Delyn/Alyn and Deeside

  A4042 Llanellen Bypass

  Monmouth

  A4042 Penperlleni Bypass

  Monmouth

  Notes:

  1 High priority schemes on which it is planned to start work in the three years covered by the government's expenditure plans i.e. before April 1998.

  2 Schemes which are being taken forward but are unlikely to start before April 1998 because of outstanding design and statutory procedures.

  3 Schemes on which resources are not being committed to bring them to a start of works. These schemes will be reviewed annually with consideration given to adding them to the above categories or deleting them from the programme.

  Peripatetic Teachers
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total grant awarded under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 per local education authority to support Welsh peripatetic teachers during(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95.

  Mr. Richards
  The relevant figures are shown the following table:

  £

  Local education authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  182,000

  185,000

  204,500

  Dyfed

  180,000

  183,000

  183,500

  Gwent

  205,000

  328,000

  328,500

  Gwynedd

  207,000

  210,000

  210,500

  Mid Glamorgan

  224,000

  227,000

  227,500

  Powys

  162,000

  175,000

  185,000

  South Glamorgan

  170,000

  170,000

  180,500

  West Glamorgan

  209,000

  212,100

  212 500

  Totals

  1,539.000

  1,691.100

  1,732.500

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh peripatetic teachers were supported per local education authority under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 during(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95.

  Mr. Richards
  The relevant figures are shown in the following table:

  (a) Welsh peripatetic teachers supported under section 21 of the Education Act 1980

  Local education authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  7

  7

  8

  Dyfed

  7

  7

  7

  Gwynedd

  8

  8

  8

  Gwent

  10

  125

  125

  Mid Glamorgan

  8

  8

  8

  Powys

  9

  9.5

  10

  South Glamorgan

  10

  10.5

  10.5

  West Glamorgan

  10

  7

  7

  1 Figures for Gwent local education authority for 1993–94 and 1994–95 include support teachers (athrawon cynnal).

  528
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total amount of grant awarded under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 to support Welsh peripatetic teachers during 1995–96.

  Mr. Richards
  £1,970 has been allocated to local education authorities in Wales under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 for 1995–96, £20,000 more than in 1994–95. In accordance with the authorities' priorities, 77 per cent. Of this—£1,519,000—has been earmarked for peripatetic teachers.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many Welsh peripatetic teachers will be supported per local education authority by section 21 of the Education Act 1980 during 1995–96.

  Mr. Richards
  For 1995–96, £1,519,000 has been awarded to support teams of peripatetic teachers in local education authorities in Wales. This will support a total of approximately 70 full-time equivalent posts, but an exact figure for each local authority is not possible as grade structures vary from county to county.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the amounts awarded under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 during 1992–93(a) per local education authority (b) to the Welsh Joint Education Committee, (c) to other bodies (d) to the Welsh Language Education Development Committee for distribution to produce (i) Welsh resources, first and second language and (ii) subjects taught through the medium of Welsh and (e) to support the administrative costs of the Welsh Language Education Development Committee.

  Mr. Richards
  The relevant figures are as follows:-(a) shown in the following table; (b) £1,437,000 (including £98,950 for Welsh resources administered by the Welsh Language Education Development Committee and £284,144 for the administrative costs of the Welsh Language Development; (c)£1,264,000, (d)(i)£98,950 (ii)Nil; (e)£284,144.

  Local education authority

  £

  Clwyd

  281,000

  Dyfed

  257,000

  Gwent

  245,000

  Gwynedd

  231,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  271,000

  Powys

  209,000

  South Glamorgan

  197,500

  West Glamorgan

  238,500

  Total

  1,930,000

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the grants under section 3(3) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 which are awarded by the Welsh Language Board have drawn from section 21 of the Education Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Language Board's allocation for grants under section 3(3) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 for 1995–96 includes £68,000 formerly paid by the Welsh Office under section 21 of the Education Act 1980.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the Welsh Office contributions under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 during(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95.

  Mr. Richards
  The relevant figures are as follows:(a) £4,631,000; (b) £4,675,000; (c) £2,475,000. For 1994–95, allocations of £1,900,000 and £180,000 were made to the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales and the Further Education Funding Authority for Wales respectively from moneys previously paid by the Welsh Office under section 21 of the Education Act 1980.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the total Welsh Office contribution under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 during 1995–96.

  Mr. Richards
  £1,970,000 has been allocated to local education authorities for 1995–96. In addition, £370,000 in grants formerly paid by the Department under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 has been transferred to ACAC, the Welsh Language Board, the Arts Council for Wales and the Further Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the amounts awarded under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 for 1995–96(a) per local education authority, (b) to the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, (c) to the Welsh Language Board (d) to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales (e) to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, (f) to the Welsh Office and (g) to other bodies to support the posts of Welsh peripatetic teachers.

  Mr. Richards
  The relevant figures are as follows:(a) shown on the following table; (b) nil, but the authority's allocation for 1995–96 includes £132,000 which was previously paid by the Welsh Office under section 21 of the Education Act 1980; (c) nil, but the board's allocation for 1995–96 includes £68,000 which was previously paid by the Welsh Office under section 21 of the Education Act 1980; (d) nil, but the council's allocation for 1995–96 includes £25,000 which was previously paid by the Welsh Office under section 21 of the Education Act 1980; (e) nil; (f) nil; (g) nil.

  Local education authority

  £

  Clwyd

  259,500

  Dyfed

  261,500

  Gwent

  329,500

  Gwynedd

  214,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  262,500

  Powys

  192,000

  South Glamorgan

  210,500

  West Glamorgan

  240,500

  Total

  1,970,000

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what were the amounts awarded under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 during 1993–94(a) per local education authority, (b) to the Welsh Joint Education Committee and (c) to the Welsh Language Education Development Committee for distribution to produce(i) Welsh resources, first and second language and(ii) subjects taught through the medium of Welsh
  530
  (d) to support the administrative costs of the Welsh Language Education Development Committee/Pwyllgor Datblygu Addysg Gymrueg and (e) to other bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The relevant figures are as follows:(a) shown in the table; (b) £1,366,000 (includes £288,406 paid to the Welsh Language Development Committee);
  (c) nil. Grants for these purposes were paid direct to the various organisations concerned; (d) £288,406; (e) £1,382,000.

  Section 21 grants 1993–94

  Local education authority

  £

  Clwyd

  240,000

  Dyfed

  235,000

  Gwent

  334,000

  Gwynedd

  233,500

  Mid Glamorgan

  253,000

  Powys

  190,500

  South Glamorgan

  201,000

  West Glamorgan

  240,000

  Total

  1,927,000

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what were the amounts awarded under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 during 1994–95(a) per local education authority (b) to the Welsh Joint Education Committee, (c) to the Further Education Funding Council,(d) to the Higher Education Funding Council, (e) to the Welsh Language Board for educational developments and (f) to the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  The relevant figures are as follows:(a) shown in the table; (b) £36,861; (c) nil, but the council's funding for 1994–95 included £180,000 which was previously paid by the Department under section 21 of the Education Act 1980; (d) nil; (e) nil; (f) nil but the authority's funding for 1994–95 included £1,900,000 which was previously paid by the Department under section 21 of the Education Act 1980.

  Local education authority

  £

  Clwyd

  262,900

  Dyfed

  242,500

  Gwent

  344,500

  Gwynedd

  227,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  257,100

  Powys

  204,000

  South Glamorgan

  204,500

  West Glamorgan

  247,500

  Total

  1,990,000

  Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many(a) voluntary controlled schools, (b) voluntary aided schools and (c) county schools there are in each of the counties in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  Data on denomination of schools, for primary and secondary sectors, are shown in the following table. Data are as at January 1994.
  531

  Primary schools

  Church in Wales voluntary controlled schools

  Church in wales voluntary aided schools

  Voluntary Roman Catholic schools

  County schools (a)

  Clwyd

  24

  15

  10

  196

  Dyfed

  35

  8

  8

  262

  Gwent

  11

  3

  17

  182

  Gwynedd

  23

  3

  4

  161

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  5

  11

  288

  Powys

  22

  7

  2

  77

  South Glamorgan

  5

  16

  17

  121

  West Glamorgan

  0

  3

  9

  152

  Wales

  121

  60

  78

  1,439

  (a) County schools include five "other" denomination schools.

  Secondary schools

  Church in Wales Voluntary controlled schools

  Church in wales voluntary aided schools

  Voluntary Roman Catholic schools

  County schools

  Clwyd

  0

  0

  3

  29

  Dyfed

  2

  0

  1

  28

  Gwent

  0

  0

  2

  31

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  0

  23

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  1

  3

  38

  Powys

  0

  0

  0

  13

  South Glamorgan

  0

  2

  4

  20

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  2

  25

  Wales

  2

  3

  15

  207

  Source:

  Schools Census (1994).

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions parliamentary questions from the hon. member for Cardiff, West in relation to non-departmental public bodies have been answered in the form of a request to the relevant chairman or chief executive of that body to write to the hon. Member(a) since 1 January 1995 and (b) between the beginning of the current parliamentary Session and December 31 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The figures are(a) seven and (b) one.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons the list of medical specialties included in the February 1995 issue of the waiting times information bulletin published by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority omitted neuro-surgery, dermatology and spinal surgery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information published in the bulletin relates to procedures, not specialties. The procedures included are those identified by general practitioners as being most useful in helping patients to choose a consultant. No requests have been made for the inclusion of procedures in neuro-surgery, dermatology or spinal surgery. As the intention is to extend the range of procedures covered by the bulletin, any broadly based demand by general practitioners for additional information would be welcomed and acted on.

  School Transport
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the legal responsibilities of local education authorities which hire 532
  vehicles for the transport of children to and from school which are not driven by licensed taxi drivers.

  Mr. Richards
  It is for local education authorities to make satisfactory arrangements for the health and safety of pupils including those for whom they provide transport.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many households have been accepted as homeless by local authorities in rural areas in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on homeless cases accepted by local authorities in rural areas in Wales is provided in the following table:

  Homeless cases accepted by local authorities in rural areas1

  Years

  Cases

  1979

  874

  1980

  883

  1981

  821

  1982

  786

  1983

  794

  1984

  833

  1985

  1,012

  1986

  1,001

  1987

  1,311

  1988

  1,295

  1989

  1,329

  19902

  3,387

  1991

  1,625

  1992

  1,691

  533

  Homeless cases accepted by local authorities in rural areas1

  Years

  Cases

  19933

  1,821

  1994

  1,770

  Notes:

  1 Aberconwy, Arfon, Brecknock, Carmarthen, Ceredigion, Colwyn, Delyn, Dinefwr, Dwyfor, Meirionnydd, Monmouth, Montgomeryshire, Preseli, Pembrokeshire, Radnorshire, South Pembrokeshire and Ynys Môn district councils.

  2 Figures include estimates of 2,000 households made homeless in Colwyn as a result of the major flooding incident in February 1990.

  3 Figures include estimates of 237 households made homeless in Aberconwy as a result of the major flooding incident in Llandudno in June 1993.

  Source:

  Local authority returns.

  Link
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in reviewing Link.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the report of the recently completed review of Link.

  Link is an important initiative which supports research projects undertaken in partnership between industry and the science base. The review report makes a number of recommendations to improve the operation of the Link mechanism. These include proposals to streamline approval mechanisms; to increase flexibility and to facilitate and encourage the exploitation of knowledge generated in the Link projects. The Government intend to implement these recommendations, further enhancing Link's effectiveness and its contribution to wealth creation and improvements in the quality of life.

  We expect Link to be an important mechanism for implementing the outcomes of the technology foresight programme, in partnership between industry, the research base and Government. In announcing the allocation of the science budget on 2 February, I earmarked £3 million in 1995–96 to fund the research council's contribution to new Link programmes. With contributions from other Government Departments and industry these new programmes will target key areas of promise and importance identified by technology foresight.

  I am establishing a new Link board, replacing the existing Link steering group, to advise Government on the operation of Link. The board's principal role will be to take an independent strategic oyerview of the Link initiatives and its portfolio of programmes. Its membership will be:

  Dr. John Parnaby CBE FEng (Chairman)

  Susan Bird

  Dr. Alan Calder

  Dr. Ashok Ganguly

  Professor Stan Mason

  Professor John Mavor FEng FRSE

  Herb Nahapiet

  Dr. Brian Richards CBE

  Phillip Ruffles FEng

  Professor David Wallace FRS

  Dr. Robert Whelan

  The Department of Trade and Industry, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the
  534
  Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council will be represented on the board at a senior level.

ENVIRONMENT

  Newtown Harbour
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Newtown river to be designated under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance.

  Mr. Atkins
  Newtown harbour site of special scientific interest forms part of the potential Southhampton water and Solent Ramsar site. English Nature expects to recommend listing of this site to the Department, following public consultation, within a year.

  River Medina
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the classification of the wetlands bordering the River Medina.

  Mr. Atkins
  English Nature proposes to extend the River Medina site of special scientific interest and include it within the recommended boundary for the potential Southhampton Water and Solent special protection area and Ramsar site. My right hon. Friend will consider EN's recommendation in due course.

  Westminster Redevelopment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to investigate the events surrounding the redevelopment of the block bounded by Baker street, Blandford street, George street and Manchester street in Westminster and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has no plans at present.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him over the redevelopment of the block bounded by Blandford street, Manchester street, George street and Baker street in Westminster, and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The chief executive of Westminster city council has written to the Secretary of State about this matter and I an considering the issues raised.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the listed buildings on the block bounded by Baker street, George street, Blandford street and Manchester street in Westminster, were de-listed prior to their demolition or modification.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Listing and de-listing of buildings is now the responsibility of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. However, I understand that no listed buildings have, in fact, been deliberately demolished in the block concerned. Two listed buildings collapsed but have been reinstated following grant of listed building consent.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to enforce the decision made by his predecessor in 1981 that the block
  535
  bounded by Baker street, Manchester street, Blandford street and George street in Westminster should be preserved.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. In the event of a breach of planning or listed building control, responsibility for day to day enforcement rests with the local planning authority.

  Water Board Chairmen
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the remuneration of the chairmen of each of the water boards in England and Wales in each of the three years prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information about the remuneration of water authority chairmen can be found in "Public Bodies", issued by the Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service and Science. Copies of this publication for the years prior to privatisation are available in the Library.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has of poll tax payments made under attachment of earnings orders not being paid over by the employer concerned to the local authority involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Community charge attachment of earnings orders are administered by billing authorities and are not monitored centrally.

  An attachment of earnings order places obligations on an employer to make deductions from a debtor's pay and pass them to the issuing authority by the 18th day of the following month. Any failure by the employer to comply with the terms of an attachment of earnings order is an offence and he may be liable to a fine.

  Water and Sewerage Companies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been the differential between dividends paid by appointed businesses in the water and sewerage industry and the dividends paid by the group companies for each year since privatisation;

  (2) if he will list (a) the dividends paid by the appointed businesses and (b) the dividends paid by the group companies for each of the water and sewerage companies in England and Wales for each year since privatisation.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on company dividends is published in the annual reports and accounts of the appointed businesses and the group companies.

  Government Car Service (Natural Gas)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the performance of the ministerial car which was converted to run on natural gas; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government car service is still carrying out trials on the car, which has been used extensively by Ministers and officials from this 536
  Department and others. It is expected that trials will continue for a further three months. Final assessment of the car's performance and that of a second car which GCS will be taking delivery of in the near future, will take into account the emissions performance, fuel economy, cost-effectiveness and the response of both drivers and passengers.

  Listed Buildings
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what law a local planning authority is empowered to insist that an inquirer should require listed building consent to install a burglar alarm in a listed building with the provision of an outside bell box on the face of that listed building.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides that consent is normally required for any works of alteration of a listed building which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

  Reclaimed Colliery Sites
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the colliery sites which have been reclaimed since 1990 under the provisions of the Moynihan agreement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I understand from British Coal that the colliery sites reclaimed, or in the process of reclamation, since 1990 are Barnsley Main, Creswell, Dearne Valley, Denby Grange and Treeton. There are a further 13 sites where British Coal has concluded, or is in the process of concluding negotiations on appropriate reclamation schemes.

  Power Station Emissions
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were annual actual emissions of(a) nitrogen dioxide, (b) sulphur dioxide, (c) all oxides of nitrogen and (d) particulates from each of the fossil-fuelled power stations operating in (i) 1980, ii) 1984, iii) 1985 and (iv) each year since 1990.

  Mr. Atkins
  I enclose details of the emissions from power stations that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution holds centrally and which have been placed on the large combustion plant directive inventory. These are the S0,2 NOx and particulate emissions from National Power and PowerGen for 1991 to 1993—emission data on particulates are held only for 1993. The 1994 emissions are not yet available.

  Data for total emissions from power stations have been compiled within the national atmospheric emissions inventory by the National Environmental Technology Centre, formerly Warren Spring Laboratory. Available information. for 1980, 1984 and 1985 is given.

  The other information requested was not collected for previous years.
  537

  Emissions from power stations in England and Wales 1991 to 1993

  1991 SO2Tonnes

  1NO2Tonnes

  1992 SO2Tonnes

  1NO2Tonnes

  1993 SO2Tonnes

  1NO2Tonnes

  Particulates Tonnes

  National Power

  Aberthaw A and B

  84,167

  35,527

  76,350

  30,893

  75,668

  26,512

  1,500

  Agecroft

  9,589

  3,044

  7,572

  2,224

  869

  280

  30

  Blyth A and B

  84,855

  24,243

  72,059

  22,138

  42,860

  12,700

  1,570

  Didcot

  126,150

  34,378

  102,456

  28,787

  99,530

  28,303

  8,420

  Drax

  236,457

  81,337

  264,967

  81,370

  228,265

  70,200

  38,680

  Eggborough

  143,470

  31,990

  146,328

  27,498

  118,154

  23,546

  12,710

  Fawley

  14,495

  3,670

  1,458

  286

  7,314

  1,630

  0

  Ironbridge

  77,144

  21,170

  73,131

  22,986

  62,226

  19,990

  6,400

  Littlebrook

  34,406

  7,405

  22,112

  4,406

  25,458

  4,971

  0

  Padiham

  11,287

  2,191

  10,910

  2,061

  7,790

  1,728

  180

  Pembroke

  10,403

  2,926

  14,562

  3,937

  10,058

  2,948

  0

  Rugeley A and B

  116,588

  33,799

  97,864

  26,571

  101,324

  24,959

  0

  Skelton Grange

  29,159

  7,113

  17,965

  4,479

  8,400

  1,980

  240

  Staythorpe

  20,325

  6,618

  31,075

  6,971

  23,966

  5,515

  2,310

  Thorpe Marsh

  71,765

  19,117

  62,525

  15,860

  64,003

  16,635

  7,470

  Tilbury

  32,236

  15,695

  39,558

  18,658

  40,365

  18,385

  2,350

  Uskmouth

  14,601

  5,115

  9,078

  3,092

  2,767

  1,050

  470

  West Burton

  165,500

  35,221

  170,325

  33,674

  165,734

  29,916

  17,490

  West Thurrock

  30,583

  15,102

  30,006

  12,938

  8,067

  2,980

  470

  Willington A and B

  51,041

  11,845

  40,701

  9,577

  23,565

  5,714

  500

  Sub Total

  1,364,221

  397,505

  1,292,002

  358,406

  1,116,383

  299,940

  100,490

  Power-Gen

  Carrington

  625

  176

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Castle Donnington

  12,865

  3,407

  5,340

  1,426

  565

  128

  800

  Cottam

  173,254

  45,559

  196,610

  45,084

  176,121

  40,859

  5,800

  Drakelow B

  12,182

  3,140

  4,002

  957

  293

  79

  400

  Drakelow C

  57,583

  16,218

  54,722

  14,475

  43,738

  11,849

  2,100

  Elland

  1,092

  262

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ferrybridge B

  6,970

  1,876

  3,515

  940

  0

  0

  0

  Ferrybridge C

  178,376

  47,794

  172,927

  50,004

  158,828

  44,895

  5,900

  Fiddlers Ferry

  171,018

  22,689

  159,972

  19,873

  114,674

  13,853

  3,200

  Grain

  29,115

  6,659

  19,340

  3,935

  7,198

  1,485

  6,000

  Hams Hall

  5,873

  1,941

  1,050

  331

  0

  0

  0

  High Marnham

  54,509

  14,893

  42,523

  12,029

  26,859

  6,817

  4,000

  Ince

  8,207

  1,459

  50,726

  7,421

  58,022

  8,222

  500

  Kingsnorth

  86,606

  30,318

  67,805

  21,097

  50,594

  13,541

  3,000

  Ratcliffe

  170,180

  45,184

  179,996

  43,759

  184,298

  43,464

  6,400

  Richborough

  15,186

  2,206

  17,745

  2,622

  19,590

  2,334

  200

  Sub Total

  983,641

  243,780

  976,273

  223,953

  841,780

  187,526

  38,300

  Total

  2,347,862

  641,285

  2,268,275

  582,359

  1,958,163

  487,466

  138,790

  1NOx figures do not include all oxides of nitrogen

  Estimated emissions from power Stations

  1980

  1984

  1985

  So2(thousand tonnes)

  3,007

  2,589

  2,627

  Nox1(thousand tonnes)

  880

  711

  775

  Black smoke (thousand tonnes)

  29

  33

  28

  1 Expressed as nitrogen dioxide equivalent.

  Hastings Shingle Bank
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department will issue the Government view requested by the Crown Estate on the application by a consortium of companies for a licence to dredge a further 30 million tonnes of material over a 10-year period from the currently licensed Hastings shingle bank.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  After careful consideration, a letter is today being sent to the Crown Estate indicating that my Department is minded to issue a favourable 538
  Government view on this application, subject to the imposition of stringent conditions. These include limiting the maximum amount of material to be dredged to 15 million tonnes and limiting the term of the licence to five years.

  The dredging of marine aggregates makes an important contribution to the supply of minerals for a wide range of purposes for the construction industry and beach nourishment. The material on the Hastings shingle bank is of a particularly high quality.

  In indicating that the Government are minded to issue a favourable Government view in respect of this application, the Government wish to stress that, in addition to reducing the amount of material to be extracted and limiting the term of the licence to five years, they have also decided to impose tough conditions on working arrangements and monitoring. These will ensure that essential fishing and amenity interests are protected.

  A Government view letter will he issued once the conditions have been finalised.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amount of interest receipts earned by each county council for the year 1993–94, separating out the capital financing element; if he will list the counties' budgeted estimates for interest receipts for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested is given. Estimates for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  £ thousands

  1993–94

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1994–95

  Outturn Capital Financing

  Outturn Other

  BudgetCapital Financing

  Budget Other

  Avon

  1,079

  4,248

  430

  4,349

  Bedfordshire

  830

  592

  1,150

  20

  Berkshire

  133

  4,973

  51

  3,675

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  2,961

  1,947

  954

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  191

  Cheshire

  0

  10,116

  400

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  3,027

  19

  1,781

  Cornwall

  0

  2,369

  0

  2,200

  Cumbria

  0

  2,491

  0

  1,500

  Derbyshire

  0

  4,545

  0

  3,600

  Devon

  0

  5,693

  233

  4,346

  Dorset

  0

  2,316

  300

  1,500

  Durham

  0

  4,712

  0

  2,300

  East Sussex

  0

  2,575

  0

  1,219

  Essex

  0

  4,890

  444

  3,293

  Gloucestershire

  0

  2,953

  0

  1,590

  Hampshire

  0

  7,400

  0

  2.661

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  2,278

  0

  425

  Hertfordshire

  0

  11,104

  0

  3,320

  Humberside

  0

  4,581

  0

  3,000

  Isle of Wight

  0

  173

  0

  0

  Kent

  6,802

  33

  0

  5,172

  Lancashire

  19

  6,171

  0

  3,739

  Leicestershire

  0

  4,345

  0

  2,924

  Lincolnshire

  0

  2,009

  0

  2,682

  Norfolk

  0

  5,289

  0

  4,104

  Northamptonshire

  0

  1,541

  488

  431

  Northumberland

  0

  2,021

  0

  919

  North Yorkshire

  0

  4,932

  317

  3,576

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  450

  7,450

  Oxfordshire

  147

  4,947

  0

  3,500

  Shropshire

  0

  2,528

  0

  1,827

  Somerset

  171

  2261

  214

  1,831

  Staffordshire

  0

  4,047

  3,612

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  5,635

  0

  120

  Surrey

  589

  2,217

  39

  121

  Warwickshire

  1,121

  2,404

  1,815

  1,036

  West Sussex

  0

  2,731

  0

  1,401

  Wiltshire

  0

  3,099

  0

  1,218

  Sources:

  1993–93 RS form, 1994–95 RA95 form.

  Community Forests
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the land use planning implications of the community forest programme.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The designation of a community forest had no direct statutory implications for the planning process. It does not confer a more restrictive, or more permissive, of land use planning designation of the area. The planting of trees and the provision of public access are voluntary. The statutory role and responsibilities of the local planning authorities are unaffected. Local
  540
  EXTERNAL INTEREST RECEIPTS: ENGLISH COUNTY COUNCILS

  Capital Financing Interest Receipts
  This consists of external interest on provision for credit liabilities including reserved capital receipts.The estimates of interest on provision for credit liabilities reflect the extent to which authorities have used reserved receipts to repay debt early, and are not therefore comparable with the interest receipt element in the standard spending assessment capital financing block, which assumes that no part of reserved receipts is used to repay debt early.
  Other Interest Receipts
  This consists of external interest receipts and dividends including those derived from Housing Act advances.
  community forest teams do not have any status within the statutory land use planning system.

  Planning applications are determined in accordance with the statutory development plan, and any other material considerations. Each community forest has a non-statutory forest plan which describes how the forest team working with a variety of partners propose to create the forest. Since new woodlands on a significant scale may have implications for other land uses, local planning authorities should take approved community forest plans into account in formulating their policies and proposals for development and use of land in development plans.
  541
  Although an approved community forest plan might be a material consideration in deciding a planning application within a forest, policies and proposals that are likely to provide the basis for deciding such applications or determining conditions to be attached to relevant planning permissions should be set out in the development plan, which is subject to statutory procedures.

  Community forests should be shown on structure plan key diagrams and on local plan proposals maps. Development plans should facilitate the establishment of agreed community forests and provide that any development proposals within them should respect the woodland setting. Local planning authorities should be flexible in their approach to negotiating planting and landscaping requirements with developers. Any planting or landscaping required, whether on-site or off-site, should be directly related to the particular development proposal and should be no more than is necessary to overcome planning objections to it. Conversely planning permission should not be granted simply because applicants are prepared to plant trees.

  Any development proposal within community forests in the green belt should be subject to the normal policies controlling development in green belts. Community forests provide an effective mechanism for achieving the positive objectives for the use of green-belt land set out in planning policy guidance 2, revised in January 1995.

  Peat
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment if he will make public the results of consultation responses to the draft mineral planning guidance note guidelines for peat provision in England, including the place of alternative materials, issued by his Department in September 1994.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Yes. I have today placed copies of a list of all those who responded to the consultation together with a summary of their views in the Library of the House. A copy of any individual response can he inspected in the library of my Department.

  Local Authorities (Retendering Directions)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet considered the responses by Walsall metropolitan borough council and Canterbury city council to the notices served on the authorities on 21 November 1994 and 11 January 1995 under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B Jones
  My right hon. Friend has considered carefully the responses which Walsall metropolitan borough council and Canterbury city council have made to the notices served on the authorities on 21 November 1994 and 11 January 1995, and has today given the authorities directions under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988.
  The direction given to Walsall metropolitan borough council requires the authority to retender the contract for the repair and maintenance of vehicles and plant, which was the subject of the notice, so that new arrangements are in place by 1 April 1996, and to seek my right hon. Friend's consent should it wish to reassign the work in-house.542 The direction given to Canterbury city council requires the authority to retender the contract for street cleansing and related services, which was the subject of the notice, so that new arrangements are in place by 1 January 1996, and to seek my right hon. Friend's consent should they wish to reassign the work to the direct service organisation.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee—Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations joint study group examining site selection for radioactive waste repositories will he published.

  Mr. Atkins
  Sir John Knill, the chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, was invited last year to chair a joint study group drawn from members of RWMAC and the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations to consider the approach to site selection for radioactive waste disposal facilities and the criteria for ensuring the protection of human health.

  The study group's report has been published today, together with the minority views of two members. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I welcome the report and minority views as a valuable contribution to the debate on this issue. They represent advice to the Government and are not a statement of policy. The Government's response will be published in due course, together with the final conclusions of the review of radioactive waste management policy.

  Education Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates of the costs of(a) teaching staff, (b) books and equipment and (c) repairs and maintenance he made when calculating the control total for the education service block of the total standard spending for 1995–96.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: In reaching his decision on the control total for local authority spending on education for 1995–96, my right hon. Friend took account of probable pay and non-pay inflation, rising school rolls, and other relevant spending pressures. The education standard spending assessments calculated for individual local authorities are not spending targets and the level of spending on teaching staff, books, equipment, repairs and maintenance is a matter for local authorities and schools themselves.

  Tourism
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities in England which employ a director of tourism services or similar.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The "Municipal Year Book 1995" lists 177 local authorities in England which employ a "tourism officer". Not all those listed, however, are senior officers or heads of department, or responsible solely for tourism; to distinguish and list those which are would involve disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the rate of increase in prescription charges since 1978.

  Mr. Malone
  Increases in national health service prescription charges have never been linked to the rate of inflation; nor is the level of the charge itself related to the cost of an individual prescription item or to the cost to the NHS of dispensing it. The charge is a reasonable sum paid by those who can afford to do so. Our extensive arrangements for exemption and for charge remission under the NHS low–income scheme are among the most generous in Europe. They ensure that only those able to afford to pay are asked to do so.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what, at the latest date, are the total figures for all waiting lists in all NHS hospitals and trusts.

  Mr. Malone
  Provisional figures show that, at the end of December 1994, the latest date for which information is available, 1,071,638 people in England were waiting for in-patient or day case treatment.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what efforts are being made by her Department to increase the proportion of generic drugs prescribed by general practitioners in place of their branded equivalents.

  Mr. Malone
  The Department's policies to promote cost-effective prescribing by general practitioners have brought about significant and continuing increases in the use of generic medicines.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Health what conclusions she has reached about the "The Health of the Nation" from the 1991 census.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1991 census predates the publication in July 1992 of the Government's health strategy "The Health of the Nation". However, census data help in establishing a good baseline for accurate population estimates. These are used in calculating incidence and mortality rates, enabling "The Health of the Nation" targets to be accurately measured.

  Asthma, Newbury
  Mr. Rendel
  To aks the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the incidence of asthma in the Newbury area since 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Richard Eassie, chairman of Berkshire health authority, for details.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average morbidity in terms of annual admissions to hospital per 100,000 population in each regional health authority and district health authority for asthma in(a) 1980, (b) 1984, (c) 1985 and (d) in each year since 1990.
  544
  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 are shown in the table. Comparable figures for the earlier years and by district are not available.

  Finished consultant episodes, England Patients with asthma, per 100,000 population

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern

  185

  212

  193

  Yorkshire

  217

  161

  187

  Trent

  180

  185

  178

  East Anglian

  142

  152

  133

  North west Thames

  213

  241

  253

  North east Thames

  223

  207

  209

  South east Thames

  193

  224

  195

  South west Thames

  189

  189

  172

  Wessex

  140

  157

  144

  Oxford

  144

  170

  160

  South western

  167

  180

  164

  West Midlands

  192

  213

  219

  Mersey

  210

  246

  245

  North western

  263

  282

  261

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  NHS, Cheshire
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future structure of the NHS in Cheshire.

  Mr. Malone
  As my hon. Friend is aware, the Secretary of State recently agreed to establish a new South Cheshire district health authority from 1 April 1995 to replace the Chester and South and East Cheshire DHAs. By changing the boundaries of adjacent DHAs most of Cheshire now falls within the new South Cheshire DHA and North Cheshire DHA. Any further changes to the boundaries of health authorities in Cheshire will be the subject of public consultation if and when the Health Authorities Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Consultants
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the proportion of time spent by NHS consultant doctors in the private sector.

  Mr. Malone
  It is a statutory requirement and an underpinning principle of the conduct of private practice in national health service hospitals, agreed with the medical profession, that private practice work should not significantly interfere with a hospital's NHS contracts. Within this framework, consultants are free to undertake private work in addition to their NHS duties and in their own time, sometimes using resources bought from the health service. The combination of private practice and NHS treatment means that, overall, more patients are treated than if health care was only available through the NHS.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to reduce the cost to NHS trusts of dispensing with the services of consultants who do not meet the required professional standards.

  Mr. Malone
  It is for individual national health service employers to taken decisions about their staff. They should exercise this responsibility with full regard to probity and accountability. They need to ensure that every
  545
  effort is made to keep the infrequent costs of dismissal of consultants under control.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the average waiting time for NHS patients since 1989.

  Mr. Malone
  The average waiting time of people on a waiting list for hospital admission has fallen from 9.3 months in March 1989 to 4.6 months in September 1994.

  GP Fundholders
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP fundholders practices will pilot total purchasing for fundholders in Anglia and Oxford region, and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  I welcome the fact that 12 practices in four separate pilot projects, covering a total population of 159,000 will pilot total purchasing in anglia and Oxford region and will take part in the national evaluation programme. Fundholders and health authorities are working in partnership and have made clear their commitment to this important project in which general practitioners will take responsibility for purchasing all hospital and community health care for their patients.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend GP fundholding; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) earlier today.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 401, if she will now publish information for 1993–94 on general practitioner fundholders' savings, by region.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 February 1995]: The information requested is shown in the table. Nationally, retained savings equalled £64.2 million in 1993–94, about 3.5 per cent. of budgets set–similar to the levels of efficiency savings made by fundholders in the first two years of the scheme.

  Savings are held by family health services authorities on behalf of the patients of fundholders. They may be retained for up to four years, to be used for the benefit of patients of the practice as outlined in the practice's annual business plan.

  Region

  1993–94 Retained savings (£ million)

  Percentage of budgets set

  Northern

  5.0

  4.0

  Yorkshire

  7.6

  3.8

  Trent

  5.1

  2.4

  East Anglia

  2.5

  2.9

  North West Thames

  6.6

  4.6

  North East Thames

  2.8

  4.2

  South East Thames

  3.7

  2.9

  South West Thames

  3.8

  3.6

  Wessex

  2.6

  2.6

  Oxford

  4.2

  3.6

  South Western

  3.1

  2.7

  West Midlands

  9.9

  4.7

  546

  Region

  1993–94 Retained Savings (£ million)

  Percentage of budgets set

  Mersey

  4.6

  3.4

  North Western

  3.0

  3.0

  England

  64.2

  3.5

  Note:

  Retained savings may not sum to England total due to rounding.

  Source:

  Regional Health Authorities.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next expects to meet Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation to discuss the implications for disabled persons of the Government's community care policy.

  Mr. Bowis
  I meet disability organisations on a regular basis and discuss a range of issues including community care. RADAR has not requested a meeting recently, so I do not have any specific plans for a meeting with it.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the criteria for the distribution and expenditure of the special transitional grant for community care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  These are kept under review.

  Health Care, West London
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will next meet the chairman of the Hammersmith Hospitals NHS trust to discuss health care in west London.

  Mr. Malone
  I plan to meet Sir Christopher Bland on 6 April 1995.

  Boxers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being carried out on brain damage to boxers.

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health and the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, are not currently undertaking any research specifically into brain damage to boxers. However, the MRC, the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research, spent £761,000 on research into head injury in 1993–94, a proportion of which may be relevant to brain damage in boxers. In addition, the council supports research in a number of areas that are relevant to brain damage in boxers including dementia, pain, vision, cognitive changes and brain repair.

  The Department of Health has commissioned a study entitled "Rehabilitation of Brain Injured Adults", which is estimated to cost some £1.2 million.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards exist to ensure proper standards of domiciliary care.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. member to the reply I gave the right hon. member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 14 February, column 644.

  Qualified nursing and midwifery staff in the NHS and private sector hospitals, homes and clinics England as at 30 September each year (practice nurses are as at 1 October each year)

  whole time equivalents

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total qualified nursing and midwifery staff working in HCHS,GMS and private sector

  238,720

  245,100

  254,690

  260,950

  —

  271,100

  277,920

  282,500

  289,340

  297,050

  297,990

  NHS:

  HCHS qualified nursing staff

  223,310

  227,740

  234,130

  236,770

  239,360

  241,780

  244,220

  242,340

  243,250

  246,570

  241,850

  GMS practice nurses

  1,660

  1,920

  2,210

  2,500

  2,770

  3,480

  4,630

  7,740

  8,780

  9,120

  9,600

  Private hospitals, homes, clinics: qualified staff

  13,750

  15,450

  18,350

  21,680

  —

  25,840

  29,070

  32,430

  37,310

  41,360

  46,530

  Source:

  Nursing & Midwifery: PD(STATS)B non-medical work force census.

  GMS Practice Nurses: general medical practitioners census. Private Sector Nursing: annual KO36 returns.

  Immunisation and Cancer Screening
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the effect of the GP contract on immunisation and cancer screening services.

  Mr. Malone
  When the new general practitioner contract was introduced in 1990, 89 per cent. of GPs met. targets for childhood immunisation and 86 per cent. for cancer screening. By April 1993, this had increased to 96 per cent. of GPs meeting childhood immunisation targets and 98 per cent. cancer screening targets. This shows clearly the positive impact of the GP contract on these services.

  Sir Duncan Nicol
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 586, if she will provide details of the actual (a) pension payment and (b) redundancy payment made to Sir Duncan Nicol.

  Net personal social services expenditure by Hampshire County Council

  Net expenditure

  Net expenditure Real terms at 1992–93

  Change over previous year Real terms

  Increase over 1978–79 Real terms

  Year

  Cash £ million

  £ million

  percentage

  percentage

  1978–79

  23.6

  65.6

  —

  —

  1979–80

  282

  67.3

  2.6

  2.6

  1980–81

  33.5

  67.5

  0.4

  3.0

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been in the numbers of qualified nurses and midwives over the last decade; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Notes:

  1. All figures arc rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  2. Total may not equal sum of their component parts due to rounding.

  3. All nursing and midwifery figures exclude agency staff.

  4. (—) denotes the figure is unavailable.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not common practice to make public personal information of this kind. I shall write to the hon. Member with background information.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many brain operations were carried out for intractable non-lesional epilepsy in the last year for which figures are available in the age groups(a) zero to 18 years, (b) 18 to 45 years and (c) 45 years and above.

  Mr. Bowls
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hampshire Social Services
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the expenditure of Hampshire country council on social services each year since 1979 expressed in cash terms, real terms and as a real terms percentage increase or decrease on 1979 and the previous year.

  Mr. Bowls
  The information is shown in the table.
  549

  Net personal social cervices expenditure by Hampshire County Council

  Net expenditure

  Net expenditure Real terms at 1992–93

  Change over previous year Real terms

  Increase over 1978–79 Real terms

  Year

  Cash £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  Percentage

  1981–82

  37.7

  69.3

  2.6

  5.7

  1982–83

  40.9

  70.1

  1.2

  6.9

  1983–84

  43.2

  70.7

  0.8

  7.8

  1984–85

  45.6

  71.1

  0.6

  8.5

  1985–86

  47.6

  70.4

  -1.0

  7.5

  1986–87

  51.3

  73.6

  4.5

  12.3

  1987–88

  57.9

  78.8

  7.1

  20.3

  1988–89

  64.2

  82.0

  4.0

  25.1

  1989–90

  69.2

  82.6

  0.8

  26.1

  1990–91

  79.9

  88.3

  6.9

  34.8

  1991–92

  91.7

  95.4

  8.0

  45.5

  1992–93

  100.8

  100.8

  5.7

  53.8

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist breast cancer units there are; what are their locations; and what plans there are to increase their number.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available centrally on the number or location of specialist breast cancer units. It is for health authorities to determine whether additional breast cancer services are required.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has taken place into what is the best time in a women's menstrual cycle to have surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are aware of a number of published studies into the best time in a woman's menstrual cycle to have surgery for breast cancer. There is no conclusive evidence about the most appropriate time for breast cancer surgery; most suggest that prognosis is worse for those who have surgery in the early part of the menstrual cycle. One recent study suggested that it is the perimenstrual period that is the most disadvantageous, another shows no variation in outcome related to menstrual phase.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is available to suggest whether women who breast feed are less likely to contract breast cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is some evidence to suggest that mothers who breast feed may he less likely to develop breast cancer. The most recent large international study was a World Health Organisation collaborative study published in 1993 in the International Journal of Epidemiology. This concluded that long-term lactation may reduce the risk of breast cancer.

  Local Base Statistics
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will state when the Office of Population Censuses and Statistics will make available to local authorities the local base statistics for subdivisions of wards originally promised for mid-1994; and what are the reasons for the delays in processing this information.

  Mr. Sackville
  1991 census local base statistics for sub-divisions of wards has already been produced. With this particular product customers were able to specify their own breakdown of wards in terms of enumeration districts. There was, however, a delay in their production, caused by an extension to the deadline for orders from 550
  customers, due to limited initial interest, so that the maximum number could he processed simultaneously in an effort to keep costs down.

  Breastfeeding
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on supporting the promotion of breastfeeding; what measures are being taken to support breastfeeding; and what future plans she has to promote breastfeeding.

  Mr. Sackville
  Based on medical advice, the Government have consistently supported breastfeeding as the best means of feeding a baby. We set up, under "The Health of the Nation" initiative, the national breastfeeding working group to coordinate action to promote and facilitate breastfeeding. We will be issuing fresh guidance on breastfeeding to the national health service shortly, drawing on the work of the national breastfeeding working group. We provide nationally produced publicity material for National Breastfeeding Awareness Week, which this year will run from the 22 to 26 May. We are contributing towards the cost of the Health Visitors Association and Royal College of Midwives joint training programme "Invest in Breast Together" which will be launched during National Breastfeeding Awareness Week. We also provide funding, through section 64 grant aid, to the three voluntary organisations supporting breastfeeding.

  We have taken steps to restrict the advertising and promotion of baby milks in the infant formula and follow-on formula regulations which came into force on 1 March 1995. These give a statutory basis to the restrictions on advertising in place since 1983 under the voluntary agreement with the baby milk manufacturers.

  The quinquennial infant feeding surveys also provide information on breastfeeding and the factors likely to influence a woman's choice on how she feeds her baby. Field work for the 1995 survey will start later this year.

  Baby Milk Advertising
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact of the commercial advertising of baby milk formula on the health of infants, with particular reference to those in low-income families.
  551
  Mr. Sackville
  None. The advertising and promotion of baby milks is restricted by the infant formula and follow-on formula regulations which came into force on 1 March 1995.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with whom she consulted before deciding not to impose a statutory ban on the commercial advertising of baby milk formula.

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  I attach a list of those to whom the draft infant formula and follow-on formula regulations were sent by this Department. The Scottish Office and Welsh Office also sent the proposals to organisations in Scotland and Wales respectively.

  Consultation List for Draft Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations

  Abbot Laboratories Ltd.

  Action and Information on Sugar

  Advertising Association

  Advertising Standards Authority

  Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances

  Andrew Smith MP

  ASDA Stores Ltd.

  Association of Breastfeeding Mothers

  Association of District Councils

  Association of Public Analysts

  Baby Milk Action Group

  Boots Company plc

  British Dental Association

  British Dietetic Association

  British Medical Association

  British Nutrition Foundation

  British Paediatric Association

  British Retail Consortium

  Children's Society

  Christian Aid

  Code Monitoring Committee

  Colin Shepherd MP

  COMA Panel on Nutrition

  Consumers Association

  Consumers in the EC Group (UK)

  Cow and Gate Nutritcia

  Crookes Healthcare

  CWS Ltd.

  Dairy Trade Federation

  Department for Child Health

  Dietetic Department

  Dunn Nutrition Laboratory

  Farley

  Food and Drink Federation

  Food Commission

  Health Visitors Association

  H J Heinz Co Ltd.

  Infant and Dietetic Foods Association

  Institute of Environmental Health officers

  J Sainsbury plc

  John Biffen MP

  The Rt Hon John Patten NW

  John Wyeth and Brother Ltd.

  LA Leche League

  Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards

  Leatherhead Food Research Association

  Marks and Spencer plc

  Maternity Alliance

  Mead Johnson

  Medical Research Council

  Michael Trend NW

  Milupa Ltd.

  552

  National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts

  National Childbirth Trust

  National Consumer Council

  National Dairy Council

  National Federation of Consumer Groups

  National Food Alliance

  Neo Natal Nurses Association

  Nestle UK Ltd.

  NHS Supplies Authority

  Oxfam

  Oxford Diocesan Synod

  Ray Whitney OBE MP

  Robert Jackson MP

  Royal College of Nursing

  Royal College of Midwives

  Royal College of Midwives (Scotland)

  Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

  SHS Hospital Supplies

  SMA Nutrition

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital

  UK Committee for UNICEF

  Unilever Research

  Waitrose Ltd.

  Zeneca Bio Products

  NHS Prescriptions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the current medications and appliances that are obtainable on an NHS prescription that are(a) cheaper to obtain by paying for them over the counter at a pharmacist than the current prescription fee and (b) that, although cheaper, can he obtained only on an NHS prescription.

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available.

  Patient Transfer to Leeds
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the circumstance relating to the transfer to Leeds by helicopter of a patient from south-east London.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive an initial report on this matter from South Thames regional office in the near future. A report will he published as soon as possible thereafter and any issues arising will he further investigated.

  Historic Hospital Buildings
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many historic hospital buildings built before 1900 have been demolished by hospital governing bodies since the creation of the NHS trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Each individual national health service trust is responsible for management of the estate in which they operate, including compliance with town planning and legislative requirements concerning the demolition of buildings.

  Ebola and Marburg Viruses
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had from the Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology, in Oxford concerning the potential plague-like spread of Ebola and Marburg viruses; what contingency plans she has to deal
  553
  with any outbreak of Ebola and Marburg disease; and whether she will consider contracts with Porton Down to research into vaccines and therapies to alleviate Ebola and Marburg disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have had no representations from the Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology in Oxford about Ebola or Marburg viruses.

  We are not aware of any evidence of respiratory spread of either Ebola or Marburg viruses between monkeys and humans or between humans. The current consensus of opinion is that these viruses are blood borne.

  We do continue to take a cautious approach and recommend strict precautions for personnel dealing with definite or suspected cases of viral haemorrhagic fever to prevent any possibility of spread. The Department of Health funds high-security infectious disease units for the treatment of patients with viral haemorrhagic fever although no case has been seen in the United Kingdom for about 10 years. These viruses appear to have a limited capacity for spread within the human population and the need for a vaccine for use in the UK has not been established.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost, including paper, printing, packaging and posting, arising from the letter from the chairman of the National Blood Authority to blood donors regarding the proposed reorganisation of the National Blood Service.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 9 December 1994, column 400.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 6 March,Official Report, columns 41–42 (1) if she will publish what information she has about the cost of medical negligence claims by (a) specialities and (b) staff grade;

  (2) if she will publish a list of clinical negligence claims by trust.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Adoption
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration has been given by her Department to the Institute of Economic Affairs proposals regarding the adoption of children of single parents; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Health Care (Older People)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the standard of health care enjoyed by people aged over 60 years now, 10 years ago and 20 years ago.

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: The information is not available in precisely the form requested. Mortality rates in people over 60 years have fallen during the periods in question reflecting, among other factors, improvements in health care and advances in treatment. Life expectancy at age 60 has risen from 15.4 years in 1970 to 1972 to 17.8 years in 1990 to 1992 for men and from 20 to 22.1 years for women.

  Staffing and activity levels in the national health service have improved substantially across major relevant indices. For example, the numbers of hip replacement operations have increased by 47 per cent. since 1978, the number of eye lens operations by 119 per cent. and the number of coronary artery bypass grafts by 276 per cent. The number of elderly patient treatments has increased by 137 per cent. for in-patients, to 558,000 finished consultant episodes, and by 91 per cent. for out-patients, to 459,000 episodes. The numbers of consultant geriatricians have increased by 66 per cent. About 42 per cent. of total NHS expenditure is attributable to services to older people, who make up about 16 per cent. of the population. These improvements reflect major advances in medical science, in surgical, clinical and nursing practice and in other health care skills. They demonstrate the Government's continued commitment to the NHS, including the care of older people.

  We have also made considerable progress in the implementation of our community care changes and in improvements to primary care services, many of which are of particular benefit to older people. Services are becoming more responsive to the needs and wishes of patients through quality initiatives such as the patients charter.

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

LEAs: Syllabus Conference and SACRE Funding
The Lord Bishop of Ripon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that new unitary authorities will provide adequate resources for syllabus conferences and SACREs.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, all local education authorities are under a statutory duty to establish a SACRE and an agreed syllabus conference, which implies a duty to fund those bodies satisfactorily.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Does he agree that there is wide variation in the level of resourcing which local education authorities give to SACREs? Does he agree also that the new unitary authorities may be tempted to pitch their level of resourcing at the lower end? Will he therefore undertake to collect information on the provision of resources by LEAs and to make that information publicly available?.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, local education authorities have discretion as to how they should satisfy the requirements of legislation. I am sure that, in the specific circumstances in which they find themselves, their solutions may vary. We would not wish to interfere with that discretion.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the Government arrived at their estimates of the cost of the syllabus conferences and SACREs which they use in standard spending assessments, if indeed standard spending assessments include such estimates? Can he further inform us precisely what advice the Government are giving to new LEAs in regard to their RE responsibilities?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as I understand it, the SSA system does not address the specific cost of specific elements in the way that the noble Lord suggests. If there is anything helpful that I can find out from the department to answer the noble Lord's question, I shall write to him. I shall write also with an answer in relation to the second part of his question because I do not have the information with me.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister explain exactly what a SACRE is?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, a "SACRE" is a Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education. It is a permanent body which advises the LEA on matters
718
concerned with the provision of religious education and collective worship. I believe that that is to be contrasted with a "SACRE BLEU" which has to do with sex education.

Police Patrol Messages: Visual Display
2.39 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are encouraging police forces to introduce systems for conveying visual messages in words from patrol cars to the drivers of vehicles while travelling on motorways and roads.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the use of this equipment appears to be a good idea which has road safety advantages. My department is aware that message sign systems such as this are being evaluated by two police forces, the West Mercia Constabulary and the West Midlands Police, on behalf of the Midlands Regional Motorway Police Group. Any recommendations to encourage the wider use of these signs by police forces will be made by the National Motorway Conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. I am glad that the Government approve of the scheme. Does the Minister agree that it could prove to be an effective way of improving traffic flows, especially if the messages are used to guide vehicles into appropriate lanes? As there appears to be provision for 50 prepared messages in each police car, reflecting the usual courtesy of the police perhaps there may be an introductory message such as, "Hello, hello, hello!", and a concluding message for excessive speeding of, "You are nicked!"
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the system appears to have positive road safety advantages. That is the real import behind the use of the equipment. It will help police to convey messages to drivers without the need to stop them. That is important. The equipment is also being used by the two police forces in a month-long campaign aimed at motorway safety and it will be fully evaluated. The hope is that the recommendations will be positive, not only for those police forces but also with a view to wider use by the police as a whole. In relation to specific messages, for one or two who are caught it could be, "On your bike!".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, further to my Question of last week in relation to car telephones, can we have a message on the backs of those police cars saying, "Put that damn telephone down; it is dangerous; it is against the law and you are liable for a large fine"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, 50 messages have been predetermined. I do not know whether there is to be any

719
elaboration on that. We may need to be careful that other road users do not produce replies to some of the messages suggested.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the West Midlands Constabulary does have a sign saying "Put your phone down"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was planning to go through all 50 signs. However, the noble Countess is absolutely right.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, bearing in mind the need for brevity in these messages, would it not be better if they tended to emulate the old Clause Four rather than the new one? More seriously, does not the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indicate the need for collaboration between different police forces in the effective use of these devices? If that is the case, how is it that different police forces supervising the M.25 have still not reached agreement about the radio messages to be used on that road?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first point, it is absolutely true that a longer message does not necessarily lead to greater clarity. As to the second point, that is an operational matter for the police. If they take some time agreeing the matter, the decision made at the end may be a better one.

EC: Harmonised Consumer Price Indices
2.43 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to support the Commission Proposal (4258/95) for a Council regulation providing for harmonised consumer price indices (CPI's) within the European Community.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government support the proposed Council regulation, subject to satisfactory negotiation on a number of detailed points.
Under the Maastricht Treaty agreed by Parliament, the construction of harmonised consumer price indices is now required for the monitoring of economic convergence. This index will be additional to existing indices such as the retail prices index (RPI).
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government themselves propose to use that particular index bearing in mind that they are already using five different ones as the occasion suits them? There are the taxes and prices index; the all items index; the all items excluding mortgage interest index and the all items excluding housing index. There is also the RPIY index which includes other interests. Finally, there is the small-user index designed to meet the position of pensioners and people on very small
720
incomes. That makes five or six indices at the most. Can the noble Lord say on which index the Government propose to place reliance bearing in mind that approval in this particular instance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will be delivered by qualified majority voting not at Ministerial level but at COREPER level?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important that we are clear on the basic purpose of this particular index. Noble Lords will know that under the Maastricht Treaty in respect of Stage 3 of economic and monetary union, various convergence criteria are set out, one of which relates to the achievement of a high degree of price stability. That is obviously to be measured by reference to the measurement of inflation. It is stated in Protocol 6 to the treaty that inflation should be measured by means of a consumer price index on a comparable basis taking into account differences in national definitions. That is the reason for the index that we are talking about. If it is an index which proves useful to other people no doubt they will use it.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, will not a harmonised price index mean a harmonised tax regime? You cannot have one without the other.
Lord Inglewood: No, my Lords, I do not believe that it will.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, is not the most important index of all the GDP deflater which unfortunately was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his expertise in this very recondite area.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on this side of the House we entirely support the construction of these harmonising indices which can only be valuable in international economic comparisons? Can he also tell us what role the Retail Prices Index Committee will play in the harmonisation procedure? It is overseeing the construction of our own retail prices index and has protected it against the unwarranted advances of successive Conservative Chancellors. Can he also tell us how the procedure is to deal with different structures of expenditures in different countries such as the different composition of housing expenditures?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am reassured to hear that at least in this respect the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is in favour of government policies concerning European economic matters. As regards the point made by the noble Lord about the different elements in the index, the important thing to realise is that the proposed index is to be developed in three stages. The difficult problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, alludes are to be dealt with at Stages 2 and 3. As of now, the detail of how that will be achieved has not yet been decided.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, can the Minister tell me what role the Retail Prices Index Committee is to play in the exercise?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the proposals which we are currently discussing have been drawn up inter alia

721
in consultation with the Central Statistical Office. I understand that the Retail Prices Index Committee reports to that office.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord convey to his noble friend Lord Cockfield my great appreciation for his having directed my activities into another small, specialised area in connection with this matter? Will the Minister tell the House how the Government themselves will deal with the detailed requirements of Annex 1 to this particular directive? That sets out in very considerable detail the information that is required. Within the context of the changeover in the obtaining of statistics which is taking place after January and the swop to a new private enterprise firm, as distinct from the Department of Employment whose spare-time employees have previously been engaged in compiling the index, how is the Minister to provide the information which is required in Annex 1? If he has not already done so, will he please now do so?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I have examined Annex 1 to the proposal. As he points out, it is a complicated document. It is because of the complications inherent in doing what the noble Lord describes that, as I mentioned earlier, the detail of Stages 2 and 3 have not been agreed. Stage 1 of the proposal essentially involves taking certain items out of the retail consumer price indices—the items differ depending on the member state involved. The discussions in which the Government are currently involved relate to the later stages and deal with the points to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the harmonisation of consumer price indices must depend on the harmonisation of the VAT on consumer goods?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, no. I do not agree with my noble friend on that.

Scottish Whisky: Euro Legislation
2.50 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that current and anticipated European legislation is helpful to the Scottish whisky industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, not in all cases. The Government give a high priority to avoiding unnecessary legislative burdens on British industry.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and hope that it brings some comfort to the Scottish whisky industry which is, after all, our fifth most successful exporter and which is suffering from at least five pieces of unwanted and unnecessary Euro legislation at the moment. For instance, is my noble friend aware of the proposed
722
directive on the circulation of animal feeds which requires the used barley or draff to be analysed in a laboratory at a cost of some £22 million per annum, thereby killing off the brewers' and distillers' grain trade which has a turnover of only £20 million per annum? Secondly, would my noble friend agree that some 53 per cent, of all Scottish milk cows are fed on draff and that cattle have been eating draff for hundreds of years without any noticeable ill effects?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is right to emphasise the importance of the Scotch whisky industry for UK exports. With regard the proposed directive that he mentioned, the Government fully understand and support the concerns of the Scotch whisky industry. As the proposal stands, it could involve significant additional costs for the industry. In the Commission's expert group, UK officials have argued strongly against the over-prescriptive and potentially burdensome requirements of the proposal and have sought an exemption for moist feeds. The UK has also written formally to the Commission which has responded sympathetically. We hope that the exemption can be achieved in the Council working group.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is proposed—I do not know on whose authority—to enforce the freshwater fisheries directive of 1978, the provisions of which are entirely irrelevant to the interests of all concerned, including the environment? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that this extremely onerous regulation, which is agreed to be completely unnecessary, is not enforced?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are aware of the concerns raised by the noble Lord. The freshwater fisheries directive of 1978 sets quality standards in order to protect fish. Clearly, that is an important matter. The standards include temperature standards, but there are specific provisions under which, in certain circumstances, the Government may make derogations from the temperature limits. If a distiller wishes to obtain a derogation, he simply needs to approach his river purification authority and ask it to consider making an approach to the Government for a derogation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend about the draft Council directive on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances? Does my noble friend agree that the chemical composition of maturing whisky, how and where it is stored, and our own well enforced safety arrangements mean that the storage sites of maturing Scotch whisky simply cannot present a major accident hazard within the meaning of the draft directive? If that is so, does my noble friend know how it has come about that the Council has drafted the directive so as to catch those sites, and that it is now being backed by the Parliament, which wants to leave the draft directive as a blanket measure and expects the United Kingdom to seek a derogation? Where is the subsidiarity in all that, and where is the common sense?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important issue. The proposed directive to which she refers will include whisky along with other substances

723
with a particular flashpoint. The Scotch Whisky Association has made a sound technical case for the exclusion of whisky from the scope of the proposed directive. The Government will argue for an exclusion for the storage of whisky.
Lord Mackie of Bensbie: My Lords, returning to the Question—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the noble Lord comes from a whisky-making country, I shall allow him to go first.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, returning to the Question, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is absolutely right that the byproduct is extremely important to the Scottish whisky industry and to the fanners who buy it. If all the efforts to prevent the application of such provisions do not succeed and some form of regulation is produced which is burdensome, will the Minister ensure that his department and his staff do not make matters worse as they did in the case of the regulations governing slaughterhouses, resulting in the closure of many?
Earl Howe: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, he is leaping ahead of himself. The UK's aim is to preserve the status quo which requires analytical declarations only for the most commonly traded materials. That strikes a sensible balance between supplier and consumer interests. There is no evidence that farmers require the additional analytical information which is the subject of the proposed directive. In that sense I am entirely in sympathy with the noble Lord's comments.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what happens if the European Commission takes not a blind bit of notice of Her Majesty's Government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I would go so far as to say that it would be a nonsense if the provisions became law. The Government will take all measures to ensure that they do not.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, why is it that this House and another place continually have to deal with such absurdities? Is it not intolerable that an organisation should be trying to impose ridiculous restrictions on substances that we have used over hundreds—indeed, thousands—of years? When was a fire or explosion last caused by Scotch whisky? When was anybody killed because it is a corrosive substance? I understood that it was good for us. The Scots are always telling us that their whisky is good for us. Can the Minister justify the fact that the Scotch whisky industry has to pay at least £2 million for relabelling barrels so that they can be transported from place to place?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of points. I should like to address his last point, particularly as that is a substantive one. The fact is that whisky is a flammable liquid. It is transported in
724
unmarked vehicles which display, I am told, only an orange placard to indicate that they carry dangerous goods. The Customs lock cannot readily be seen in an emergency. Hazard warning labels can therefore play an important part in identifying the nature of the hazard. There have been some unfortunate incidents and both the health and safety inspectorate and the Scottish fire services inspectorate support the need for labelling.
Lord Carter: My Lords, have the Government made any attempt to calculate the effect on jobs in the whisky industry if all five of the directives were accepted? Would the effect on jobs be greater or less than the loss of jobs resulting from the Government's increase in the duty on whisky which they had to apply because they lost the argument on VAT on fuel?
Earl Howe: My Lords, approximately 15,000 people are employed in the Scotch whisky industry. The Government have made no specific calculation with regard to the directives because we hope that at least two of them will not apply to the Scotch whisky industry. The excise duty rates are a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government have listened carefully to what has been said by those in the industry and we will not seek measures which cause a switch away from spirits or an overall fall in consumption.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whisky is the water of life to us Scots and that we do not take kindly to silly Sassenach stipulations from over the water?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should be more than happy to discuss this matter later with my noble friend, preferably over some liquid refreshment emanating from north of the Border.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Welsh whisky is inflammable but safe? Will he give an assurance that no one will interfere with it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should also be delighted to discuss this at a suitable moment after these proceedings.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, does he agree that the transportation of whisky within the United Kingdom cannot possibly affect the people of Portugal, Greece, Belgium or France in any way? Therefore, is it not unmistakably a matter where the principle of subsidiarity should apply?
Earl Howe: My Lords, this is an issue which our own health and safety inspectorate supports, together with the Scottish fire services inspectorate. In that sense, it is a matter for us to resolve and we believe that it is an important measure.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister said that the regulation applies to Scotch whisky because it is inflammable. Does it also apply to brandy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have no doubt that it applies to brandy. I am advised that Scotch whisky has a similar flashpoint to various petroleum and ethanol products.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will my noble friend go further than the answer he gave to my noble friend Lady Carnegy? She referred to what is normally known as the Seveso II directive. Will my noble friend prevail upon our partners in Europe not to go further with the Seveso II directive until the Greeks have done something to carry out Seveso I?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The Commission is aware that several member states have not implemented the first directive and it has indicated that it is anxious to remedy that situation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, am I correct in saying that alcoholic beverages of this kind are now included because the flashpoint criteria have been raised? Is not the number now so high that it is extremely unlikely that an explosion will involve whisky? I am a supporter of the Union but I am bound to say that the situation sounds crazy and bureaucratic because one starts with an article at one end of the scale connected with genuine dangerous chemicals and someone is sitting in his office thinking, "What can I add?", and one has ended up with whisky. The situation sounds weird. Will the Minister clarify it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government and the Scotch whisky industry are in agreement that, with regard to the storage of whisky, there is a sound technical case for not including whisky in the proposed directive on hazards involving dangerous substances. On the other hand, with regard to the transport of whisky, it must be said that there have been some unfortunate incidents involving transporter lorries and so forth. That has led to the Health and Safety Executive coming down on the side of recommending hazard warnings.

Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee
3.4 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, perhaps I may seek your Lordships' indulgence to say that we were most sorry to hear of the illness of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, and we look forward to news of his progress. I wish to take this opportunity of thanking him most warmly for his distinguished and pioneering chairmanship of the committee. In fact, he championed the cause of this development in our procedures, which has further enhanced the reputation of your Lordships' House, in particular in its scrutiny work.
I also wish to thank the acting chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the most able way in which he has chaired the committee and for his willingness to do so. He has enabled the committee to continue its
726
work uninterrupted. Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, for allowing his name to be put before your Lordships tod
Moved, on behalf of the Committee, of Selection, That the Lord Alexander of Weedon be appointed chairman of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Rippon of Hexham resigned.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to echo the remarks made by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. All of us were most distressed to hear of the illness that has afflicted my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham. I am sure that I take the House with me in saying that we wish him the speediest of recoveries not only because of the respect and affection with which he is regarded in this House but, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said, because of the pioneering work which my noble friend undertook not only in the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee but in a number of tasks which the House asked him to undertake. He has acted in the highest traditions of elder statesman—and I use that phrase advisedly—in your Lordships' House. I suggest that all noble Lords owe my noble friend a great debt of gratitude.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 79 [Schedules of payments to money purchase schemes]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 48, line 20, leave out (" 3") and insert ("(Prohibition orders)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Schedules of payments to money purchase schemes: supplementary]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 48, line 35, leave out (" 3") and insert ("(Prohibition orders)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 174:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
("Pensions adjustment order
.—(1) A matrimonial court may make a pensions adjustment order (referred to in this section as "an order") in the course of adjudicating upon or disposing of any matrimonial proceedings where to make such an order would in all the circumstances be reasonable.
(2) In deciding what is reasonable a matrimonial court shall have regard to any agreement reached between the parties but where no such agreement exists may make an order where it is requested by either party.
(3) An order may be made in such terms as the matrimonial court shall consider to be appropriate and in particular the matrimonial court may provide for:

(a) the off-setting of the value of the pension assets against any current assets which exist in the marriage; or

(b) the division of the pension assets between the parties so as to provide a separate pension asset for each party; or

(c) an income to be paid by the scheme to each party once the member reaches retirement age, the proportion to be determined by the matrimonial court at the time of the matrimonial proceedings.

(4) Where an order is made in the terms set out at (3) (c), the order shall also provide for arrangements to be made for the other party in the event of the member's death.
(5) The Secretary of State shall prescribe in regulations the method of valuation to be applied to pension assets by the matrimonial court to be used in determining what order to make.
(6) The matrimonial court may in making an order have regard to the position of the administrator and may take into account any administrative complexity in deciding whether such an order is appropriate in all the circumstances.
(7) The making of an order shall in no circumstances form the basis of any decision made by the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue to remove the exempt approved status or to alter the tax status of a scheme provided that the spouse or former spouse in whose favour an order has been made shall be treated for the purpose of the retention of benefits the same as the member.
(8) 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;
"matrimonial court" means the Family Division of the High Court or a county court exercising jurisdiction in relation to matrimonial proceedings;
"member" means a member of an occupational pension scheme or a person having a personal pension plan or retirement benefit plan or other arrangement whereby benefits are to be provided to that person on retirement;
"scheme" means an occupational pension scheme or personal pension plan or retirement benefit plan or other arrangement whereby benefits are to be provided to a person on retirement.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 175, 225, 226 and 247 which deal with the issue of pensions and divorce. In the light of the Committee debate, I am sure that all noble Lords wish us to address that issue. I pay tribute in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who has worked so hard—especially on the Minister. The fact that today we are discussing how and not whether we introduce the measure is, I am sure, due to the strength of opinion that your Lordships voiced in Committee. If now within the framework of the Bill we get it broadly right we shall together have done something truly worth while.
We all agree that the pension asset belongs to the family and not just to the scheme member, who is usually the husband. The wife, whether by contributing her earnings to the joint income or by supporting her husband, bringing up the children and moving with him from job to job, has contributed to that pension. It belongs to them both. Yet legally it cannot be divided; legally it belongs only to him. Therefore, on divorce, if there are not enough offsetting assets, she will not receive her fair share of her joint matrimonial resources. She faces an old age of loneliness, poverty and increasing desperation.
I suspect that we have all received heart-wrenching letters. We have received letters from husbands who wish to assign part of their pension in order to keep some of their current assets and letters from wives who have lived their lives through, and for, their families and who find themselves abandoned in their late 50s.
I wish to quote briefly from two letters. The first is from Mrs. B. from Wiltshire, who says:
"My own case is typical. I was left after 26 years of marriage looking after two daughters who both have incurable medical conditions. After eight house moves to further my husband's career, I am now left aged 50 still looking after my ill daughters with little or no prospect of finding employment, let alone making pension provision for my old age".
The second letter is from Mrs. C. of Birmingham, who says:
"We had been married for 30 years with my part-time earnings going into a joint income from which my husband paid out as much as we could afford in AVCs to bolster his pension. I was not entitled to a pension but was told by my husband that I would not need one".
In other words, the wife's financing of the husband's AVCs would provide for both of them. In consequence, he built up a very considerable pension. She has now—I use her words—
"been traded in for a younger model. All my saving and doing without is going to make his new wife quite comfortably off whereas I, the totally innocent party, am left with only a state pension of £57 a week to look forward to".
She paid quite literally for a considerable part of her husband's pension and she receives nothing. That is why I am sure that we all welcome the Minister's assurance in Committee that in future courts "must" and not merely "may" take into account pension assets. How the courts will do so is what we are discussing today.
As I am sure your Lordships are aware, there are three ways in which it can be done: first, by offsetting the pension against other assets where there are enough other assets to do so; secondly, by assessing the cash transfer value of the pension value so far accrued at the time of divorce and splitting it so that the two portions then twin-track either within the same scheme or in a different scheme and the husband and wife each have a separate part of the pension on which they can build; or, thirdly, earmarking, by which the first wife receives an appropriate share of the pension but not until retirement. That is a form of deferred maintenance.
Our preferred solution is reflected in Amendment No. 174; namely, that at the point of divorce, the courts should have the power to determine which of those three

729
powers—offsetting, splitting or earmarking—is most appropriate and which best suits the circumstance and wishes of the spouses involved. That surely makes sense.
Offsetting may be entirely acceptable where there are ample assets. Splitting makes good sense when both parties are younger—perhaps in their forties—and have the ability to build up a core pension. Sorting out the matter once and for all at the time of divorce is a civilised way in which to ensure a clean break. However, earmarking, or deferred maintenance, may be appropriate where retirement is imminent.
Every family situation is different. The choice of pension provision may differ. I believe that the courts, which will build up a great deal of expertise, should have full discretion to do what is best.
Instead, the Government are proposing to allow the courts two rather than three of the powers, which is less than full discretion. As the Minister indicated in Committee, the courts will be able to offset. There is no problem about that. They will be able to earmark a flow of income on retirement if the amendment to be moved later today by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is accepted, as I am sure it will be. But the courts will not be able to split the pension at the point of divorce. We should prefer them to have that power. Instead, the Government believe that the courts should have the more limited discretion.
Although the Government, in the form of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and their own commitments, are not going as far as we should wish, they have nevertheless made a considerable and welcome advance on the current situation. The Government are to be commended although the way in which they are proposing to earmark—to defer maintenance—as reflected in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is, I believe, misguided. We have therefore tabled Amendment No. 175 which is effectively an addendum to—not a replacement of—the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Why do we think that that is necessary? The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, means that at the time of divorce, courts will determine that when the man retires the wife would receive the appropriate portion of the pension assets so far accumulated. He may remarry and 20 years later, when he receives his monthly pension cheque, he is expected to post off a cheque each month to his first wife.
Many men will honour the agreement. But what if they do not? As I have been reminded helpfully by a former Lord Chancellor, the two great problems of family law are women who refuse access to their children and men who refuse to pay maintenance. I ask your Lordships to think of the wreckage of the Child Support Agency. Second wives may well resent a portion of their monthly portion income flowing back to the first wife. They may encourage their husbands to delay or resist paying it. First wives who have had no contact with their former husbands will be forced back into a financial relationship and financial dependence on him, which neither party wants. Under that system, they
730
will both have to keep track of each other's lives—where he lives; where she lives; whether he is going away for a few months; whether he is going into hospital; moving house; or perhaps even marrying for a third time. He may default on maintenance payments or he may pay late. He may pay one month but not the next if he suddenly faces an unexpected bill. He may move to Spain. He may die. I presume that the first wife will then be dependent upon the second wife continuing to forward the cheques. What will happen if she does not?
I suggest that although the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is well intentioned and we support the direction of it, the procedures by which it is delivered will ensure, hassle, uncertainty and distress. Do we really wish to put first wives, by now elderly women, through all that? Do we really wish to turn a 75 year-old woman pensioner into a litigant endlessly chasing through the courts a former pensioner husband from whom she divorced decades ago? That will clog up the legal system and will make considerable demands on the legal aid fund. Let us think of the emotional, administrative and financial costs involved.
In practice, family courts are already creaking under the strain. Families have to wait a long time before their cases are heard. The courts rightly give priority to urgent cases. Maintenance is not often regarded as urgent and those cases will end up at the back of the queue. The first wife may simply give up and remain permanently dependent on state benefits. Let us think of the cost of that.
There is another way of delivering what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, proposes. I hope to persuade your Lordships of it. Instead of the pension fund sending a cheque to the husband each month, from which he is supposed to forward a cheque to his first wife, the pension scheme should do that. Let us enable the pension fund to be the agent for the payment of maintenance. Let it send out two cheques; one to the husband, and the other to the first wife. In this age of computers, that is relatively straightforward. The scheme members' records are flagged with court orders in just the same way as records now are flagged with such details as the requirement to pay the guaranteed minimum pension. Those flagged records transfer with him and the commitment passes from one set of trustees to another. I was told this morning by the pensions section within Arthur Andersen & Co. that that is an entirely manageable arrangement.
If we make that arrangement, the first wife gets paid by the fund and not by the former husband. That is the only difference between the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my addition to it. The first wife would receive exactly the same sum; but she would be sure of receiving it. She would not have to pursue her former husband, and virtually all the problems associated with the Child Support Agency would be avoided. We would also avoid the situation where second marriages are in financial contest with first marriages, with first wives chasing errant husbands through the courts for pension income. A large bill for legal aid would also be avoided.
If the man does not remarry and dies before his former wife, there is no reason why she should not be regarded as the named beneficiary and receive her earmarked portion. In other words, if the pension scheme pays the cheque and not the husband, her fate would not depend on his fortunes. Above all, it would permit the clean break to continue. It would not force on both first wife and former husband an unwelcome continuity of the financial relationship. It respects the fact that we are not really talking about spousal maintenance at all, with its notions of dependency; we are talking about the first wife receiving as income a share of the capital asset that she helped build up while married to her former husband.
I repeat, we would prefer the courts to have full discretion as to which way they go; for example, offsetting, splitting or earmarking. But, if that is not acceptable to your Lordships, and if we are to go down the path of earmarking as suggested in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, then I ask the House to support the version of earmarking by which the scheme rather than the former husband sends out the monthly cheque. We all dread a repeat of what happened with the CSA. By requiring the pension fund rather than the husband to deliver the divorce agreement, we would avoid most of those problems and achieve what we all want: greater fairness at the point of divorce. I beg your Lordships to press the Government to accept the addition that I propose to the welcome amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it may for the convenience of the House if I speak now to Amendment No. 225. In doing so, perhaps I may say at the outset how grateful I am both to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for their help over the amendment and their sympathetic understanding of the problem. I should also like to say how pleased I am that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I have been able to work together on the amendment. I am especially pleased to hear that the noble Baroness will support my amendment which I believe marks a considerable advance in dealing with a very real problem.
When we last debated the matter, there was an incredible unanimity of view that something needed to be done to right an obvious injustice. Pensions are often the most valuable asset of a couple and, unless they are taken into account on divorce, the first wife can, and often does, find herself in a tragic situation, not infrequently dependent on social security in her old age or, should I say, after her retirement.
In that respect, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. In my entire public life I do not think that I have received quite so many absolutely tragic letters from women who have usually been left after 30 or 40 years of marriage and who find themselves on their retirement, if not on social security, in very straitened circumstances indeed; in fact, in circumstances which they never expected to experience.
732
I have also received a number of letters from men. I should like to make it quite clear that anything I have said as regards this amendment, or previously, is not intended in any way to be an attack on men. They have said that, of course, there are cases where the wife goes off with a richer man and, therefore, why should they contribute. I hope that the amendment tabled in my name will be as fair as possible to both parties to a divorce.
However, there is just so much money to go round. Whereas the pension before divorce would have been for two people, now in all probability it will be for three. That is a fundamental fact that we have to face. As I understand it, under present law the courts are already under a duty to take loss of pensions rights into account on divorce settlements and have a wide range of powers available to them to compensate the party which loses such rights. But it is quite clear from my correspondence—and, I believe, that received by all your Lordships—and, I gather, from the early indications of the research being carried out by the Department of Social Security, that there is a wide difference between the law and the practice of it. In fact, what the law was meant to do is not actually happening.
I turn now to look at the amendment tabled in my name. It is an amendment to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and would ensure that, where one or both parties to a divorce have pension rights, the court must consider their value. It would mean that the legal advisers for both parties to the divorce, as well as the couple themselves, would also have to consider pension rights. I believe that that marks a great step forward.
The proposed new Section 25B(1) specifies more fully the duty of the court to take into account pension rights when considering financial provision on divorce. The court would have to take into account any benefits under a pension scheme which a party to a marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future. In addition, the court would also have to take into account any benefits under a scheme which a party would lose the chance of acquiring on divorce.
The proposed new subsection (2) clarifies what orders the court can make against the financial benefits which a party will receive or has received from a pension. In particular, it highlights the court's powers to make deferred maintenance orders and deferred lump-sum orders: deferred maintenance against the former spouse who has the pension rights (described as "the husband" for present purposes, although, of course, it may be the husband or the wife)—the husband's obligation to pay maintenance would come into effect when the pension was actually paid; periodical payments against a pension in payment or periodical payments (perhaps nominal only) which could be varied when the pension came into payment; deferred lump sums—the husband's obligation to pay the lump sum would come into effect when he received a lump sum or other financial benefit from the pension fund.
The court's powers in relation to pensions would be exercised in the context of its other powers regarding financial provision on divorce contained in Sections 21 to 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Apart from the proposed amendments relating to pensions, the

733
discretion on making orders for financial provision will remain. That is important because it enables the court to reach an equitable solution in individual cases.
The court's duty to consider whether it would be appropriate for the parties' financial obligations to be terminated as soon after the divorce as the court considers just and reasonable—the so-called clean break principle—would remain. Where the court considers that compensation for loss of pension rights is appropriate in a particular case, it would consider whether a clean break could be achieved by, for example, ordering one party to transfer property or a lump sum to offset the loss. Where that was not possible, the court would have sufficient flexibility to decide that the clean break was inappropriate.
The proposed new subsection (3) refers to a related but separate point. At present, the Armed Forces legislation provides in effect that no order should be made by any court the effect of which would be to restrain the serviceman from receiving his service pension. Accordingly, there is considerable doubt as to whether a deferred lump sum or periodical payments order could be made against the serviceman's pension when it comes into payment. This anomaly is removed by the new Section 25B(3) in my amendment. It does this by making the powers given to the courts by the 1973 Act override the statutory provisions of the Army Act 1955, Sections 203(1) and (2) and similar legislative provisions in relation to the other Armed Forces which prevent court orders being made restraining a serviceman or woman from receiving pension benefits which he or she cannot assign.
Perhaps I may just add two or three other points. One point which must not be forgotten, which my amendment preserves, is the power of the court to vary financial provision orders under Section 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. I think that this is very important. This power enables the court to vary an order for periodical payments, including payments which are secured. It means that if a wife—or a husband, whichever is the case—is concerned about the level of payments she is receiving, or will receive, perhaps because the pension is higher than was originally expected, she can apply to the court for the order to be varied. In exercising its powers the court is required to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including all the factors mentioned in Section 25 of the 1973 Act. It will also therefore be under a duty to consider the pension rights as my proposed new Section 25B(1) will apply.
The circumstances of the case include any change in any of the matters to which the court was required to have regard when making the order to which the application relates. I think this flexible arrangement is valuable. It is not quite what is being proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, but it means that the courts can take into account all the circumstances of individual cases, which are almost bound to vary in almost every case, and the changes which might take place in the pension of an individual person as he or she progresses through life. Therefore there may be a larger pension than was expected at the time of the divorce.
734
I also wish to underline that this proposal is not retrospective. A number of people have written to me on this point. Of course it is a great sadness that those who have written these tragic letters will not be helped by the provision, but it will have the merit of helping people in the future. I believe we run ourselves into great difficulty as regards retrospective legislation and I would not wish to see that happen.
I also wish to make it clear—this has clearly not been quite straightforward to some of my correspondents—that the measure applies equally to men or to women. If the woman is the principal wage earner in the family and accumulates the pension, the same principles would apply to her as apply to the man in the case. I believe that there is one other merit of this provision. I have been in public life long enough to know that quite frequently when legislation is made it does not always work out entirely as was intended. None of us can be sure about that. This is a new field and there is great merit in proceeding one step at a time to see how it works before going further into matters. I would be the first to accept that in some respects this provision does not go as far as I would have liked, but it is a real step forward and I am grateful to my noble friends for the help that I have received on it.
While I am on my feet I should comment on the moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, when she spoke of how she would like to amend my amendment. I wish to answer one or two of the points that she has raised. As regards the Child Support Agency, I believe that its two weaknesses—there may have been others, but I have come across at least two—were, first, that its provisions were retrospective, which I think was a serious mistake, and, secondly, that the court did not have the freedom to take into account the individual circumstances of a case. Rules were laid down as to what someone had to pay and then it was found that the rules did not fit the case. Naturally enough people felt that the agency's provisions were unfair on both counts. I believe that is one of the difficulties which my amendment overcomes by giving the courts the opportunity to consider the different circumstances of the couple as life proceeds. A further difficulty concerns flexibility and the difficulties concerned with what has come to be called the "earmarking option". This would involve a pension scheme in identifying a portion of the husband's or wife's pension, as the case may be, calculated by use of the transfer value as if he were leaving the scheme and ring-fencing the amount for future payment via the scheme to the wife. In effect, pension rights would be regarded as deferred income.
I believe that my amendment offers a much greater flexibility of treatment by allowing the divorced couple to benefit from the wide-ranging powers of the courts which include, as I have already indicated, a clean break settlement by offsetting pension rights against other assets, a lump sum, compensatory payment or deferred maintenance order. The earmarking of pension rights, as described, would offer considerably less flexibility and could act to the detriment of both parties. For example, under the earmarking option, the ex-wife would effectively be in the position of greater dependency as

735
the pension rights would continue to be in her former husband's name. She would have no say in any decisions taken by the former husband in respect of those pension rights and it would be open to him to make a transfer to another pension scheme, or a personal pension, without her agreement. She therefore might find herself in a worse position than she was at the beginning because by earmarking a portion of the accrued rights the eventual pension income for the former wife is effectively fixed, although it would be revalued within the normal rules of inflation proofing.
There is one other important point. The Government have made it quite clear that they will not agree to the splitting of SERPS or SERPS replacement benefits; namely, GMPs. As so many pension schemes are contracted out of SERPS, that would in any case mean that only a small amount of excess pension could be split. I understand that because of that the National Association of Pension Funds supports the amendment that I am moving which would avoid complicating still further the administration of pension schemes while making it clear to the courts that as part of the divorce settlement they should take into account future payments from the pension scheme once the husband has retired.
I do not wish to labour a number of points. I hope that the whole House will support the amendment that I have put down. I believe it marks a real advance. I believe that it will benefit many couples in the future and in particular the tragic cases of wives which I have mentioned. The more I have considered the matter, the more I think there are disadvantages in the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has put down to my amendment, although I accept her sincerity in doing it. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I should just indicate to your Lordships that although the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has perfectly properly spoken to her amendment—it is grouped with Amendment No. 174—and to the amendment to her amendment, I shall call it in the order in which it appears on the Marshalled List. I thought I should make that clear to the noble Baroness so that she would not feel it was being overlooked. It will be called.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, first, I wish to say from these Benches how glad we are that the Government have agreed to go some distance at any rate in redressing the genuine grievances of many divorced women. In the debate on Second Reading there was no doubt that throughout your Lordships' House there was a determination that something had to be done to relieve the real hardship and unfairness of the present system. Therefore, whatever happens as a result of today's debate, we shall at least be a step forward. That is something for which we shall all be grateful. It will have made the turmoil of the debate on this very long Bill well worth while even if nothing else were to come out of it, although we still live in hope that more will come out of it.
There have been two different approaches to the question today. I have put my name down to the amendment which was explained so fully and expertly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I do not intend to repeat
736
the arguments she deployed. However, I should like to raise one or two major points and to emphasise some others.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, lays down that the courts must take into account certain matters. Here I ask for clarification. It has been put to me that requiring the courts to take into account certain factors does not guarantee the extent to which the divorced wife may benefit. The court may take such matters into account but that does not tell us what the divorced wife can reasonably expect. I believe that rather stronger wording is required if there is to be any guarantee that the divorced wife will get a fair deal in old age. I am sure that when the Minister comments on the amendments, he will be able to clarify that point for us.
The other point that I want to stress is my agreement with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said about the desirability that the courts should have the maximum flexibility in deciding how the resources are to be allocated to the divorced parties. No two cases are alike. It is extremely difficult to lay down any hard and fast rules as to how a settlement should be arrived at or what the final decision should be. Surely it is for the courts, in their knowledge and their ability to establish the details of particular cases, to come to a decision as to what is the fairest and most appropriate way in which a settlement can be reached.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships' House, having listened to the powerful arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will bear in mind the great variety of cases that will be dealt with, the experience that the courts build up in these matters and the wisdom that they have acquired and continue to acquire as more and more of these sad cases come forward. I hope that your Lordships will want to leave the maximum amount of decision making to the courts rather than laying down rules in advance.
The third point that I want to stress in emphasising what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, is the extreme desirability that the position of the divorced wife in relation to the pension should be independent of what she can screw out of her former husband. We hope that the law will lay down what she will receive. But if it is left for her to make sure that her former husband pays and the payment to her comes through her ex spouse, then I can foresee endless difficulties arising and endless confusion, quarrels and bad blood. That is the very thing that we all want to avoid. We are all agreed on the importance of the concept of the clean break. If divorce has to happen—and it happens all the time—one hopes that after the divorce is over the two parties can lead satisfactory lives and can have a civilized relationship with each other afterwards. But if there is always the potential for continuing wrangling over money the possibility of that happening is greatly reduced.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of the legislators and of the courts to arrange matters in such a way that the flow of income from the pension to the divorced wife goes directly from the pension fund itself and not through the spouse. It takes very little imagination to envisage the troubles that will be caused if it has to go through the ex spouse.

737
I know that it will be said that under the law of the land it is not possible to split a pension and that the law would have to be changed. We have changed laws before. We are changing laws all the time. What else do we do in this House except change laws or invent new ones which subsequently have to be changed? Why should we jib at changing this particular law when so much hangs on getting it right? It must be apparent to all Members of your Lordships' House that it is far more satisfactory both for the divorced wife and the divorced husband if he does not have to deal with his former wife. He also has to deal with his existing wife, because I have no doubt that she will also have views on the matter. I have no knowledge of these things myself. More and more I think how sensible I am!
Surely it is obvious that the matter should be clear cut, in the hands of the courts, with payments made direct from the pension fund to the divorced wife and no further need for dealings between former spouses. In my observation of these matters, nothing brings out the worst in people more than divorce. We want to get the whole question dealt with and out of the way and make sure that the money is made available when the time comes and is paid directly, as of right, to the ex wife. I very much hope that your Lordships will support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if there is one thing that this House treasures it is an atmosphere in which your Lordships do not have to decide an issue on political lines but can decide on grounds of common sense and humanity. This is such an opportunity.
I was very interested by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She pointed out that two main problems have been experienced in regard to the Child Support Agency. Perhaps I may remind her, if she does not remember, because she played an important part in the debate on the Bill that set up the agency, that both those weaknesses were pointed out in your Lordships' House before that Bill became law. I am very anxious, as I believe your Lordships will be, to ensure that we do not make the error of neglecting the arguments that have been advanced in your Lordships' House previously in regard to matrimonial matters.
Before the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 was passed there was much discussion about how we could handle divorce proceedings with humanity in order to ensure that the parties to divorce could live fresh lives. We thought also, as we should always think, of the children in a divorce. Therefore, that Act asked the courts to take into account the advantages of a clean break. Speaking as a practitioner, I can say that the courts have welcomed that opportunity. Experience has shown that the clean break provisions of that Act have led to amity where there might otherwise have been continued litigation and hostility.
When considering the amendments, and in particular the defect in the amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to which she has spoken, we should remember this point. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has already referred to the matter. Can your
738
Lordships imagine in practical human terms the atmosphere in the average second marriage, which may be newly-created, where this question of the portion of the pension is dealt with every month in the new matrimonial home? Every month the new wife sees the husband having to send off a remittance to the former wife. There would be no question of a sentimental attachment, which might be useful, just a continuous financial attachment.
Can your Lordships imagine the embarrassment of the husband in this continuing obligation? Can your Lordships imagine the litigation that follows when the husband is persuaded by the new wife, or however it may be, not to send off a remittance? A solicitor's letter arrives on behalf of the former wife stating, "Unless this is paid within the next seven days, an application will be made to the court". Take it for granted, my Lords, that an application is made immediately to the court on behalf of the wife for legal aid, as my noble friend Lady Hollis pointed out.
I should have thought that the Lord Chancellor might have a view on this, especially because he has had to bring before this House, in terms that we understood, this growing mass of funds which have to be supplied for legal aid. Many of us, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, have brought to this House the need of other people so deserving of legal aid who do not now receive it. Equality of justice hardly exists in this land. It exists for the very rich and for the very poor, but the people in the middle who cannot obtain legal aid do not find it easy to obtain justice, however much we value the phrase "equality of justice". Another group of people will be added to the applicants for legal aid.
I thought that what my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said was quite right. Bravo Government for having conceded what you have conceded, having heard this House debate the matter; and bravo the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her arduous work in pursuing this very proper clause. But do not let us walk into another error on a matter which is not in the slightest a political issue but a human, common sense matter. Please let us arrange for this portion of the pension to be paid directly by a third party, the pension fund; and do not let us add to the miseries of divorce—it is miserable enough—by passing the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, without passing the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hollis. Let us see which is the most humane way of dealing with the matter. I believe that the most humane way undoubtedly is to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, when we last debated the matter in Committee I supported the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, because I had some specific knowledge of the position of divorced wives of Crown servants living abroad who had not been able to make any provision for their own retirement. I am glad to be able to support her further amendment this afternoon. I am particularly happy that we have been able to move forward and at this stage of the

739
proceedings have some real prospect of making provision to prevent such situations from occurring again.
I am much attracted by the logic of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. At first sight it seems to provide a more complete answer to the difficulties that we face. In deciding which of the amendments to vote for, I shall certainly vote for that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I shall pay particular attention to whatever the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, can tell us on some of the matters referred to today. For example, will it really be impossible for the Government to allow any of the benefits accruing under SERFS to be attached? That seems to be a material matter. Should we pay attention to the different legal language used in the three amendments? Amendment No. 174 states that:
"A matrimonial court may make a pensions adjustment order".
Amendment No. 175 states that:
"a court may take into account".
Amendment No. 225 states that:
"the court is to have regard".
Those of us who are not learned in the law would be grateful to have some guidance as to which of those legal expressions is more binding or more useful.
This is an important moment. Although we are not able to apply the provisions retrospectively—that would be wrong—and thus are unable to prevent the distress which is already occurring, we have a real opportunity today to prevent further misery. That is an issue on which I, like other noble Lords, have received most moving letters. I am anxious to do what we can to avoid that distress in future.
4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I confess that I am diffident in intervening in the debate. In the first place it is many years since I had the responsibility of presiding over the matrimonial jurisdiction of the High Court, and incidentally thereby presiding over the appellate jurisdiction from lower courts in matrimonial matters.
The second reason is that I am generally used to agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. However, on this occasion I am impressed by the criticisms that have been made of both amendments. In my view, in addition they are far too complicated. I venture to agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. We want to give the courts the widest jurisdiction to intervene with the utmost flexibility so to arrange the pension right as to work out equitably in the circumstances of the break-up of the marriage.
The crucial situation is where the pension right is virtually the sole major asset of the family. Some of the amendments tinker with the power to make a financial provision or to make a property adjustment order. But the difficulty really arises where there is no current income and no substantial property. Everything then turns on how the pension shall be dealt with.
740
Before I go further, I should like to say at the outset how strongly I agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it is essential that the payment should be made direct to the wife by the administrators of the pension fund. As was pointed out, it is asking for trouble if the payment is channelled through the husband, and it is quite unnecessary. I venture to suggest that the amendments should be withdrawn and a much simpler amendment worked out for a later stage, giving the courts the widest power to do what they think right with the pension and, above all, to ensure that any adjustment of the pension is operated on behalf of the administrators so that it goes directly to the wife. To my mind that is far the most important point to arise from the debate.
The amendments have been moved in admirable speeches and they go right back to indicating the economic background to a marriage. A marriage is much more than an economy; it is a co-operative division of labour between husband and wife. In bearing the child, the wife inevitably suffers prejudice. Over and above the months of nausea and fatigue, over and above the hours of pain and peril, she inevitably suffers economically and financially. When that happens, she thereby frees her husband to seek economic advantage, and that is right and proper. However, where there is a division of co-operative labour in such circumstances, there arises the right or duty to ensure that the fruits of that labour are equitably delivered to the two parties. That is simple enough in current income.
I confess that I am in favour of community of property between husband and wife and, as he is a Scotsman, I fancy that the Minister may not be entirely inimical to that situation. But it is unnecessary to go so far. If we can deal equitably with the matrimonial home and its contents as well as with the pension rights, we will have tackled 95 per cent, or more of the problems that arise.
The other point on which the amendments focus is the inequity of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 which is now consolidated in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 before your Lordships. It is valuable to remember how the disastrous 1969 Act was sold to the public. We were told that it was a "Kiss and make up" Bill. Its predecessor was called the "Strengthening of marriage" Bill. If we look at what happened before the 1969 Act came into force, there were 62,000 decrees nisi; in 1991 there were 153,000 decrees nisi. That happened because at every stage the Act preferred facilitating divorce to giving justice to the married woman.
I am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone is in his place because he was spokesman in the other place on the Bill. He recognised at once the inequity, particularly that which arises from the provision that a husband could repudiate his wife after five years' separation, no matter what the balance of conduct was between them. In doing so, he could thereby deprive his wife of the pension, when one was in question and where it was the only asset.
Despite the warning, the Act went blindly on and has had the result not only of the break-up of marriages but the injustice to women that I ventured to describe. I

741
should like to see all the amendments withdrawn and a much simpler scheme worked out for the Third Reading or to be taken in the other place.
However, there are other matters. I agree with all the detailed criticisms that have been made of each amendment. Another point is that the trustees, the administrators of the pension scheme, are intimately affected under any of the amendments and, above all, under the proposal that they should pay any moneys direct to the wife. However, there is no provision for their representation before the court, and that is essential. No doubt the details can be worked out by rules of court, but the omission cannot be passed.
Further, there is the question not only of the second or former wife, but there might be more than one former wife and their interests might be in conflict. There could be great differences according to when the marriage took place in relation to the accrual of the pension rights.
Admiring, as I presume to do, the features that have been urged, I very much hope that the amendments will be withdrawn. Whatever happens, it is essential that Amendment No. 225 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, should be passed so that the pension right is reallocated and given directly to the wife by the administrators of the pension fund and not channelled through the husband for the reasons that have been so powerfully and cogently expressed.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the variety of circumstances surrounding divorce and the need for flexibility in the courts. I should like to illustrate that from a particular standpoint—that of the clergy of the Church of England. I believe that this may have some relevance also for other groups.
I listened with great attention to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Young, and was grateful for their powerful arguments, on the basis of natural justice, for a change in the law. I wish to add one further argument to those which they put forward. It is that in the case of clergy and their wives, it may not be so much a matter of financial contribution to an accruing pension but rather the contribution which a wife sometimes makes to the work of clergy in parishes. Some wives—perhaps a decreasing number these days—support their husbands considerably in the work they do in a parish. Therefore, when sadly they reach the point of divorce, as occasionally happens, they feel profoundly aggrieved that after having given so much by way of energy, care and time to supporting their husband, there is nothing for them by way of pension provision. Sometimes there is a particular bitterness in the voices which I have detected in the letters that they have written.
I have listened carefully to the speeches that have been made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Young, to try to discern which of the amendments will meet the case of clergy and their divorced wives. I was particularly struck by the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. If we are to go for a clean-break solution—and, like other noble Lords, I believe that to be right—it may be that in a clergy family there are no assets to set against the
742
pension. As I understand it, the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, requires that if a clean-break solution is to be looked for it is to be done by offsetting other assets against future pension provision. However, clergy often have no other assets. They live in tied houses, their stipends are small and they may have nothing by way of accrued bank balances. Therefore, under the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I can see no way in which a clean-break solution can be arrived at. I am attracted by the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
Having spoken to the secretary of the Church of England pension scheme, I understand his preferred solution is that an opportunity be given for a matrimonial court to determine that accrued pension rights up to a particular moment can be divided as seems best to the court, that those should be kept separate and from that moment onwards a certain proportion should by right belong to the divorced wife. There will be no difficulty about the later allocation of money. The pension will be paid directly to the wife in due course, and in that way a clean break can be achieved. I very much hope that some kind of solution along the lines advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will be found.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I hope that the House will allow another contribution from a practitioner in the field of matrimonial law. I wish to support Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in preference to Amendment No. 225 to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, even if the valuable Amendment No. 226 is added to it. Although one may have reservations about the drafting of Amendment No. 174, it appears to provide a selection of solutions, including proper pension splitting on divorce. I regret to say that in reality it appears that Amendment No. 225 adds little to the existing law that governs matrimonial finance and property distribution in England and Wales. Under existing law the courts can and will in appropriate cases take account of resources which a party to a dissolved marriage may then have, or may have in the foreseeable future. The courts recognise a pension as such a resource, and their existing powers can be used to try—and I emphasise "try"—to compensate the wife for the disparity in positions in terms of pension rights.
Having read Amendment No. 225 and asked myself and, more importantly, other practitioners whether it will make any difference to the way in which most cases will be decided or settled, the response is: precious little. At best, it tells the court to have a little more regard to pensions on divorce and adds emphasis to the powers which the court already has. The fact is that without proper specific machinery for both evaluating and splitting pensions the loss of an actual or potential pension right or benefit will continue to be an imprecise, makeshift argument in most divorce cases. Alternatively, there will continue to be a temptation to defer orders relating to pension benefits, thus storing up

743
future litigation for the parties who really want certainty and as clean a break as the law now allows and encourages.
It has been said at previous stages of the Bill that the problem has been recognised and the merits and solutions discussed for over 25 years. In May 1993 there was the publication of a most comprehensive report of an independent working group appointed by the Pensions Management Institute. That diverse body of experts was able to produce a unanimous and authoritative report with firm recommendations. It is therefore unfortunate that against that background the noble Baroness, Lady Young, does not feel able to be a little less cautious. It is a great shame that such scant regard has been had by the Government to the detail of the PMI report.
Many other countries have or are introducing pension-splitting. I suggest that the time has come for this country to make a radical change, certainly something more radical than Amendment No. 225. There is no good reason why a sophisticated society should not be able to provide for pensions acquired in the course of a marriage to be fairly divided and for direct access to a pension fund to minimise litigation and manipulation by the other party. There should be a clear power to adjust designated pension rights and benefits.
Having said that, I recognise the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has expressed and the benefits of what she proposes. But I hope that the House will prefer the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has the advantage, which practitioners will recognise, of dealing for example with the Armed Forces legislation. It is a great shame that there is not to be an express power, as the PMI report recommended, to provide orders that require the other party to the marriage to take out life assurance to cover loss of potential widow's pension. I support what has been said about the amendments to require direct payment from the pension fund rather than to require the wretched husband to continue to make payments long after the marriage has ended. The reaction of wife No. 2 to seeing a monthly cheque stub or standing order in favour of wife No. 1 may well be enough to send him into the arms of wife No. 3.
I hope that before this Bill leaves the House the Government will look again at the PMI Report to see what more can be done.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I and perhaps most of your Lordships would be grateful if the Minister, at the beginning of his reply, clears up the procedural position in which your Lordships' House now finds itself. As I understand it, if it is moved we will debate Amendment No. 174. If it is carried there will be a case for saying that Amendment No. 225 does not arise. I do not know. I would be grateful to have my noble friend's answer to that. But I believe that we need to be clear as to what it is your Lordships have to decide in a few minutes after the Minister has spoken.
744
This is a very important matter. As to the merits, I say only that I fully share the view expressed from all quarters of the House that where a pension is split the pension fund should pay the wife's portion direct to the wife so that the perpetual irritation of a husband having to make an instalment once a month or once a quarter is avoided. Quite obviously, that causes the greatest ill-will on both sides.
So I hope that my noble friend the Minister—I noticed that he listened to the debate with his usual care and attention—will guide us on the procedural position and will indicate also no doubt the views of the Government on the merits of the amendments.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the extent to which the House has debated this issue both today and in Committee is a measure of the strength of feeling which surrounds the question of how pensions should be treated on divorce. Let me say at once that the Government fully share the concerns voiced in the debates and echoed widely in the media and elsewhere.
I was asked by one noble Lord to give some legal advice. I do not know that I am entirely qualified to do so, given the other lawyers present in the House. I am now asked by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter to give some procedural advice. It seems to me that we are faced with Amendment No. 174, which is the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. That is the one to which we are speaking at the moment. However, because the subject is the same, the amendment has been linked with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young, Amendment No. 225. I do not feel that we could conceivably accept or have both of them and I hope to persuade your Lordships that the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young should be accepted. I hope that that clarifies that point. Of the other amendments, one is attached to Amendment No. 174 and one to Amendment No. 225.I believe that that is the position.
The three main points to be decided are whether we agree or disagree with Amendment No. 174 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. Later we shall be asked to agree or disagree with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young. There will be the further amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about the method of payment and another amendment from my noble friend, which is almost consequential and which I hope that the House will accept. Perhaps, as I speak, the position will become clearer. It may not be absolutely clear at the moment as noble Lords are thumbing through their papers. However, I think that what we are asked is fairly clear.
In Committee, I promised that we would consider carefully all the arguments made for an immediate change in the law to see whether we could bring back at Report stage something which would meet the very real concerns expressed on all sides. Your Lordships will recall that I indicated a great deal of sympathy with those concerns. Discussions have gone on since the Committee stage and we have before us the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young. I am happy to be able to say at the outset that the Government

745
wholeheartedly endorse those amendments as drafted. I hope that the House will accept that that shows that the Government have listened, considered and responded in a positive and practical way.
In Amendments Nos. 174 and 175, the ones we shall deal with first, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, wishes to give the courts new powers to require pension schemes themselves to divide pensions between divorcing parties. I understand why some might be attracted to that approach. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have so indicated. While they were speaking, some noble Lords nodded and perhaps agreed. I can understand that some noble Lords might be attracted to that approach; however, it ignores all the complexities involved.
Your Lordships are invited to believe that such complexities are a figment of the Government's imagination. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I have spent some hours discussing these matters. Occasionally, I suspect she feels that all the complexities of the world and of the law can simply be removed with one wave of the hand. I am afraid that I do not believe that to be the case. Pension splitting of the kind envisaged by subsection (3) (b) of Amendment No. 174 would present the most formidable difficulties. Those difficulties were recognised by the PMI working group, by the Pension Law Review Committee and by many informed commentators. The noble Baroness argues that simple, cost free solutions are readily available. I can assure the House that there is simply no chance of finding simple solutions. Those of us who have spent many happy hours on the Bill—a small group will receive long service medals at the end of it—know, if nobody else does, that anything to do with pensions is far from simple. This is no exception.
Most of the problems arise from the intricate relationship between occupational pensions and other forms of pension provision, including personal pensions and the state earnings related pension scheme. It would be neither wise nor practicable to ignore that relationship.
Women are increasingly coming to enjoy the benefits of the growth in pension provision. By the year 2025, which we will be looking forward to later in our proceedings, virtually all women on reaching the age of 65 will receive a basic state pension, many at the full rate. Over one half of those women will also have an entitlement to their own occupational pension. That means that, as time goes on, more and more women, including those who divorce, will be able to look forward to a worthwhile pension when they retire. Of course, there will remain some women who, for one reason or another, will not have the opportunity to build up pension rights of their own, or who, because they are now in late middle age, will not substantially benefit from the improvements to which I referred. It is those women for whom it is particularly important to ensure that there is a means to derive some benefit from their former husband's pension rights.
But splitting pensions as envisaged is not the right solution. If it were to produce an equitable result, it would involve splitting all the different forms of pension provision. If we were to confine pension splitting to
746
occupational pensions alone, for example, we should rightly be criticised for excluding those whose partners are not able, or who do not choose, to join an occupational scheme and who either remain in SERFS or opt for a personal pension. To quote from the report of the PMI working group:
"It is outside our terms of reference to explore the full implications of all the difficulties in the context of the State scheme and to make recommendations on the changes needed but it would clearly lead to inequities if the courts were able to reallocate GMPs and protected rights but not SERPS pensions".
It is important to bear in mind that the PMI's deliberations, and indeed those of the Pension Law Review Committee, predated decisions on the reform in this Bill of the arrangements by which occupational pension schemes contract out of SERPS. Those reformed arrangements will simplify the future basis on which salary related schemes contract out by abolishing the requirement to provide a guaranteed minimum pension—the GMP—and requiring schemes instead to pass a test of overall scheme quality. That would almost certainly mean that such schemes would need one method for splitting pension rights accrued before 1997 which include a GMP and quite a different method for splitting pension rights accrued after 1997.
Splitting GMPs and the matching provisions which would be needed for splitting SERPS would introduce complexities of fairly nightmarish proportions. Much of that complexity arises from the fact that, until pension age is equalised in the next century, SERPS and GMP entitlements accrue at different rates for men and women. So splitting a man's GMP and SERPS entitlements, which have accrued on the basis of the number of years in his working life, and giving, say, half to the woman, whose working life is shorter, means that the value of the half acquired by the woman is in fact greater than one half of the man's original rights. Exactly the same considerations apply to the protected rights in a contracted out money purchase or personal pension scheme. In stark and simple terms, that means that SERPS would cost more; and that means that it costs the taxpayer more. But the matter becomes more complicated when other variables are added, such as how much SERPS and GMP entitlement the woman might have in her own right.
The problems do not end there. If a man has changed jobs, which he may have done several times in his working life, his GMP or protected rights may well have moved with him; and he may have had periods when he was not in a contracted out scheme at all.
The consequences of that kind of pension splitting would not only increase the costs of SERPS and add administrative costs to the state and private sector. There would be a further burden on the taxpayer through increased tax relief on the pension rights which have been split. That increase in tax relief arises partly from the fact that pension entitlements which are currently offset against one tax allowance would, under pension splitting, be offset against two tax allowances. And because both parties might seek to make additional contributions to enhance the value of their share of the pension rights, there would be a further cost to the taxpayer from the additional tax relief that these

747
contributions would attract. A very rough estimate puts the total potential loss of revenue to the Exchequer at something in the order of £300 million a year.
It has been argued that these costs would be more than offset by savings to be gained from a reduction in income related benefits on the part of the divorced partner who acquires new pension rights by virtue of the split. But it is important to remember that for each partner who gains something there is a corresponding loss for the other—and that loss could result in the loser having to claim income related benefits when they would not otherwise have to do so. Preliminary estimates suggest that the net reduction in income related benefits may be as small as £20 million—only a fraction of the potential costs. Indeed, the PMI working group itself quoted from a paper presented to the Faculty of Actuaries which noted that pension splitting would reduce the tax take for the state by more than the reduction in income support payments.
I hope that what I have said will be enough to convince the House of the formidable and costly administrative burdens on pensions schemes and on the taxpayer that we would be introducing if we were to go down the route of the kind of pension splitting which is referred to in Amendment No. 174.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 175 and 226 and to paragraph 3(c) of Amendment No. 174. They address a different kind of pension splitting. The amendments would allow the courts to direct pension schemes to pay shares of the pension income which came on stream at retirement to the two different parties to a divorce. I detect that that view has some support in your Lordships' House. This is a form of pension splitting which the PMI working group also considered and which is usually described as "earmarking".
Earmarking would certainly have a less drastic effect than the other form of pension splitting. But it is not by any means straightforward. As I have already explained, people may move jobs quite frequently and have pension entitlements in a number of different pension schemes. The partner—for convenience, let us say the woman—seeking a share of those pension rights would have no say in the decision taken by the man in respect of those pension rights. It would be open to him to take a transfer to another pension scheme or to a personal pension without her knowledge or agreement. That would place administrative burdens on pension schemes. They would also be required to note in their records the wife's interest in the eventual pension to be paid and keep track of both parties. Schemes would be faced with the additional costs of processing two lots of pension payment instead of one. Earmarking is a form of deferred maintenance which would be much more costly and cumbersome to administer than the kind of deferred maintenance orders which the courts would be able to make by virtue of Amendment No. 225 and which offer both fairness and flexibility.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has considerable professional experience in these matters. I really do not think that earmarking is any more of a clean break than deferred maintenance. I understand the argument that the second or third wife
748
may feel aggrieved and nip her husband's ear when he has to send his contribution to his first wife. But I cannot believe that an indication of the contribution being paid to that first wife will not appear monthly in the pay slip which is sent to him from the pension company accompanying his pension. That is the only way in which he could possibly keep a track and make sure that the pension company was paying him the proper amount. So I do believe that neither of the ways we are looking at—the way I am suggesting it should be done or indeed the way the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is suggesting—is a clean break and both breach the principle that some people would like to attain of a clean break. But I think we are all agreed that if we are to deal amicably with this business of pensions, that is probably an inevitable conclusion.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am by no means enamoured of the concept of a clean break. But without going into any question of the clean break, does not the noble Lord see the social mischiefs, personal embarrassments and conflicts which would arise with the channelling of the pension through the husband?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I indicated that I understand that argument, but I also think that the argument that the other method will not bring to the attention of either the husband or the second or subsequent wife the fact that some money is going to the first wife is not valid. Somewhere or other the husband will have to have been shown by the pension company that he has been paid the proper amount of money and that the proper deductions have been made from his pay slip, if I may call it that, or his pension slip. Although I do not yet have a pension—I hope to survive today long enough to get one—I am sure that people expect from their pension company some kind of slip showing how much they are due to be paid and what the various deductions are.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may say on behalf of every member of the Opposition that we hope that he will have a pension very soon. As the Minister knows that he is dealing with a very delicate and important matter, I wonder whether he will comment on the fact that enforceability, which is obviously a problem when one is dealing with payments that are made through the husband to the first wife, just does not arise in a case where it is paid direct by the pension fund.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand that point, but, as I have just said, to go down the route which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seems to favour would pass the buck, so to speak, and the administrative burdens and costs to the pension fund. I am simply saying that I do not think it is reasonable to do so. I cannot imagine what the noble Lord meant by my pension unless he thinks that he can somehow restrict the years between my present age and the current pension age. I cannot think what else he could possibly have meant.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that pension splitting should not be mandatory; it should merely be an additional option available to the courts

749
for use in cases where the courts consider it appropriate. I have to say to her that making such a highly complicated and potentially costly option available to the courts would result in greater confusion for the divorcing parties and their advisers.
What is needed, and what is delivered by the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Young, is a means of ensuring that divorcing couples benefit from the wide range of powers already available to the courts for taking pensions into account. It is clear from most of the anecdotal evidence which has been quoted in the House and in the media that pension rights may not always be taken into account in divorce settlements.
That is borne out by the very recently received preliminary results of the research project which my department has commissioned—research which has quite wrongly been represented as being unnecessary. Interviews with a sample of divorced women whose husbands were in an occupational pension scheme reveal that some two-thirds of the women concerned say that pension rights were simply not discussed during the settlement process. I stress that this is only preliminary information from the research project but it is a very useful pointer to the direction in which we should be travelling.
I was asked to interpret what "taking into account" and various other words in my noble friend's amendment mean. I really think that it is my noble and learned clansman the Lord Chancellor who should have to do that, but I shall make a try at it. There is a duty on the courts, under the amendment proposed by my noble friend, to consider pension rights in the settlement. It is entirely at the courts' discretion—there is a lot of support for this—how they take account of these rights and what they do with them. That is the point of leaving this whole matter to the courts—to allow them to make a decision on the case they have in front of them.
I urge the House to accept Amendments Nos. 225 and 247 which are proposed by my noble friend Lady Young and which the Government are happy to accept. By making it clearer that pension rights must be taken into account in all divorce settlements, it will bring considerable benefits to a significant number of divorced women (and it will apply equally to men where it is the woman who has the pension rights). It will raise the awareness of divorcing couples and their advisers of the options available. It will enhance the flexibility for the courts to decide the most appropriate and equitable form of settlement, having regard to all the circumstances of each individual case. It will leave the courts free to vary the settlement at the request of either party should their financial or family circumstances change before, or after, the pension comes into payment. It will not prevent the courts from deciding on a clean-break settlement if that is feasible and desirable in a particular case. And it will avoid the enormous turbulence involved in disturbing every form of pension provision, which would be the inevitable consequence of pension splitting—with all of the difficulties and costs which I have described.
In short, Amendments Nos. 225 and 247 offer by far the best, quickest and most cost-effective prospect of achieving something really worth while for women. If it
750
is adopted, we shall of course keep the matter under review. And if it appears necessary in the light of experience and of the more comprehensive information that will become available from the research, we shall consider whether there is anything further that we might do. Some noble Lords have suggested that this Bill provides the one and only opportunity. I certainly hope and expect that the Government will not find it necessary to bring forward a pension Bill of this magnitude again in the foreseeable future. I imagine that that is echoed by a number of noble Lords. But pensions are continuing to evolve and develop and experience has shown that legislation in this field cannot stand still. Indeed, the present Bill has been preceded by five Bills in the past six years which have had some impact on pension arrangements of one kind or another. So it is more than likely that other opportunities will present themselves should the need arise.
This is an important and sensitive issue on which many strongly held views have been expressed. I hope that I have succeeded in clarifying some of the issues. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward a very constructive and workable amendment. I hope that the House will join with me in supporting it and that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the Minister for his full and helpful reply, and again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for speaking so fully to her amendment at this stage and making clear what is intended by it. I echo what she said—that this an issue upon which all Members of your Lordships' House are seeking to find the best way of delivering something that is fair, decent and feasible.
In that context, I should like to make my procedural intentions as clear as possible, if that will help noble Lords and if it does not sound too inflated a way of putting it. I am in a dilemma with which I hope your Lordships will sympathise. I prefer Amendment No. 174. Many noble Lords might prefer Amendment No. 174. It would give the courts full discretion as to which path they should use in the light of family circumstances. But I took very seriously the comment of the noble Baroness that we have an opportunity of banking a substantial and worthwhile improvement—perhaps a step at a time. I do not want to lose the good through pressing what in my view—although it may not be shared by your Lordships—is the best.
What I should like to do, if I can persuade your Lordships to support me, is to ask you not to vote on Amendment No. 174, but instead to support Amendment No. 225 so eloquently spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and, in addition, to support my Amendment No. 175 which is an addition to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness; in other words, if there are any minor problems with that procedure, the other place can amend it.
What is the issue? The issue between those two amendments, and why I hope Amendment No. 175 will command your Lordships' support, is that it deals with

751
what I call the CSA problem. The noble Baroness said that there were two problems with the CSA and that they are not raised in the Bill. She is right. The first of those problems is retrospection. She is right that, much as I would wish to, we cannot go down that path. Secondly, she said that the problem with the CSA is that it neglects individual circumstances. She is right, but the amendment would allow us to do that
However, there is a third problem with the CSA, which I fear, unless the House accepts my addition, we shall revisit, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon and so many noble Lords have said, and that is enforcing payment. That is the only difference between us. That is why it is so important to add to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, which I hope noble Lords will all support. Which provision is more likely to ensure a court's decision to provide a flow of income support to the spouse on retirement—depending upon the first husband or the pension fund? The question for your Lordships to consider is which will be more reliable in delivering the income that we all believe the first wife should have. Will it be if it comes from the fund or from the husband? Noble Lords should trust their experience and judgment. Noble Lords know that a pension fund will ensure a more reliable flow of income.
The Government have said that there are practical difficulties. I am sure that there are. There are practical difficulties in any scheme, otherwise we should have addressed the problem many years ago. We should not exaggerate the practical difficulties associated with the addition that I am asking your Lordships to support.
On divorce, the courts will have in any case to assess the cash value of the pension to make a fair allocation of the matrimonial assets. When that is done, the pension records will be flagged with that as part of the obligations of trustees. That is already done now. Many members' pension records are already flagged as to whether they have to pay the guaranteed minimum pension, with arrangements for named dependants, previous part-time service, backdating of equal pay and so on.
As I said, I talked this morning to a senior partner of the pensions and actuarial services company, Binder Hamlyn, within Arthur Andersen. I was told that what my addition would require is no different in principle from some of things already done by schemes today. He said that an extra flag on the records should be entirely manageable.
With your Lordships' consent, I shall withdraw Amendment No. 174. But I shall ask your Lordships to support Amendment No. 175, bearing in mind that that is an addition to the amendments so eloquently spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It would not in any sense alter the apportionment of money between husband and wife, which would be determined by the courts, quite rightly. The addition would ensure that that apportionment of pension rights determined by the courts would flow securely to the wife.
There would be no need to ask an elderly lady of possibly 75 to pursue her husband through the courts, clogging-up the system, demanding legal aid and causing immense unnecessary distress to all parties. The choice is yours, but I hope that, while we cannot suggest
752
a clean break, we can at least ensure a cleaner and more civilised way of ensuring that the first wife receives what the courts say is due to her—a flow of spousal income paid by the pension fund. I intend to withdraw Amendment No. 174, with the leave of the House, and hope that your Lordships will support me when I move Amendment No. 175 as an addition to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 175:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
Pensions on divorce, etc
(" . In the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, after section 25A there is inserted—
"Pensions.
25B. Notwithstanding the provisions of this or any other enactment, in making a financial provision order under section 23 above a court may take into account benefits under a pension scheme; and where the court so determines its order may bind a person who is not a party to the marriage but who is, or is likely to be in the foreseeable future, liable to pay any benefit under a pension scheme to a party to the marriage.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 175) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 178; Not-Contents, 173.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Cox, B.

Acton, L.

Croham, L

Aldington, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Airedale, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

David, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Davies, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Attenborough, L.

Desai, L.

Avebury, L.

Diamond, L.

Bancroft, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Barnett, L.

Donoughue, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dubs, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Eatwell, L.

Bottomley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ennals, L.

Bridges, L.

Ezra, L.

Brightman, L.

Falkender, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Falkland, V.

Brookes, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Butterfield, L.

Foot, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Freyberg, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carter, L.

Geraint, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Gibson, L.

Chapple, L.

Gisborough, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Gregson, L.

Congleton, L.

Grey, E.

753

Halsbury, E.

Onslow, E.

Hamwee, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Perth, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peston, L.

Haskel, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Hayter, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Healey, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Henniker, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Portland, E.

Hollick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Raglan, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Richard, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Rix, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Rochester, L.

Inchyra, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Russell, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Judd, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Simon, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Slim, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Smith, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stallard, L.

Listowel, E.

Stedman, B.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tenby, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mayhew, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McCarthy, L.

Thurlow, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tope, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Varley, L.

Meston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Milne, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Whaddon, L.

Milverton, L.

Wharton, B.

Mishcon, L.

White, B.

Monkswell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mulley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ogmore, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Blatch, B.

Abinger, L.

Blyth, L.

Addison, V.

Boardman, L.

Ailsa, M.

Borthwick, L.

Aldington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brabazon of Tare, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Buchan, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Butterworth, L.

Astor, V.

Cadman, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caithness, E.

Biddulph, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Birdwood, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blake, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blaker, L.

Cawley, L.

754

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mersey, V.

Chcsham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chilver, L.

Mills, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cockfield, L.

Morris, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Courtown, E.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V.

Northbourne, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Dundee, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Falmouth, V.

Pender, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ferrers, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Prentice, L.

Gage, V.

Pym, L.

Geddes, L.

Quinton, L.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlings, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Gridley, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Haddington, E.

Renton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renwick, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hampden, V.

Rodney L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Romney, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Salisbury, M.

Harrowby, E.

Savile, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Headfort, M.

Selborne, E.

Henley, L.

Shannon, E.

Hives, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hogg, B.

Skelmersdale L.

Holderness, L.

Skidelsky, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hood, V.

Stewartby, L.

Hooper, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Howe, E.

Strange, B.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Strathcarron, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Kingsland, L.

Kitchener, E.

Sudeley, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Terrington, L.

Lindsay, E.

Teviot, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilwoith, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wedgwood, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wynford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

McConnell, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.1 p.m.
Clause 103 [Disclosure of information]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 62, line 28, after ("Schemes") insert:
("() the Official Receiver, or, in Northern Ireland, the Official Receiver for Northern Ireland,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment adds the Official Receiver and the Official Receiver in Northern Ireland to the list of bodies with whom the Compensation Board may exchange information. This will enable the board to exchange information with the Official Receiver. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 [Breach of regulations]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 63, line 12, at end insert:
("() Where by reason of the contravention of any provision contained in regulations made by virtue of this Part—

(a) a person is convicted of an offence under this Part, or

(b) a person pays a penalty under section 9,

then, in respect of that contravention, he shall not, in a case within paragraph (a), be liable to pay such a penalty or, in a case within paragraph (b), be convicted of such an offence.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 216. These amendments introduce changes to Clauses 105 and 135. Amendment No. 177 is concerned with breaches under Part I of the Bill and Amendment No. 216 with breaches under the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
These amendments provide that where a breach under Part I of the Bill, or the Pension Schemes Act 1993, attracts both a civil penalty and a criminal penalty, then someone who is required to pay a civil penalty fine in respect of such a breach cannot be prosecuted and convicted for the same breach. It also means that a person who is prosecuted and convicted of such a breach cannot also be required to pay a civil penalty fine in respect of it.
These amendments introduce a common sense clarification that is in line with natural justice and ensures that a person cannot be penalised twice in respect of the same breach. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 107 [Powers to modify this Part]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 63, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 151.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 [Consultations about regulations]:
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 63, line 42, after ("consult") insert ("organisations representative of employers and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at Committee stage my noble friend the Minister moved similar amendments. That was most welcome. I invite him to move a little further forward.
If the Government intend to consult all interested parties on the minimum funding requirement, then it seems sensible to put on the face of the Bill the employer as an interested party. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to take account of the employer's view modifying the minimum funding requirement. It requires him to consider the effect on employers in varying the prescriptions governing time periods and method of calculation and to seek the agreement of both Houses of Parliament. It also requires him to publish the reasons for his decisions.
The amendment takes account of the need to re-examine the operation of the minimum funding regulations following experience of its operation. As such, it retains the proposed security for scheme members while minimising the danger of damaging error by providing a means of quickly rectifying unnecessarily stringent regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we firmly believe that there should be a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult about regulations. That is why we introduced Clause 109 during Committee stage. That clause requires the Secretary of State to consult people he considers appropriate. This will ensure that he consults those who have the relevant expertise, knowledge and experience to provide informed analysis and comment.
Current legislation requires my right honourable friend to consult the Occupational Pensions Board on all regulations to do with pension matters. But it does not require him to consult .anyone else. In practice, the Government have traditionally consulted widely on pensions legislation, both primary and secondary, and we shall continue to do so.
We recognise that these are complex, technical matters and that it is sensible to draw on the vast fund of knowledge built up over many years by professionals and practitioners. Indeed, it is largely due to the extensive formal and informal consultation which has taken place since the PLRC published its report that we have been able to fine-tune many of the provisions in this Bill. Perhaps I might take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the many individuals and organisations who have contributed so constructively to our deliberations. I look forward to their continuing contribution, both as the Bill proceeds through Parliament and when we turn to secondary legislation.
Listing organisations which should be consulted carries significant risks. Once one type of organisation is specified on the face of the Bill, it would be necessary to list all types of organisations that it might be appropriate to consult. As noble Lords will appreciate, any such list is unlikely to be exhaustive. Rather than get drawn into such a debate, it seems infinitely preferable not to start any list at all.
As I have said, it has always been our practice to consult widely on occupational pensions issues, including with employers' and employees' organisations. We will continue to do so in the future. This clause already allows for effective consultation to take place and I hope that this, with our already

757
excellent record in this area and what I have just said will persuade my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very full reply to my amendment. The Government have an exemplary record as regards consultation over these issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Amendments consequential on Part I]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 105, line 32, leave out from ("1987,") to ("Occupational") in column 1, line 34 and insert ("at the end there is added— "20. The").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment revises the format of the insertion into the table in subsection (1) of the Banking Act 1987 to fit in with the rest of that table. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 107, line 43, leave out paragraph 35.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 214, 227, 228 and 237. Although not commenced, there is provision in existing legislation to require salary-related occupational pension schemes to increase the part of the pension in excess of the guaranteed minimum pension by the rate of price inflation to a limit of 5 per cent.
This provision is no longer required. Your Lordships will be well aware that this Bill requires all occupational pension schemes to index pensions in this way. Amendment No. 228 makes the necessary change to the legislation and Amendments Nos. 181, 214 and 237 simply make consequential amendments that are necessary as a result.
Amendment No. 227 is needed to make it clear that Schedule 6 covers general and minor consequential amendments. Originally, Schedule 6 made amendments consequential on Part IV of the Bill, but the schedule needs to go wider than that so that Amendment No. 228 can be included. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [Interpretation of Part I]:
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 64, line 30, leave out from ("means") to end of line 32 and insert (", where pensionable service has not terminated, the entitlement under the scheme had pensionable service terminated, and, where pensionable service has terminated, the actual entitlement under the scheme.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the definition of "accrued rights" in the Bill. I do not understand from the Bill—perhaps more importantly nor do some sections of the pensions industry—how we would ascertain what are accrued rights within defined benefit schemes and how they should be determined. To put it another way, the definition of accrued rights in the Bill is meaningless in the context of a defined benefit scheme because, in my opinion, it lacks a point
758
in time by reference to which the rights are defined. As a result, it is not possible to ascertain under Clause 60, which deals with the powers to alter schemes, what rights have been acquired before the power is exercised. The amendment seeks to remedy that defect. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have no objection in principle to what my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire has proposed. Indeed, I will go further—I welcome his contribution on this matter. Since the Bill was published, we have ourselves realised that the definition of accrued rights, especially the use of the term "prospective rights", is not as precise and clear as we should like it to be. But while I readily acknowledge that the definition of accrued rights contained in Clause 112 may not be correct, I fear that the one contained in the amendment is also flawed.
Our aim is to provide a definition which will apply whenever the term accrued rights is mentioned or implied in the Bill. This occurs in relation to the minimum funding requirement; in the definition of cash equivalent transfer values; in the calculation of preferential liabilities on scheme wind-up; in assignment and loss; and in alterations to scheme rules. So the definition needs to be able to encompass all rights under the terms of a pension scheme to which a person would have been entitled on a given date had pensionable service terminated on that date. Such rights will include contingent benefits such as ill-health benefits and widow's benefits, but not discretionary benefits. I do not think that the amendment deals with all those matters.
We recognise how important it is to get an accurate and all-embracing definition. We want to get it right, and to this end we have invited various pensions organisations with the right expertise to help us. They include the Association of Pension Lawyers, the Association of British Insurers, the Society of Pension Consultants, the Institute of Actuaries, the Faculty of Actuaries and the National Association of Pension Funds, who together make up the Occupational Pension Scheme Joint Working Group. They all have day-to-day experience of dealing with these matters, and I am sure that they have a valuable contribution to make. We shall of course carefully consider any suggestions that they put forward. I hope that we can then introduce a suitable government amendment in another place which will give the required definition.
While I am grateful to my noble friend for his helpful amendment, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it on the understanding that we have to put forward our own amendment for consideration once we have completed the consultations that I have mentioned.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply to this crucial amendment. I wish him all success in his consultations with so many different bodies, and I hope that they come up with one answer. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 65, line 27, leave out ("solvency") and insert ("funding").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 103. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 184:
After Clause 113, insert the following new clause:
Entitlement to share in occupational pension
(".—(1) If a resident of residential accommodation (other than a temporary resident) being a member of an occupational pension scheme, has a spouse (referred to in this section as "the remaining spouse") living other than in residential accommodation, the remaining spouse shall be entitled on application to the trustees of the scheme to receive one-half of the gross occupational pension which the resident would, apart from this section, be entitled to receive.
(2) Any payment made to the remaining spouse under subsection (1) of this section shall not be treated as the resident's income but shall be treated as the remaining spouse's income for all purposes.
(3) In this section—
"residential accommodation" means either accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 or accommodation in a nursing home or residential care home as defined in Regulation 19 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 if such accommodation is not provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948;
"resident" means a person provided with residential accommodation;
"temporary resident" has the same meaning as in the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992; and
"gross occupational pension" means the amount of occupational pension to which the resident is entitled before deducting any income tax which would, apart from this section, be payable on that pension.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the problems that face more and more elderly people who need to go into residential care. In moving Amendment No. 184, which deals with the treatment of the occupational pension in that situation, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 195, which relates to the state pension in that situation.
Both amendments seek to respond to the distressing situation where one partner—usually the husband—goes into long-term residential care, possibly with Alzheimer's disease. Unless the husband has a very generous occupational pension, all his occupational pension will be taken to pay for his nursing fees, leaving his wife without any of the pension. She is then reduced to the state pension. However, she receives only the dependent wife's pension, a category B pension of £35 per week—that is the point which Amendment No. 195 seeks to address—as though she were living in a household of two people, rather than the £57 per week that she would receive if she were unmarried, divorced or widowed. The wife is left nearly destitute twice over—by the loss of her share of the occupational pension (the point that is covered by Amendment No. 184) and by receiving only the dependent wife's state pension rather than the full pension that she might otherwise have received in her own right. As I have said, that point is covered by Amendment No. 195.
Amendment No. 184 would allow such a wife, on application to the trustees, to retain half of the occupational pension, exactly as if she were widowed. Amendment No. 195 would allow such a wife to claim the full old age pension rather than the dependent wife's pension—again, exactly as if she were widowed.
In later old age, when health declines, husband and wife seek to care for each other. The burden often becomes too great. A spouse may have such poor physical health that he or she requires almost 24-hour nursing care with turning, toileting, feeding and general caring. The health of the other elderly spouse may then break down. The situation may be even worse if one party develops Alzheimer's. The spouse may struggle for years, seeking to provide care, until he or she can care no longer and residential care is inevitable. It is a very distressing time for both. The carer's health may be worn down. He or she will be exhausted. That spouse then finds that because of the cost of residential and nursing care, it is likely that the entire occupational pension (except for £13 per week) will be taken for the fees. The spouse—usually the wife—is left not only without half of the occupational pension on which she has been living, but also with a reduced state old age pension. From sharing with her husband an income of, say, £350 or £400 per week, the wife's income can fall to one-tenth of that—to, say, £35 per week. Yes, such a wife will be eligible for income support, but only if her savings amount to less than £8,000.
Everything that such a wife has done—her care for her husband which may have cost her her own health; their savings in the occupational pension for security in their old age; her modest cash savings of, say, £10,000—will be taken. She has lost her husband to Alzheimer's; she may have lost her health in caring for him, and she has lost virtually all of her income. It is not possible for her to live on £35 per week and keep up their home. However, if she sells the home to release some of the equity, half of it will be taken to pay the fees. She may not have enough to provide a home of her own. The situation is desperate.
I refer to Mrs. H. who is one of many who have written to me about this. She has cared for her husband, who has dementia, for the past 10 years. He is in a nursing home where the fees are well over £200 per week. The whole of his estate and all his occupational pension are used to pay for his care. Mrs. H. has no pension of her own—most elderly women do not have their own pension. She has had to apply for income support. Her social worker tried to argue that she should have a share of the occupational pension but, by law, she cannot. The wife, Mrs. H., asks:
"How else am I to pay the bills? We both have some money saved [less than £8,000] but this won't cover the repairs needed to the house … I am at my wits' end".
If I sound somewhat distressed about the matter I make no apology. These are some of the most distressing family situations that I have come across. She would be financially better off if he were dead. While he lingers, she is near destitute.
The Minister said in Committee that he had no evidence that there was a problem. Subsequently, he was kind enough to write to me to accept that, on the basis

761
of the evidence submitted to him by the Alzheimer's Disease Society and Age Concern, there was. Some 10,000 men and 5,000 women with occupational pensions are in residential care. Many have left their spouses behind at home in deep financial distress.
The Government said that the amendments would not necessarily benefit everyone, and I agree. It is clear that many people will not have occupational pensions sufficiently large, when split, to lift their partners above income support. That is true; but the fact that we cannot help everyone is not an argument for not helping those whom we can, provided that unfairness does not result. The Minister has never claimed that the measure is unfair.
The Minister said that it would be unfair if the remaining spouse had a large pension of his or her own and large savings. In that case, under the liable relative proceedings the spouse could still be required to continue to contribute to spousal maintenance.
Finally, in Committee the Minister said that such an amendment was not necessary because local authorities already have the power or the discretion to waive part of the cost of residential fees. Two points arise. They may have the power but they almost never exercise it because, on the part of the local authority, not to take the whole of the husband's pension would be a voluntary forgoing of income. And that at a time when the financial situation for social services, given the pressure of care in the community, is already so tight that local authorities are not only abandoning discretionary services but are having a hard time maintaining the statutory services that they must. When local authorities are having to make an economic charge of £8 per hour for a home help, one cannot reasonably expect them voluntarily to forgo a discretionary charge.
In any case, the estimate for the income coming from these charges has been built into local authorities' standard spending assessments. The Government expect local authorities to raise that money whatever the cost to the families concerned. Therefore, they cannot forgo. The Alzheimer's Disease Society and Age Concern have trawled local authorities and discovered that virtually none can allow the spouse at home to keep more than, say, £5 or £10. The wife is left near destitute.
I hope that the Government will ask us to remit the amendment to them in order that they can consider it further. If not, I ask your Lordships whether it is reasonable, decent and just that a spouse who has cared for a partner in declining health and then loses him to Alzheimer's disease and to residential care, should then lose all the family income associated with that.
There is an alternative which is provided by Amendment No. 184. It is that in such circumstances the wife would have recourse to the trustees to receive that share of the pension that would be the equivalent of her being widowed. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is a decent and humane way to proceed. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I apologise that I was not in my seat when the noble Baroness began to speak to the amendment to which I too have attached my name. There is little to add; the case is self evident.
762
Surely, it cannot have been anyone's intention that the pension should disappear when a spouse goes into a residential home. After all, one allows one's closest partners and relations to go into a residential home only when the situation has become grim. That could never have been the Government's intention and this is an opportunity to correct a situation that badly needs correcting. The case has been powerfully made out by the noble Baroness, and we strongly support it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we discussed the matter at length in Committee. As I said then, I believe that the underlying issue relates to the provision of the national assistance charging regulations and the way in which local authorities use their discretion under those regulations when one member of a couple has an occupational pension and moves into residential accommodation. As I promised, I passed on the anxieties raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and other noble Lords to my right honourable friend, Mrs. Bottomley, the Secretary of State for Health. I assure your Lordships that the issue is being considered most carefully.
As I explained in Committee, at present it is left to the local authorities, using Department of Health guidance, to decide whether it will be beneficial to a particular resident spouse—and each individual case may be judged on its merit—as to how much they take from a pension. We expect local authorities to take into account the individual circumstances of each case; for instance, the previous living standards or particularly high outgoings. Anyone who is not satisfied with the way in which a local authority has exercised its discretion has recourse to the local authority complaints procedure, which all local authorities must operate in relation to their social services.
Since the previous debate, I have written to the noble Baroness apologising for the misunderstanding that occurred regarding evidence that local authorities were refusing to exercise their discretion in cases where a resident's entire occupational pension is taken into account towards the charge for his accommodation. From what I said a moment ago about the Department of Health circular, your Lordships will realise that that is certainly not our intention. We have now seen the briefing material from Age Concern. I must say that while of course the cases quoted and those quoted today by the noble Baroness are tragic, they do not actually show that local authorities have refused to exercise their discretion to allow residents to make a proportion of their occupational pensions available to their wives. Indeed, I invited Members of the Committee to produce hard evidence of examples where authorities had not exercised their discretion reasonably. Apart from the briefing note from Age Concern, I have not received any further material. If I receive any such material, I shall pass that evidence on to my right honourable friend.
I note that the noble Baroness said that local authorities are not exercising their discretion in that area. But the fact is that they have the discretion and before believing that we can proceed, I should like evidence that there is a widespread failure to use the

763
discretion in a sensible and sympathetic way. Certainly, we expect local authorities to do that, as does the Department of Health in its circular.
The second amendment seeks to extend the scope of what are known as the "substitution provisions" in the state pension scheme to married couples where one member is in residential accommodation. As I explained in Committee, the substitution provisions allow people whose marriages have ended by death, divorce or annulment and who do not remarry before reaching pension age to improve their basic pension entitlement by substituting their former spouse's contribution record for their own for the period up to the termination of the marriage. Separated couples do not come within the scope of the substitution provisions because where a couple are not residing together the woman is still able to claim a married woman's pension. The married woman's pension is paid at a lower rate than the standard basic pension and I can understand the noble Baroness's reasons for wanting to improve the position of people in the circumstances that she has described.
However, amending the legislation in the way proposed by these amendments would not necessarily benefit everyone concerned, in particular in cases where the remaining spouse receives an income-related benefit—commonly income support. All income-related benefits must take pensions fully into account. In these cases, the spouse at home would benefit only if the amount of pension that she received was substantial enough to lift her entirely above the level of income-related benefit that she received.
On the other hand, the spouse at home may have very substantial resources. It could not be considered to be an appropriate use of the limited public funds available if people in those situations were allowed to retain a share of the occupational pension while the spouse in care was having to be supported by the local authority or through the benefit system.
However, as I hope I made clear in Committee, I have a great deal of sympathy for what is being said, but I believe that the issue goes a good deal further than the question of rights in pension schemes. As I said earlier, I have referred the matter of residential charges to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and I can only reiterate that she is considering the issue very carefully indeed. Once again, I shall pass on the points made in this afternoon's debate to my right honourable friend so that she can take them into consideration.
In the light of the assurance that we are not unmindful of the problem and that it is being looked into, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that conciliatory and sympathetic reply. But the problem is that we are no further forward. The Government have one basic argument; namely, that local authorities have the power to exercise discretion. The Minister is not aware whether or not that discretion is being exercised, and until he has evidence of that he is not willing to move. I do not believe that that is a travesty of what he said.
764
First, both Age Concern and the Alzheimer's Disease Society have carried out a trawl of a number of local authorities and have reached two conclusions. First, there is wide variation in practice; but, secondly, even within a region or within a county with metropolitan authorities responsible for social services, very few local authorities exceed by more than £5 or £10 per week the £13 which they are required to recycle back to the home.
I am surprised that the Minister has not received the material that I have received from Age Concern and the Alzheimer's Disease Society. One of its county officers told Age Concern that although at one time the local authority had regularly used the discretion, it rarely did so now because of its financial situation. We know that from our own experience. All local authorities are having to cut back on every discretionary service in order to provide the statutory services to which they quite rightly give precedence, particularly when the Department of the Environment not only actively expects local authorities to charge but penalises them through the standard spending assessment if they do not. Those are the facts.
It is because of that that I wish to pursue the amendment. The amendment provides that, if some authorities are following that course but a few are not, we shall bring bad practice up to good. If most authorities are not exercising their discretion, which appears to me to be the case, there is an even bigger problem of acute emotional and financial distress which we need to address. This amendment will ensure that, wherever you live, the response of local authorities when someone is taken into residential care will be broadly the same. It is the equivalent of national guidelines. We need this provision now and I am going to ask the House to support the amendment.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 184) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 159; Not-Contents, 183.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Chorley, L.

Acton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Addington, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Airedale, L.

Combermere, V.

Alanbrooke, V.

Congleton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Craigavon, V.

Attenborough, L.

Croham, L.

Avebury, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Davies, L.

Bancroft, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Barnett, L.

Desai, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Birkett, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blackstonc, B.

Dubs, L.

Bottomley, L.

Eatwell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Brookes, L.

Ennals, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ezra,L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Falkender, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Falkland, V.

Chapple, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

765

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Fitt, L.

Monkswell, L.

Foot, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Freyberg, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Geraint, L.

Mulley, L.

Gibson, L.

Nelson, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]

Oxford, Bp.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gregson, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Halsbury, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hamwee, B.

Portland, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Hayter, L.

Redesdale, L.

Healey, L.

Richard, L.

Henniker, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hollick, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rochester, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hooson, L.

Roskill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Russell, E.

Hughes, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seear, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Inchyra, L.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Smith, L.

Jeger, B.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stedman, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Judd, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strafford, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Listowel, E.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Longford, E.

Tenby, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tope, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tordoff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mayhew, L.

Varley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McConnell, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Westmorland, E.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Whaddon, L.

McNair, L.

Wharton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

White, B.

Meston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Milne, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Biddulph, L.

Abinger, L.

Birdwood, L.

Addison, V.

Blake, L.

Ailsa, M.

Blaker, L.

Aldenham, L.

Blatch, B.

Aldington, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blyth, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Boardman, L.

Annaly, L.

Borthwick, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Aslor, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Barber, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Belstead, L.

Buchan, E.

Bethell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

766

Butterfield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas, L.

Cadman, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Merrivale, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chesham, L.

Mills, V.

Chilver, L.

Milverton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Coleridge, L.

Morris, L.

Courtown, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cranboroe, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norrie, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dormer, L.

Northesk, E.

Dundee, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Dundonald, E.

Onslow, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Eccles, V.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Parkinson, L.

Falmouth, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ferrers, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Gage, V.

Prentice, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pym, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Quinton, L.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlings, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Haddington, E.

Rees, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Renton, L.

Hambro, L.

Renwick, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Romney, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Salisbury, M.

Harrowby, E.

Savile, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hives, L.

Shannon, E.

Hogg, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hood,V.

Skidelsky, L.

Hooper, B.

Slim, V.

Hothfield, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Howe, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Stewartby, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strange, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Kimball, L.

Kingsland, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swansea, L.

Kitchener, E.

Teviot, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Leigh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsay, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

767

Wise, L.

Wynford, L.

Wolfson, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg moved Amendment No. 185:
Before Clause 114, insert the following new clause:
("DSS War Widows pensions
. A widow of a member of Her Majesty's forces whose death in service or retirement was adjudged to be attributable to service, who presently loses or has lost her War Widows pension on remarriage, shall on second bereavement or failure of the second marriage have her DSS War Widows Pension (and in the case of a widow of a deceased member of Her Majesty's forces who retired or died in service before 31st March 1973 also her DSS ex gratia supplement) restored automatically.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause stems from an earlier one which was narrowly defeated in Committee. It proposes a cheaper option in that it seeks not a pension for life but to alleviate the severe need of war widows who have remarried, been widowed again or divorced. While many war widows receive a more than adequate pension, these have no pension at all, let alone an adequate one. They are mostly older war widows, and many are in severe financial difficulties simply because they sought the security of marriage.
The proposed new clause asks that a war widow who remarries and loses her husband a second time should be granted the automatic restoration of the DSS element of her war widow's pension. Presently, there is no provision whatever for the restoration, let alone the guaranteed restoration, of the DSS war widow's pension. It would be more in line with the lowest provision throughout Europe—that is, in comparable armed forces pension schemes—though still far beneath the provisions of the vast majority of occupational pension schemes, where a pension for life is the norm.
Today there are around 48,000 war widows who receive a war widow's pension. Twenty five years ago, there were about 112,000—more than double that figure. Ten years later—fifteen years ago—that number of 112,000 had dropped to 74,000. That was because during the 1970s most First World War widows reached their seventies and eighties. In the next 10 years we can expect a similarly dramatic reduction in the number of war widows because today's 48,000 war widows, the vast majority of whose husbands served in the Second World War, have also reached their seventies and eighties. About 80 per cent, of them, almost 40,000, are over 70 years old, and about 40 per cent, are over 80 years of age. As they die at an inevitably ever increasing rate, the cost of war widows' pensions will also sharply decrease.
The Minister quite correctly stated that once a war widow remarries she ceases to be a widow. He also said on 2nd March in reply to a Starred Question that he assumed that the second husbands of war widows would make some provision for them. Underlying those statements, and the pension provisions themselves, is the dangerous assumption that a war widow's remarriage will last and that she will not be bereaved again for a considerable period of time. That lays a heavy burden
768
on the widow considering remarriage. She has already suffered a profound trauma in losing her husband, usually in violent circumstances; but now she is expected to choose between the possibility of future happiness and the certainty of pension'earned by her husband's death. That is a cruel pressure to put on anyone. Such are the uncertainties of personal relationships that it is impossible for her to know whether she is making the right decision.
Sadly, a large number of remarried war widows will be widowed again, some after only a short time. Most of the former war widows about whom we are speaking are from a generation who stayed at home and relied on their husbands for their financial well-being. Who can be assumed to look after them when they are on their own, if the Government have taken away their first, prematurely-dead husband's legitimate pension? On the other hand, in other allied and European countries with comparable war pension schemes that problem does not arise. Britain, alone, refuses to make any provision for the guaranteed restoration of the basic DSS war widows pension for the remarried war widow should she divorce or be widowed a second time.
Of the 14 comparable pension schemes, eight countries—Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Holland, Italy, New Zealand and South Africa—give their war widows a pension for life. Five others—Spain, France, Germany, Israel and Norway—automatically restore their war widows' pensions after second bereavement or divorce. Those countries, quite properly, recognise the special nature of what those war widows have endured.
Perhaps this is a good moment to remind ourselves why members of the Armed Forces are in such a unique position. First, a serviceman's liability is unlimited in that he is routinely expected to put his life on the line. With the risks so high, it is only reasonable that the safeguards should be too. Instead, at the moment, a war widow enjoys less security than the widow of anyone with an ordinary occupational pension. The reason is that 84 per cent, of occupational pension schemes grant a widow a pension for life regardless of marital status. There is no such provision for the war widow under either the DSS war widows' pension or the MoD occupational pension scheme.
Furthermore, the serviceman is required to adhere to a special discipline code which produces restrictions on personal liberty. He cannot leave his job at will by giving a month's notice. He cannot take part in an active trade union and has no right to strike. He is subject to postings at short notice every few years, and in practice these last for 18 months or less. This poses enormous strains on wives and families, with long periods of compulsory separation. Indeed, the life of a service wife is governed far more by the restrictions on her husband than in any other profession and in this way she herself contributes to her husband's pension.
Moreover, thanks to the constant moving that her husband's profession requires—26 times in 30 years is not untypical—service wives do not have the freedom to pursue their own careers and secure their own pension rights—something most civilians take for granted. This is particularly the case for overseas postings, which

769
were far more numerous 25 years ago than today, and which affect members of all branches of the Armed Forces. Not only was it hard for wives to find work locally but even those who did would not have been able to make the normal national insurance contributions. It is this generation of war and service widows with whom we are primarily concerned today.
The Minister has described at length the generosity of most war widows' pensions. This is not, and has never been, in doubt since the Government were obliged by parliamentary and public pressure to improve the pensions for older service war widows in 1989. Pre-1973 war widows had to wait 44 years after the end of the Second World War for a rise to an acceptable amount. Prior to 1989 such widows received only £62.80 a week. The inadequacy of this amount was recognised and put right thanks to a powerful public campaign orchestrated by the Officers Pension Society.
Since 1989 war widows have been able to enjoy an old age without fear of poverty but only as long as they remain single and do not remarry. It is time for us to recognise the plight of the bereaved and the divorced widows who attempt to rebuild their lives by remarrying in order to find a family unit and a father figure for their children. The present legislation cruelly discourages war widows from remarrying. The vast majority of them are too frightened even to contemplate it, such is their concern at losing all control over their financial well-being. If they remarry, they have to be completely dependent on their new husband. Incidentally, if the Minister were to suggest that automatic restoration should be means tested—a contradiction in terms—I have to tell him that this would be wholly unacceptable to war widows of all ages. By definition, the provision would no longer be automatic and it is precisely the uncertainty that means testing introduces which persuades war widows not to take the risk of remarrying.
The Government therefore condemn a war widow to a life of solitude. I am sure that this was not the purpose of the legislation but, sadly, it is the result. In 1989 only 22 war widows remarried; in 1990 there were 60; in 1991 there were 48; in 1992 there were 23, and in 1993 there were 34. This is out of a total of 48,776 war widows. This clause seeks for a war widow who has lost her husband a second time the chance to live with dignity. Restoring part of the war widows' pension is normal practice for all our European and allied counterparts. Does Britain really think so much less of those who fought and died in her name that she will not protect their widows? I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Even if there were no special reasons for recognising the situation of these widows, there would still be the comparisons with other countries which the noble Lord has spelt out. Many of those countries were our allies in war-time, and indeed are our allies still. But there are special reasons for this provision. We are all here today able to speak freely because of the sacrifices made by our servicemen and their families—sacrifices which are still being made year by year. The least we can do to repay the debt is to make sure that, in addition to their
770
damaged lives, the widows of those who were lost do not have to remain lonely for the rest of their lives because of the risk of financial need.
I understand that cohabitation as well as remarriage leads to the loss of the pension. The principle behind this amendment is already accepted in the United Kingdom in relation to other pensions. I understand that, without any question of a means test, the widows of police officers and firemen who have their pensions removed on remarriage invariably have them restored if the marriage ends. Surely we should not do any less than that for these war widows. I am glad to support the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wish briefly to support the amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. There is a proposition that all widows are more or less to be placed together and treated similarly. I dissent very strongly from that notion. I believe, if I can use for a moment some rather old-fashioned language, that there is a special obligation of honour to those who lose their lives in war. It is simply no good our saying year after year, parrot fashion, "We will remember them", if we do not remember the obligations which we undertook, not just to their dependants, but to them before they died.
I believe that there are two questions which should be asked here. I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend, who has a difficult problem here, but I believe there are two questions which he has to answer. One is: is it possible for a widow by her action to extinguish an obligation which has been undertaken to someone else by the state? My second question is really just a reflection of the first one. Is the state excused from further observation of an undertaking which it itself undertook to someone who has been killed in this country's cause? I do not think I have any more to say, but I think those questions, and our attitude to what I regard—I repeat the phrase—as an obligation of honour, ought not to be dodged.
6p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, although we are debating Amendment No. 185 I suggest to your Lordships that the four amendments hang together and that the same principles are involved. Were your Lordships to accept the first amendment, it would follow logically that the others should be accepted too. We have been here before, and not only during the Committee stage. I had some responsibility for these matters over 20 years ago. The arguments are exactly the same as they were then. Why is it then that successive governments, both Conservative and Labour, have found it impossible to accept amendments of this character? Is it the case that when they become Ministers, whatever their political colour, they suddenly become hard hearted and iron enters into their soul, or is it perhaps that when they become Ministers they recognise that they have a responsibility to use their heads as well as their hearts?
In Committee my noble friend the Minister used what I considered were powerful arguments in a courageous speech. I do not propose to repeat those arguments today

771
because his authority is a great deal better than mine. But I would like briefly to focus on three points which seem to me to be of fundamental importance.
The point is retrospection. If all improvements led to retrospection there would be very few improvements in occupational pension schemes or public service schemes because of the anomalies that would be created and the cost involved. In my judgment, it is no accident that it is the general rule that improvements count only for service after their introduction. On occasion there are buy-in provisions, but they apply only to those who are serving at the time and they have to be paid for. In my view, the amendment is contrary to the fundamental principle of non-retrospection. If conceded it would lead to irresistible pressure for the following amendments to be accepted.
My second point concerns equity and fairness as between pensioners. We very rightly give preference to war widows. I believe that everybody accepts that that should be so. As a consequence of that preference, war widows receive more than double the national insurance widows' pension and they receive it tax free. The preference has been increased by governments of both political colours over the years, and quite rightly so.
But I believe that different arguments apply when we consider the amendment. What about merchant seamen and lifeboatmen? Many of them gave their lives during the war to ensure that essential supplies got through to this country so that we could eventually win the war. There is no mention of them in the amendment. What about air raid wardens, police and firemen? They were very much in the front rank during those war years. There is no mention of their widows in the amendment. What about those who gave their lives through industrial injury or industrial disease while keeping weapons coming forward satisfactorily? I represented a constituency in another place which included the North Somerset coalfield. I have vivid memories of men gasping for breath, suffering from emphysema and ghastly diseases of that kind. Their wives went through agonies, and when eventually those men died their widows went through equal agonies. There is no mention of them in the amendment. I suggest to your Lordships that in this case it is neither equitable nor fair to single out war widows for further preferential treatment.
My final point relates to the cost. No doubt my noble friend will be able to enlighten the House about the cost of the amendments, but there is no doubt in my mind from my previous experience that the cost will be substantial. There would be a knock-on effect on all public service pension schemes and on the amendments which are to be considered soon. That additional cost would be on top of the uprating of pensions and benefits which is to come into operation next month at an additional cost to the taxpayer of approximately £1.5 billion. Are we really justified in sending to another place an additional bill on top of that, particularly bearing in mind our constitutional restraints with regard to finance?
I suggest that for those reasons the amendment and those which follow are badly flawed.
Lord Brookes: My Lords, it will be in the greatest traditions of your Lordships' House if, with that instinct
772
for that which is right, for that which is just and for that which satisfies the great history of this great nation and this great House, party lines are set aside tonight together with any commitments other than those of conscience, a debt of honour —to which I referred at Committee stage—and an obligation which cannot and must not be eroded with time.
Those obligations attached to the men of the armed services who had to go to action stations when attacked by the enemy and who had to attack the enemy. Therefore, there are no relativities attaching to civilian or industrial casualties. These were different. These were the men of our Armed Forces who had no choice, who made no other choice than to give of themselves for King and country, believing that, if they were lost, King and country would look after those who were left behind.
I do not intend to speak at length. Had the chaps who were worked, starved and beaten to death on the Burma railway asked, "What's going to happen to the missus?", they would not have thought that this great House of Lords would have hesitated and been parsimonious with the widow's mite. Nor would the men of the Battle of Britain, of Bomber Command and Transport Command or of the Navy, who fed us by escorting convoys, all those great men of 50 years or so ago. Today their elderly widows need the dignity of a few years of old age. Tonight this House has the power to set that right. I believe that we have the will, because this is not a matter of politics or a matter of purse; it is a matter of conscience.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dean appeared to criticise the idea of giving preference to war widows. But that preference has been accepted ever since the war. Like him, I was responsible for administration of the war pensions scheme for a number of years. I openly provided a considerably larger pension for war widows and for the war disabled than other people obtained, and I was supported fully in both Houses. Therefore, it is a false point, and a bad point, to argue that, because this proposal involves a considerable preference for the war widow, it should be rejected.
There is also the question of timing. When we discussed this matter on the previous occasion, several of us indicated that the 50th anniversary of VE Day was a particularly appropriate time to commemorate in this way and express gratitude to the widows of those who died in the defence of their country. Here I very much reject what my noble friend said. It has always been accepted that there should be a substantial preference for those who died fighting for their country. That has always been the policy. It is therefore now a question only of whether in the circumstances of today we should make some further improvement for this particular category of person.
We discussed the matter at considerable length at an earlier stage. There was a great body of opinion in this House that we should make an improvement and that there could not be a more appropriate moment for so doing than as part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of our victory. Therefore I hope that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will be accepted. I believe that it is the right

773
thing to do. I believe that in this way we can acknowledge the tremendous debt that we owe those who died to give us victory; those who died in this sad war, the end of which 50 years ago we now celebrate.
I very much hope that your Lordships' House—it is very much a matter for your Lordships' House—will support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I agree with every word he said. Some of us remember with great admiration the maiden speech that he made not very long ago during which he touched upon this subject. It would be a good decision of this House to carry these amendments.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have not taken part in the debate; nor had I intended so to do. Like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when I was Secretary of State for Social Services I had responsibility for pensions which covered widows' pensions. I was inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and a little horrified by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. One can always say that many other people deserve what we suggest in the amendment. We are not talking about those other people. Perhaps another time will come for those people. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, the time for war widows has come; it is now. If we do not make this provision this year, I doubt whether we shall ever do so. The spirit conveyed by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, seemed to me to be well above party politics. He was speaking from his heart. I, having been one of those who fought in the Second World War as so many people in this House did, would feel that the House was not standing by its great traditions if we did not support this amendment. I urge us so to do.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches made it quite clear at Committee stage that we support the amendments. I do not wish to prolong the debate tonight. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, the crux of the matter is whether or not one draws a distinction in favour of ex-service people. Quite clearly they are a different category and therefore we give them wholehearted support. We support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, as President of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, I apologise to your Lordships that I was not present in Committee. However, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, moved the amendment so very powerfully. With his speech today he has just achieved a treble in notable speeches. His amendment in Committee was lost by seven votes. If the noble Lord has to move the amendment again today, I shall hope to reduce that figure to six. I hope that there may be more than six noble Lords here who will change their minds due to the logic and deep felt emotion of all noble Lords who have spoken.
I speak especially for the plight of the older ladies who have remarried, seeking the help, society and comfort which are among the true purposes for which matrimony was ordained. If the second marriage ends in death or divorce, those ladies are not only without the spiritual benefits, they have also lost their pensions.
774
When one thinks of all the brave young men who went off to war hoping that they would come back, but knowing in their hearts that if they did not a grateful country would provide for their wives and not leave them comfortless in their old age, it' makes one's conscience curl up in shame.
I have had so many pitiful letters from widows in this situation. One wrote:
"I am so used to living 'thin', as they say in the north that I can get by, but I don't go to the hairdresser, I haven't a TV or a washing machine, I don't take a newspaper".
Another wrote:
"If I come to London for a meeting, I come by bus, because it is cheaper than train and I walk rather than use the Underground".
Another wrote that her second marriage having failed she now had only a partial DSS pension, and she was old, ill and often very cold as well. One wrote of how 50 years on she can only think back to her two year-old son asking where his daddy was. He had been blown to smithereens on his ship.
Among the rejoicing and parties of this memorable year, let us show our gratitude, our mercy and our compassion. Let us right this wrong for the sake of those who died.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have all listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said in his very moving speech when moving the amendment—the other amendments are linked to it—just as we listened to him at Committee stage. I clearly recall his maiden speech because I spoke immediately following him. He raised the matter then.
I appreciate the strong feelings of the House. No one could listen to what has been said without being moved. My noble friend Lady Strange has quoted many tragic circumstances. It is therefore hard to have to say that I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will not press his amendments, in particular when he has listened to what has been said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that he will.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I listened to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter without interrupting. I hope that he will do the same for me.
I, too, have a serious point to make. I am old enough to remember the Second World War. I am old enough to have lost people I loved in the Second World War. It is therefore not a theoretical matter. However, I believe that one has to consider the role of the House of Lords—a point that my noble friend Lord Dean touched on, and an important one. If I may say so, it is not simply that this is a House of Lords' issue that we should pass. We have already attained agreement on one major issue. But in this specific case there are two reasons why we should be careful. First, it is retrospective legislation. I do not need to rehearse all the arguments about that because one gets into great difficulties. Secondly, such a provision amounts to quite a lot of money.
I have re-read what my noble friend Lord Mackay said at Committee stage. With considerable understanding he set out the cost. I can see that no one wishes to hear that. But the truth of the matter is that if

775
the amendment were to be carried, the cost would simply come off someone else's budget. We can all have our own ideas as to what could be cut with impunity. But if one has been a government Minister, if one has had to take responsibility for policies across the board, it is difficult to say, "We have decided to add this provision on this occasion, and we shall definitely take the cost off someone else's budget". We know how unpleasant that is. We have had a recent illustration of the problems which arise over VAT on fuel. I agree that that is a separate issue but it leads to incredible complications.
That is not to say that one is not sympathetic. Quite properly war widows receive better treatment; and I believe that they should. However, it would be wrong for the House of Lords, occupying the constitutional position that it does, and able to undertake a great number of measures of great value, to decide this afternoon to commit the Government to considerably more expenditure.
Some people have said that that does not matter: that we are always spending money. It is a very different proposition as regards a Bill which has a price-tag attached to it under the provisions. Everyone knows the cost, and one debates an issue within those parameters. I suggest that it is a different proposition which unexpectedly adds a considerable sum, great though our sympathy may be for the cause. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will think carefully before pressing his amendment.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lady Young. She has hit the nail on the head that this is an emotive subject and it has been so for many years. As my noble friend Lord Dean said, successive governments, including that of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who had responsibility for pensions, have set their face against extending the concessions to war widows.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene since he referred to me. When I was Minister responsible for pensions I made two substantial increases in pensions.
Lord Clark of Kempston: Yes, my Lords. I congratulate my noble friend on his generosity. However, the tax concessions and the increase in pensions for war widows have been carried through successive governments. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter reminded me and the House of the increases that he made.
The point to the taxpayer about the amendment is that the giving of the pensions and concessions to war widows ceases on remarriage. That is what we are arguing about today, not the pensions. I was in the Army during the war. I quite agree that the loss and death of a loved one is very emotive and tragic, but we must also remember that not only are war widows' pensions paid to the widows of soldiers or other servicemen who die on active service; there are also payments if there is an accident, for disability while the person is in service or if through some disease they have to leave the service. We must get the issue in perspective.
776
As my noble friend Lord Dean said, if we go down this road—and we are not arguing about the basic pension; we are talking only about remarriage—why exclude policemen, prison officers and merchant navy personnel? The knock-on effect of the provision would be so great that, as my noble friend Lady Young said, the cost would be enormous for the taxpayer.
I do not wish to digress, but if a widow remarries, obviously she ceases to be a war widow and her new husband should be in a position to keep her. I got married over 50 years ago, but I did not do so until I could keep my wife. Consequently, I believe that that is a basic point.
I conclude by saying that, if we continue the provision for war widows on remarriage, whether it is the first or second remarriage, we cannot exclude other public servants such as firemen, merchant navy personnel and the rest. We cannot afford this provision and, reluctantly, I shall resist the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It has not been thought through as regards the eventual cost for the taxpayer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly as I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time this afternoon. I want to make clear our support on these Benches for this and the next amendment.
I wish too to pick up some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Dean and Lord Clark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The first concerns whether we have a constitutional right to pass the amendment. My noble friend Lord Carter drew page 121 of the red book, the Companion to the Standing Orders, to my attention. It makes it clear that:
"the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any Lords amendments with respect to Commons financial privilege".
In other words, it is entirely appropriate for us to discuss the issue today.
The second point was cost. We can afford what is a very modest proposal. It is that, following the end of a second marriage, war widows should be able to revert to their former pension. We are talking about a small number of elderly women; we can and should be able to afford the pension.
The third argument concerned precedent. Obviously one can compare the Armed Forces with an array of other occupations. However, the relevant ones are the disciplined forces: the police and fire fighting forces. They are similarly disciplined and may undertake life-threatening activities without the right to industrial negotiation. The widows of police officers and firemen lose their pensions on remarriage, but the local authorities invariably restore the pension, according to the National Association of Retired Police Officers and the National Association of Retired Firefighters, should the woman become a widow a second time. Far from war widows being over-privileged in comparison, at the moment they do not receive what the widows of those in the other disciplined services receive. Are we this afternoon going to treat our war widows less decently

777
and less favourably than the widows of the police and firemen? Surely not, especially in VE year. That is why we shall support the amendment.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wish to make a quite different point, also in support of the amendment. We must consider the message we are sending to the forces today. Their morale is already low and if we were to show after all this that we were unable to contemplate the proposal, it would send a most unfortunate and wrong message to them.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am glad that we have this proposition, but I should like a widening of the definition of a war widow. I was at a casualty clearing station in the East End of London and my late husband was the main casualty officer in Shoreditch. There we saw firemen, police officers, bus drivers and other people who just came out of their shops who all worked to dig casualties out. I was there and I have never been absolutely clear about the definition of "war widow" for the widows of those who have served overseas. When we mention war widows, could we not sometimes think of widows of firemen, police officers and even the doctors who worked during the Blitz in London? I can only speak of that because that is where I was and sometimes I had to tell a fireman's wife that he would not be coming back. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for saying that I care greatly about those memories and when we talk of war widows I hope that we shall expand the definition to include the extra pensions.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene to prolong the debate because I thought that all that needed to be said had already been dealt with. However, one or two points have been made this evening which dismayed and depressed me and I feel the need to mention two. The most important to me is the idea that somehow we must not accept the measure which is implicit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, because other people are not treated similarly.
We have heard about air raid wardens, policemen, oil rig workers, miners and so on. It is true that they become injured and lose their lives in the course of their duty. But I would not have thought it necessary to argue in this House, of all places, that a soldier who took up arms against an enemy in time of war was different from all those people. At Committee stage I used the phrase "unlimited liability". That is precisely what the soldier accepts when he takes up arms and faces the enemy.
It is not that he risks his life but that he offers his life. He is to give his life in the service of his country. In my view, this makes the soldier, whether the professional or non-professional soldier caught up in a world war, different from anybody else. I believe that the promise that we make to him when he goes to war is different from the undertakings that we give to anybody else. It would be a shame—I mean that word literally—if tonight we said that we would not treat war widows differently from, and better than, the widows of others.
I mention the question of cost. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has already mentioned that we are perfectly entitled to agree to this amendment, whatever it may
778
mean for the financial arrangements in the other place. Of course, it will be a costly measure. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that she could think of one or two other budgets from which this money could be taken. I can probably think of a greater number than she has in mind. I believe that we should leave this decision to the other place and subsequently to the Government. This is a matter of honour. I believe that my noble friend Lord Freyberg has done a great service to this House and to the country in raising these matters. In the end, the basic point that has worried me as the debate has proceeded this evening is that the soldier, male or female, who takes up arms to defend his or her country is different from anybody else and should be treated differently from anybody else.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, whose historic name commands universal respect. This is a matter of honour, conscience and priority. It is a modest way of saying thank-you to those who have laid down their lives and fought for our freedom and justice against one of the most horrible tyrannies in history. It is also a practical policy. Out of a social service budget of £80 billion or so, it should be possible to find this money as a priority. As a businessman, I would be happy to help find it without harming other people.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Dean and other noble Lords, for a brief time I was responsible for war pension matters in the DHSS some 12 or more years ago. Later on, when I served in the Ministry of Defence, I met these problems at first hand. Therefore, nobody recognises the importance of the case that has been put so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, than I do. But I am not sure that I go the whole way with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Although it is the case that soldiers, sailors and airmen offer their lives when they join the colours, I believe that people like merchant sailors and firemen in the Blitz in London are no less deserving of your Lordships' concern than are members of the Armed Forces who are alone the subject of these amendments.
Is it proposed that, for example, the widow of a civilian bomb disposal officer, working in dark and dangerous circumstances and expecting any minute to be blown to smithereens—perhaps later on indeed being killed—is somehow less deserving than the widow of someone who happened to join the Armed Forces and was sadly killed, though perhaps in much less demanding circumstances? I do not accept to the extent that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, suggested, the distinction between the two. As my noble friend Lord Dean said with such eloquence, I believe that those people, too, are worthy of concern. Sadly, the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, are silent as far as those individuals are concerned. The effect of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord is to create a new injustice. I believe that your Lordships should pause before doing such a thing.

779
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, speaking with his usual eloquence and persuasiveness, told us of his experiences as Minister for Pensions. I suggest to my noble friend that when he assumed the position of Chief Secretary, as he did, he might have taken a rather different line. The fact of the matter is that these amendments involve very considerable expenditure, as my noble friend Lady Young pointed out. I can assure my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who with the greatest of respect has not had, as I recall, responsibility in government for deciding the allocation of budget matters, that it is a good deal less easy than he may imagine. To find £100 million or £200 million from a particular budget is not straightforward. My noble friend Lady Young rightly pointed out that somebody would lose if these amendments were carried this evening.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will on reflection agree that his amendments will unintentionally create as many injustices as they solve. I hope that in those circumstances he will not press them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate, as we did in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has revisited the subjects that he raised so ably at Committee stage and on which he took the views of the House. We are looking now at four new clauses which either repeat those that we debated or are variations upon them. I am sorry that we have to deal with each separately. I apologise if I repeat some of my arguments in the course of the next hour or so as we debate them, especially as those of your Lordships who are interested in the pension arrangements for all our people have now had one very long day on Report and are likely to be here pretty late this evening.
The amendment would restore a DSS war widow's pension previously awarded to the widow of an ex-serviceman but withdrawn on her subsequent remarriage should she be unfortunate enough to become widowed for a second time, or should her second marriage fail for any reason. This amendment does not go as far as the earlier amendment that we debated and disagreed to in Committee. That amendment sought to amend war pensions legislation so that such pensions, once awarded, would be inviolate regardless of any change in widows' marital status.
Your Lordships will recall that I said that the cost of the earlier amendment would be at least £60 million a year. Some surprise was expressed at that figure. Indeed, supporters of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, suggested that I was wrong. They stressed that, whilst there would be costs in war widows' pensions, there would be savings to my department on other benefits like retirement pensions which would not be payable in addition to war widows' pensions. In the light of that, my officials, on my instructions, revisited their calculations and estimates and brought them to me. (Some of your Lordships know that I have a passing interest in figures.) They found that the figure was indeed wrong.
780
Perhaps I may take the House through the calculations and assumptions that we have made. We start with the one figure that we know for a certainty. About 90,000 war widows have remarried since 1939. As an aside, I must say that that rather negates the noble Lord's argument that they have been prevented from remarrying because of these pension arrangements. We estimate that about half of those will have died and have assumed that some 30,000 still living will claim the war widows' pension if it becomes payable for life. The headline cost of such a restoration will be £220 million; that is, £140 per week times 52 weeks times 30,000.
When the estimates were first made it was assumed that about 70 per cent, of that gross cost would be offset by savings in other benefits. That was the figure that the noble Lord and others invited me to look at again because they thought that I had rather underestimated it. That estimate was based partially on the assumption that most of those reclaiming the war widows' pension would be in receipt of full retirement pension and other income-related benefits. That figure led me to the £60 million that I quoted. In fact, we now believe that about half of those women will still be living with their second husbands or divorced or separated from them, and their offset will be mainly the married women's retirement pension based on their husband's contribution. That means that the offset is about 40 per cent.
So after looking more carefully, as I was invited to do, at the savings which would come from the full restoration, we have concluded that the headline total of £220 million would reduce by 70 per cent, for half the ladies, and about 40 per cent, for the other half. That would lead to a total cost of £100 million, if the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, had been successful a fortnight ago. I go through the arithmetic of it because I want to be sure where I am coming from on this issue. The amendment before us would allow restoration of war widows' pensions only where the second marriage had come to an end. That would cost, as noble Lords who followed my calculations will appreciate, £40 million a year.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before he proceeds, can he say what consideration has been given by him and his officials to the fact that on the whole this is an aged population and, sadly, the numbers will be reducing fairly rapidly year by year?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure what argument led the noble Lord, when he was the Minister responsible for these matters, to reject the case that has been put to us tonight. But I must tell him that I asked the question that he asked me; in fact, I asked it when I joined the department. It is rather inelegant to talk about deaths and recruitment to widowhood, and so on. But it is a fact, as I hear the noble Lord rightly remind me. The decline in the number of war widows is much slower than one would anticipate because there are still recruits (if I may call them that rather inelegantly) to the ranks. Those who are widowed now because their husbands were so severely disabled that their deaths are attributable to their war injury, become war widows. So it is not just a case of the elderly passing on. It is also a matter of others being

781
added. The decline in numbers is very much slower than the noble Lord's intervention would lead me to understand.
Perhaps I may remind the House, as I did the last time that we discussed this matter, that the war widows' pension is a generous one. It is awarded where the husband's death was either due to or hastened by an injury which was attributable to or aggravated by any service in the Armed Forces. It is important to stress that for ex-servicemen it is not necessary for death to have been caused by injury sustained in battle or even on active service.
The rationale behind the war widows' pension is that it should assist with the loss of support that a widow could have expected from her late husband. The pension is not and never has been intended as compensation for his loss. No pension could possibly do that.
It is logical that, if the widow remarries, the war widows' pension is withdrawn. She is no longer a widow but the wife of her second husband. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, seems to have accepted that in the argument that we had on the earlier amendment by not coming back with that particular new clause. As a special war widow's preference, a gratuity worth £7,000 for most is awarded at that stage of remarriage; but thereafter she has no further claim on the war pension scheme unless of course her second husband should die also as a result of service in the Armed Forces.
The amendment seeks, first, to restore the war widows' pension should the second husband die. I consider that to be neither logical nor fair. It is not logical because, although it is clearly very unfortunate that she should be widowed again, the fact remains that this time the widow has not been widowed as a result of her husband's service in the Armed Forces. She has lost her husband in exactly the same way as very many other women do.
In many cases the second marriage will have lasted for many years. Over 80 per cent, of former war widows who remarried did so before 1955. On second widowhood, the former war widow is thus likely to have had the support of her second husband for longer than many national insurance widows have had the support of their only partner. I am sure that we can all think of ladies we know—I certainly can—who have been widowed in exactly those circumstances. To do as the amendment proposes would be most unfair to the majority of widows in this country.
The second aim of the amendment is to restore the war widows' pension if the second marriage should fail. That would mean restoring the pension not only on divorce, but also where the relationship has broken down short of divorce. That would be even more unfair to other women in similar situations. There is no state pension provision available to them when their marriage fails. It would also be unworkable in practice. Who would be the arbiter of whether a marriage has failed? We should be entering quite difficult territory there.
A further unfairness lies in the selective nature of the amendment. A number of noble Lords have pointed out that the amendment before us would benefit only the ex-war widows of servicemen and not other widows who have lost their husbands in the service of the country in
782
one way or another. When listening to one of the speeches, I was reminded of a day last year when I stood in front of the merchant navy war memorial on the Embankment. I was overwhelmed by the large numbers of merchant seamen and fishermen whose names are inscribed on that memorial and whose widows undoubtedly were left in quite similar circumstances to those about whom we have heard. I do not know whether it is intentional that they have all been omitted from the amendment or whether it is an oversight. It certainly appears to be discriminatory, as a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, said.
I have already said that war pensions are given at a very preferential rate. I trust that your Lordships will not take it amiss if I remind them of what I have said on the matter. In recognition of the special circumstances of widowhood and the sacrifice made by the late husband, for most war widows this pension is worth almost two-and-a-half times more than a national insurance widows' pension, which is received by the majority of widows in this country: £140 per week and tax-free compared with £57.60 and taxed.
The amendment is also incorrect in describing the £48.70 a week tax-free supplement for pre-1973 war widows as "ex gratia". Your Lordships should be left in no doubt about it: it is not ex gratia. The supplementary pension is a legal provision which was introduced by this Government in April 1990.
Of course, we all have great sympathy for those widows who lost their husbands as a result of the war and who, consequently, for all these years since, have not had the partnership and support that they naturally expected. Much has been said today about the emotional traumas and difficulties that those women have faced and how much they deserve our full support. I agree wholeheartedly. Half a century on, there are roughly 50,000 of them who rightly receive a war widows' pension substantially above the rate of other widows, as I just said. It is no more than their due.
However, this amendment is not about those ladies. It is about ladies who remarried. The vast majority of them will have had the support of a second husband for many years and financial support during the marriage and thereafter in the widow's provision made by the second husband.
This is a difficult and emotive area for us all. But bearing in mind the original rationale behind the provision of war widows' pension, we can see no justification for amending the legislation so that the pension may be restored on second widowhood or on the failure of the second marriage. As one of my noble friends said, for a moment let us just let our heads rule our hearts. On that basis, I am unable to commend this amendment to your Lordships.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I should first like to thank all the noble Lords who have spoken for this clause. The Minister restated the provisions that exist for war widows. But the war widows about whom we are primarily speaking are the pre-1973 war widows who

783
remarried; and, no matter how important they now are, they have been completely excluded from any pension provision, either the DSS or the ex gratia payment.
It is important that war widows who have seen their husbands die in the service of their country in war, on active service or attributively, should have some form of safety net built into the pension provisions which would allow them to remarry without fear of financial hardship should anything go wrong with the second marriage.
I should also like to refer to the Minister's comments on gratuities. It is true that on remarriage the DSS awards each widow a gratuity equivalent to one year's pension. As some 90 per cent. of those who died in the Second World War were non-commissioned, the majority of their widows received extremely small pensions. Their gratuity often amounted to as little as £20. That is not much compensation for losing a war widow's pension for life. Furthermore, so far there have been only 34 widows who received the maximum of £7,000.
There is little doubt that, given the choice, most war widows considering remarriage would prefer to have the safety net of automatic restoration of their DSS pension were they to be widowed again or divorced rather than the gratuity. I should like to emphasise that there is every sign that the enormous decrease in the number of First World War widows between 1968 and 1978 will be repeated in the next decade now that the Second World War widows have reached the same age. In 1968, there were some 44,000 First World War widows. Ten years on, there were some 17,800. Today, we have approximately 46,000 Second World War widows. So in the next decade we can expect a similarly very significant reduction in numbers. That will inevitably also lead to a significant reduction in cost. It seems only decent, therefore, that the Government should extend the war widows' pension to those who have already remarried and have been widowed again or divorced. I would emphasise that such provision is the norm for all allied and European comparable armed forces pension schemes.
Finally, I cannot stress too strongly that this ruling is the source of much unhappiness and poverty, frightening war widows against ever remarrying and punishing those who suffer second bereavement or divorce. Britain must not leave elderly widows of so many of its fighting men in dire straits any longer. It is for this reason that I must test the opinion of the House.
6.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 185) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 191; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Acton, L.

Annaly, L.

Addington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Airedale, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Alanbrooke, V.

Attenborough, L.

Aldenham, L.

Avebury, L.

784

Bancroft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Barnett, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jeger, B.

Birkett, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Killearn, L.

Blake, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bledisloe, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Borthwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kitchener, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Brightman, L.

Layton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Brookes, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Chalfont, L.

Mayhew, L.

Chapple, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

McCarthy, L.

Chorley, L.

McConnell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Combermere, V.

McNair, L.

Congleton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cornwall's, L.

Meston, L.

Cox, B.

Milne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Croham, L.

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Moran, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nelson, E.

Derwent, L.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Norrie, L.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Donoughue, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Perth, E.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Dundonald, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ennals, L.

Portland, E.

Erroll, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Raglan, L.

Falkland, V.

Ranfurly, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea,L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Redesdale, L.

Foot, L.

Rennell, L.

Freyberg, L. [Teller.]

Richard, L.

Gage, V.

Ripon, Bp.

Geraint, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Rochester, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Roskill, L.

Greenway, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Halsbury, E.

Salisbury M.

Hamwee, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Savile, L.

Harrowby, E.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Haskel, L.

Serota, B.

Hayter, L.

Shannon, E.

Healey, L.

Sharples, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Henniker, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hollick, L.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Slim, V.

Hooson, L.

Smith, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stallard, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

785

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Waverley, V.

Strafford, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Strange, B.

Westmorland, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Whaddon, L.

Wharton, B.

Swinfen, L.

White, B.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Tenby, V.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Elvel.L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thurlow, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Tope, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Tordoff, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Haddington, E.

Addison, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ailsa, M.

Aldington, L.

Hambro, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Astor, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Barber, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Bethell, L.

Hives, L.

Biddulph, L.

Hogg, B.

Birdwood, L.

Holderness, L.

Blaker, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blatch, B

Hood ,V.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hothfield, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Howe, E.

Buchan, E.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cadman, L.

Kimball, L.

Caithness, E.

Kingsland, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Leigh, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Long, V.

Chesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chilver, L.

Lucas, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lyell, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Colwyn, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Courtown, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy seal.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Mersey, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Davidson, V.

Mills, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Milverton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Morris, L.

Dudley, E.

Mottistone, L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Moyne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Noel-Buxron, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Northbrook, L.

Falmouth, V.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Goschen, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Gowrie, E.

Parkinson, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hacking, L.

786

Prentice, L.

Stewartby, L.

Pym,L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Rawlings, B.

Sudeley, L.

Reay, L.

Teviot, L.

Rees, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renwick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rodney, L.

Wakeham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Selborne, E.

Wise, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wynford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Young, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg moved Amendment No. 186:
Before Clause 114, insert the following new clause:
("Service Widows' pensions: post-retirement marriage
. No widow of a member of Her Majesty's forces shall be disqualified from receiving a full pension in relation to the deceased's membership of Her Majesty's forces by virtue of the fact that her marriage occurred after the deceased member had retired from Her Majesty's forces provided that the marriage took place before his 65th birthday—the end of his recall liability—and has lasted for at least three years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is different from the previous one. We are now talking about service widows of post-retirement marriages. Widows of servicemen who retired before 1978 unjustly receive none of their husband's pension. Thus, many widows over 70 whose husbands fought in the Second World War and who were lucky enough to survive to contribute towards their widow's pension, both financially and by their service, are left pensionless.
The new clause proposes provision for those widows related to the serviceman's years of service provided the marriage occurred before he reached 65—the age of recall liability—and had lasted at least three years.
Post-retirement marriages are a particular problem in the Armed Forces because retirement is commonly so much earlier than in other professions. Typically, officers retire between the ages of 45 and 55 and other ranks as early as 35 to 40. Naturally, many of those men of such ages wish to marry, and do so; but until 1978 no pensions provision was made for their post-retirement widows. That has created an extremely serious position, penalising men who had paid into a pension scheme all their working lives—11 per cent. of their pay until 1986—leaving them unable to provide for their widows when they die. That iniquity causes misery not just for the widow who is to be left without a pension, but horrible mental anguish for her husband while is is alive, as he knows that he will be unable to provide her with the financial security to which she should be entitled.
The Minister has said that second husbands should make provision for their wives. In many cases, in a post-retirement marriage they are prevented from doing just that, as letters that I have received describe. It is not just widows of pre-1978 servicemen who are affected by the ruling. Because of the length of time it will take for the new system to operate fully, whereby each year

787
of service post-1978 counts for 1/34 of a widow's pension, only servicemen who retire in 2012 will be able to give their post-retirement widows the full half-rate pension. If one was to retire today in 1995, one would be able to pass on only a quarter-rate pension.
I am ashamed to say that other countries are more generous in that respect. Pension provision for the widow of a post-retirement marriage is a characteristic of all but one of 14 comparable European allied armed forces pension schemes.
The amendment proposes that pensions be extended only to widows of retired servicemen who marry or remarry before the age of 65—the end of recall liability and the common retirement age for the civilian population. Provided that the marriage lasted for at least three years, the pension should relate to the spouse's number of years in the forces.
The Minister will no doubt mention that premature compulsory or voluntary retirement is a characteristic of other public service professions. But it applies only to the police force, and to nothing like the same degree. If the Minister argues that any concession must be read across to the remainder of the public sector, I would remind him that in the period about which we are talking—pre-1978—the standard retirement age for civil servants was 65. The amendment would put servicemen on a par with civil servants at that period. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendment, as the noble Lord rightly said, is completely different from the previous one. I hope that your Lordships will manage to make the distinction between the case made on the previous amendment, which was about war widows from the Second World War, and the case on this amendment, which is about the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is an occupational pension scheme for people, some of whom—very many perhaps—received some injury while in the forces, but the majority of whom retired fairly hale and hearty and took up other ways of civilian life, subsequently died, and obviously left widows.
It is also fair to point out—it may be a nice point to make—that it is not valid to compare this scheme with provision in other countries. One must compare it with the provision in other public service schemes, in this country. Prior to the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, it was a normal and well-established principle of occupational pension schemes, including all those in the public service (including the AFPS), that to qualify for a pension the widow of a pensioner had to be married to him at the time he was engaged in the occupation covered by the scheme. The AFPS was similar in that aspect to other public service schemes. The noble Lord mentioned the Civil Service. I shall throw in education, the health service, doctors, nurses, teachers, police, firemen and local authority employees. That is what this scheme must be compared with.
The effect of the amendment would be to give an open-ended retrospective commitment to the AFPS alone, the full extent of the cost implications of which are difficult to determine. We have no record of the number of post-retirement marriages contracted before
788
6th April 1978 and only learn of those contracted since should an inquiry be made. However, a very broad brush estimate can be given by estimating some 15 per cent. of marriages take place after servicemen leave the forces. The cost of full retrospection could well be in the region of £60 million. What the amendment seeks to do is to entitle any service widow to a widow's pension regardless of the introductory date applicable to the AFPS and other public service schemes. The government of the day—I invite noble Lords on the Benches directly opposite, not the well-whipped noble Lords on the Cross Benches—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Shame!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, surely I must have some sport, given the trials that I am suffering. Your Lordships would not deny me that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Resist the temptation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, no, I have decided not to resist temptation, as the noble Baroness is inviting me to do. I remind the Benches directly opposite that the years about which I am talking are the years in which they had some responsibility. They had some responsibility for the decision not to have retrospection. They introduced the improvement. They were well aware that, as usual, there would be those people who would fall on the wrong side of that implementation date and would therefore not benefit from it. The improvement was given a phased introduction in that only service in the relevant occupation from 6th April 1978 would count.
We are now 17 years into the programme of phased introduction. If it was good enough—dare I say?—for the Benches opposite when they were in government and had the responsibility of finding these kinds of sums of money and decided that they did not want to do it either in this scheme or across the public service scheme, then I suggest it is good enough for them tonight to continue the view that they took then; that is, that they should make a cut-off date of 6th April 1978.
The improvements come to all occupational pension schemes. As I argued in Committee, the principle of all occupational pension schemes in these matters is that retrospection is not taken into account; retrospection is not considered to be the proper way forward. Improvements in schemes are made from the day of the improvement onwards. I do not see any basis for the House agreeing to make a unilateral change in this specific occupational pension scheme.
I hope that your Lordships will accept from me the argument that this amendment concerns an entirely different category of people from those with which we were dealing in the previous amendment. I hope the House will agree that it is right to resist retrospection in what is an occupational pension scheme. If the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, insists on putting this amendment to the vote and does not rest on the laurels of his first victory, then I hope that your Lordships will join me in the Lobby against him.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I should like to emphasise that I am not proposing that pension

789
provision be extended to all widows of post-retirement marriages—a state of affairs that exists in most occupational pensions. I am proposing pension provision for retired servicemen who marry or remarry before the age of 65—the normal civilian age of retirement and the end of recall liability—provided that they have served a minimum number of years (16 in the case of an officer) and have been married for at least three years.
This is a necessary provision because of the habitually early compulsory retirement from the Army, far more so than in any other profession. Indeed, no less a person than John Major made this point in relation to early retirement and pension anomalies to the House of Commons on 2nd May 1980 when he said:
"Service men, by virtue of their profession, are in a special position and should be treated accordingly".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/5/80; col. 1846.]
He went on to ask the Minister to promise that
"the door is not closed on justice for these pensioners and their widows".
It is a plea with which I am in complete agreement and I echo it in the hope that the amendment will be accepted.
The Minister argues that pensions for post-retirement marriages will be costly to implement. Cost alone is no excuse for robbing servicemen of the pensions they earned for their widows. The Minister also says that pensions for widows of post-retirement marriages would have costly knock-on effects. That ignores the special circumstances of army retirement. Policemen and members of the fire brigade retire at around 55, while in the Civil Service, in the 1970s—the period under discussion—almost all civil servants worked until they were 65. There would therefore be no significant read-across. For that reason the Armed Forces, with their far earlier and compulsory retirement dates, must be treated as a separate case.
To sum up, I want to stress that pre-1978 service widows of post-retirement marriages do not simply receive inadequate service pensions; they receive no Armed Forces pension whatever, regardless of their husbands' years of service. Moreover, the pre-1978 cut-off date penalises the most elderly widows. That is indefensible. Their husbands served the country just as long and, in the Second World War, just as hard as the servicemen who came after them. It is for that reason that I must test the opinion of the House.
7.14p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 186) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Avebury, L.

Airedale, L.

Bancroft, L.

Alanbrooke, V.

Birkett, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brookes, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Attenborough, L.

Carter, L.

790

Chalfont, L.

McCarthy, L.

Chorley, L.

McConnell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Coleridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Combermere, V.

McNair, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Craigavon, V.

Meston, L.

Cross, V.

Milne, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Monson, L.

Davies, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Derwent, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Desai, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Portland, E.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Ranfurly, E.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Foot, L.

Richard, L.

Freyberg, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Geraint , L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shannon, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Healey, L.

Slim, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Smith, L.

Henniker, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stallard, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Stedman, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strafford, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jeger, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Judd, L.

Tope, L.

Kitchener, E.

Tordoff, L.

Lawrence, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Westmorland, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

White, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ackner, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Addison, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ailsa, M.

Buchan, E.

Aldington, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Butterworth, L.

Annaly, L.

Cadman.L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Caithness, E.

Astor, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Barber, L.

Carnock, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Bethell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Biddulph, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Blake, L.

Chesham, L.

Blaker, L.

Chilver, L.

Blatch, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blyth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Borthwick, L.

Coleraine, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Colwyn, L.

791

Courtown, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Mersey, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Millar of Hendon, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Milverton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dudley, E.

Morris, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Moyne, L.

Elles, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ferrers, E.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Northbrook, L.

Gage, V.

Northesk, E.

Gisborough, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Goschen, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Orkney, E.

Hacking, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Haddington, E.

Parkinson, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Prentice, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reay, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Rees, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Renwick, L.

Hogg, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Holderness, L.

Salton of Abernethy, Ly.

HolmPatrick, L.

Savile, L.

Hood, V.

Seccombe, B.

Hothfield, L.

Sharples, B.

Howe, E.

Shaw of Norhtstead, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Kimball, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kingsland, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Layton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Leigh, L.

Teviot, L.

Lindsay, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lucas, L.

Wakeham, L.

Lyell, L.

Wise, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wynford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.23.p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 not moved.]
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton moved Amendment No. 189:
Before Clause 114, insert the following new clause:
Carers' credits
(". For any person attaining pensionable age on or after 6th April 1999, for the purposes of Schedule 3 to 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.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 194. The aim of the new clause and Amendment No. 194 is to ensure that all those eligible for home responsibility
792
protection instead have their contributions credited on the same basis as people who are registered as unemployed or in receipt of invalidity benefit. They will be treated as having paid primary Class 1 contributions during the period of time that they are prevented from doing so because of care responsibilities in the home.
Currently, for people in that situation HRP provides for them to have each of those years up to a maximum of 20 deducted from the requisite number of qualifying years for a category A pension. The introduction of HRP was a major breakthrough, particularly for women who failed to qualify for pension rights because of long breaks in their working life.
But the position is not satisfactory for a number of reasons. As home responsibility protection is based on a full tax year and not credited on a week-by-week basis, any year in which a person meets only the requirements for that part of the year will not qualify, creating for those people serious gaps in the protection afforded. Similarly, while equalisation of the maximum number of years for HRP for a full basic pension at 22 years will remove the discriminatory element between women and men, the time limits still penalise those with large families or families with children with special needs.
Other flaws in the current arrangements are, first, many carers miss out because of the narrow qualifying base. Secondly, for those looking after people with disabilities HRP does not provide an automatic payment. They are often unaware that HRP exists. The most important reason for this change is that it will bring people into the contribution system. That has to be beneficial since it reinforces their responsibility for making adequate provision for their retirement. For instance, they would be reminded by the contributions agency if they do not have a full insurance record for a particular year and so be prompted to pay Class 3 contributions to protect their pension entitlement.
It is important to stress that this is broadly a cost-neutral option, as HRP and carers' credit give the same level of entitlement. Equally important, the date of April 1999 proposed for implementation allows time for the necessary administrative changes and coincides with the Government's stated intention to make provision for HRP to be extended to SERPS.
The Government may argue that there is no need for this amendment as they are committed to making the change. We believe, however, that it is important to include this clause in the Bill to guarantee that there will be no removal of HRP without it being replaced by more adequate provision.
Finally, it is estimated that the unpaid work of carers saves the Government £34 billion a year. A more comprehensive approach to protecting their pensions would show that their efforts are truly appreciated. I therefore hope that the Government will feel able to accept this modest amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as president of the Carers National Association I must declare an interest in supporting this amendment. I wish to support it as powerfully as I possibly can. In the early days of carers' work becoming recognised, those of us who were working for carers did a survey to ask what their major

793
anxiety was. It may perhaps surprise your Lordships to learn that their major anxiety was, "What is going to happen to us when we get old? We are looking after people who cannot look after themselves now. When it is our turn, what is going to happen to us?". So many of them had to give up opportunities to earn a pension for themselves and they had even lost their right to the state pension because they were not paying contributions.
If the work of carers is to be carried out properly, they must be free from this haunting anxiety that they will be in deep poverty when they themselves reach old age. Indeed, a great many of them are in deep poverty already. Some security in old age is essential and therefore I beg the Government to get this amendment onto the face of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am alone in feeling like an actor in a B movie which comes on after the audience has gone, or almost all gone. The long service medal people remain, I see.
These amendments seek to limit the effect of the current provisions of home responsibilities protection. They would treat any person attaining pensionable age on or after 6th April 1999 who is prevented from regular employment by responsibilities at home as having paid primary Class 1 contributions for the purposes of calculating retirement pension during any period during which they were so prevented.
These amendments which seek to replace home responsibilities protection with national insurance credits are unnecessary. Home responsibilities protection, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, rightly said, already provides a simple and effective mechanism which fully protects the entitlement to the state basic pension of people whose working patterns are interrupted by caring responsibilities.
It may help if I explain how it works. Home responsibilities protection allows years of caring to be excluded from the number of qualifying years otherwise needed for basic pension purposes, subject to a minimum of 20 qualifying years. So those whose opportunity to work is limited by caring responsibilities at home are not penalised in terms of the ability to maintain entitlement to a full basic pension. It is available to carers of children under 16 and to carers of the sick and disabled.
Our own proposals included in the Bill will ensure that, as women's pension age goes up, and the number of years needed for a full basic pension increases to 44 years, so the number of years that can be covered by home responsibilities protection increases by three years to 22 years. That will retain the principle that a person with caring responsibilities can earn a full basic pension with half the number of qualifying years normally needed. The protection available should thus provide adequate coverage for the majority of carers.
We value the role played in society by those who care for others. I agree entirely with the tribute which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, paid to those who carry out that caring, whether for children, the elderly or the
794
infirm. However, I believe that home responsibilities protection fully recognises that value and is a fair measure to protect carers' entitlement to basic pension. By the year 2030, it is estimated that more than 4 million women alone will be benefiting. I am content that home responsibilities protection fulfils our obligation to safeguard future basic pension rights for people with caring responsibilities.
Having heard my remarks about HRP and my confirmation of how it works—it seems to me that it fulfils the objectives of the noble Baroness—I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply, but I regret the fact that he has not found it possible to take on board our dissatisfaction about the flaws in HRP which I have outlined.
The Minister said that he values the role which carers play in society. I question that because the provisions do not fully cover carers in their old age. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, they should be free from such anxieties when they are looking after other people, yet no provision is being made to ensure that the maximum number of people can claim HRP or a new contributory benefit. It is estimated that more than 7 million carers work for some 20 hours a week without pay. It is a great pity that the Government are not prepared to make this small change to improve their situation. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.33 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Inadmissability in civil proceedings of information as to what occurred during family mediation]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert:
("(5) A document purporting to be a certificate by the Lord President for the purposes of this Act shall be accepted by the court as such unless the contrary is proved.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage of this Bill on 21st February, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, suggested that it would be wise to consider inserting a provision into Clause 1 to the effect that a document purporting to be a

795
certificate by the Lord President of the Court of Session approving an organisation should be accepted by the court as such unless the contrary is proved. We are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making that point. We have been happy to take his advice. Indeed, there is a precedent in statute for such a provision. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to your Lordships and, in that spirit, I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it may be helpful if I intervene at this stage to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for the advice that he offered on this matter in Committee. I am also grateful to my noble and learned friend for his response. I am happy to accept the amendment and hope that other noble Lords will do likewise.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I have some questions for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about the amendment. I have read the Official Report of the last stage of our deliberations when I raised the issue of exactly how the Lord President would decide whether an organisation was appropriate to qualify as a mediator. Having read Hansard, I believe that the noble and learned Lord suggested that it was not up to the Lord President to make that decision. I therefore wonder what value the measure has and from where the criteria for approving an organisation will come. Indeed, should we be considering deleting subsections (3) to (5) of Clause 1?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply that I made the slightly more specific point that whereas the noble Earl had indicated that he envisaged that the Lord President might have a wide-ranging responsibility for keeping organisations up to standard, so to speak, I did not think that that was the function of the Lord President. In broad terms, the Lord President has to be satisfied that such organisations are responsible and operating properly in the mediation service. He has to be satisfied that their proceedings are suitable and can attract the evidential immunity that is in question. As I said in Committee, the Bill relates entirely to evidential matters, not to wider matters. It is within that general framework that I think that it is important that the Lord President should be involved in this way. It is important that that immunity should arise only for approved organisations.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he confirm that before making decisions about such organisations, the Lord President will engage in wide consultation?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, it is not for me to prescribe what the Lord President will do. I am sure that he will be alive to the necessity of ensuring that the organisations that he approves are suitable and that he will take the necessary steps to that end.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exceptions to general rule of inadmissibility]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lourmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert:
("(a) of information as to any contract entered into during family mediation or of the fact that no contract was entered into during such mediation;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak also to Amendment No. 3. I tabled these amendments to address the concerns about the existing text of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2(1) which were made known to me by both Family Mediation Scotland and Comprehensive Accredited Lawyer Mediators, known respectively as FMS and CALM. Put briefly, they feared that the words,
"agreement (whether written or oral)",
which appear in Clause 2(1) (a), would allow one party who wished to lead evidence as to what occurred during mediation to aver or claim that there was an oral agreement. That could lead to the other party to the mediation challenging the existence of such an agreement. In an examination of that, the so-called "sealed room" of mediation would be opened without the agreement of all the parties, as is provided for in Clause 2(1) (c).
I understand that FMS and CALM mediators have described their anxieties to the Scottish Law Commission, which concluded that it would be reasonable to try to meet the anxieties of those involved in the mediation process. As a result, the Scottish Law Commission suggested the amendments that we are now considering. They are acceptable to FMS. It tells me that it will require to adjust its practice slightly in order to ensure that clients understand clearly the difference between oral or written contracts which are intended to be binding and other kinds of agreements which more often emerge from family mediation. The CALM lawyers had proposed a different approach, but I am sure that they will recognise that this is a fair compromise and, like FMS, will be able to adjust their practice to work within the law.
I am sure that your Lordships are as grateful as I am to CALM for pointing out the problem and to FMS for backing it in its request to the Scottish Law Commission. Likewise, I am sure that we are all grateful to the Scottish Law Commission for responding as it has. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the two amendments put the wording of the Bill onto a better footing. They pave the way for a wider range of decisions, as characterised by Clause 1(2) (b) to (e). I had initially spoken about the Bill as though only Clause 1(2) (a) existed; that is, that family mediation was only about determining the children's future. While I recognise that we are dealing with a wide range of issues, I believe that the word "contract" is a more businesslike description of what needs to be achieved. After all, many of the decisions that must be taken on the dismantling of a marriage are similar to those taken in dismantling a partnership in business.

797
As informal agreements are not to be regarded as contracts, less evidence will become admissible. However, I believe that more agreement will appear in the joint minute when it arrives at the divorce court. That is a plus, and therefore I am keen to support the amendment.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank my noble neighbour for explaining admirably clearly all the thoughts in my mind. I wish her success with the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I have spoken to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about the Bill and have made it clear that I am not trying to stop its process. However, I wonder whether we are moving away from the informality of mediation and into the legalism of contract. The source of the word "contract" has come from the Scottish Law Commission in a learned dissertation by one of its members. The more I consider the matter, the more I believe that the word "contract" is too legalistic to sit happily with the concept of mediation. I make that point in passing and perhaps it can be considered in another place.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy as regards the amendment. The issue touched upon was discussed on Second Reading and was raised by the mediation organisations. We are anxious that the privacy of mediation should not be disturbed by spurious allegations after the event that an agreement had been entered into when no such thing had taken place.
I appreciate the anxieties that the mediation organisations have in this regard. Nonetheless, I must have regard to the overall needs of the law of evidence in Scotland and to the need to ensure a balance of justice to all concerned. I am aware that the proposed amendments have been the subject of extensive discussions with Dr. Clive of the Scottish Law Commission, but I believe that they affect the balance. I believe that there would be a risk of injustice if, where the parties had entered into a contract which they intended should be binding upon them, thereafter one party sought to escape from such a contract without the other party being able to put the matter into the proof in a civil proceeding.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, the word "contract" is well chosen. It is only where in the course of mediation proceedings a legal and binding contract has been entered into—and that may not occur often—it is right that thereafter evidence of the contract should be able to be led. Otherwise there would be a risk of injustice. It is precisely in order to allow for the fact that more often there may be informal agreements about which evidence will not subsequently be led that the word has been well chosen.
My noble friend has pointed out that the mediation organisations will have regard to the terms of the legislation when deciding the particular forms of procedure to adopt. For those reasons, I take the view that it is justified to have the exception in the way now defined and I am happy to support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for his support and for his explanation of the reason for that support. His experience adds value to the discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was right to clarify the amendment because it is the main change being made to the Bill on Report. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for explaining the meaning behind the proposal of the Scottish Law Commission.
I understand that no one can stop people making a contract if they so wish, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will agree with that. It seldom happens in mediation, but no one can stop people doing so. It will not be a usual occurrence, but it would be wrong if a contract were made and no one could lead evidence about it in court in later civil proceedings. I hope that the House will approve the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may make a technical point. I understand that in making representations on the matter Dr. Clive was not representing the views of the Scottish Law Commission but was merely trying to assist the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("written agreement") and insert ("contract").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("in a case where") and insert ("insofar as").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Again, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who, in Committee, voiced certain concerns that, as drafted. Clause 2(2) might interfere with the intended operation of Clause 2(1) (c). The clear intention of the Scottish Law Commission as described in recommendation 13(d) of its report is that the arrangement set out in Clause 2(1) (c) should not extend to a child participant who is the subject of the mediation but who is too young to understand the nature and significance of the matters involved. It would not be right that such a child should have a veto.
In addition, it is only proper that the child should be able to agree to the admission as evidence of information that directly concerns him or her. These would include matters such as where the child is to reside, maintaining personal relations and direct contact with his or her parents or matters concerning the control, direction, guidance, guardianship or legal representation of the child.
Thus, both to highlight the useful concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and to make full provision for the policy as set out by the Scottish Law Commission, I have brought forward these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient for me to intervene at this point to

799
say that I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for pointing out in Committee that this part of Clause 2 does not quite say what it was intended to say.
It was always the intention that children who are the subject of mediation about matters directly affecting them and who are capable of understanding the meaning of what is discussed should be able to agree that such information should be admitted as evidence. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord the Lord Advocate for clarifying that point and for bringing forward these amendments to provide the necessary alterations. I am happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I should like to express my personal reservations as regards the representation of the child. That point has not been met at all by the amendment. I shall not table a counter amendment but I hope that the matter will be looked at in due course. I know that an amendment has been tabled in another place by Family Mediation (Scotland) about the child having representation in the mediation process. At the moment, the child is regarded as a participant in the family mediation with a legal capacity when he would have nothing of the kind. I wonder whether the Bill goes far enough as regards representation for the child. I hope that that will be given some consideration when the Bill goes to another place.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I support these amendments. They tidy up the Bill. However, they seem to rely on an amendment to the Children (Scotland) Bill which is at present in another place. That amendment deals with how the child will be represented. I like the idea that an appropriate person should be appointed to interview the child and report back. I hope that this amendment will be accepted within the Children (Scotland) Bill so that it carries on into this Bill. The amendment clarifies the fact that the more mature child should be consulted when admissibility is sought. I support the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I recognise all the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and the noble Earl. I accept that they are expressing anxieties about the way in which children are represented in connection with mediation. I reiterate that that is a matter to be considered in relation to the substance of mediation proceedings. Here we are considering the question of the admissibility of evidence as to what went on at the proceedings. As has been indicated, there may be another opportunity on which to raise those matters which I accept are matters of substance because if mediation is to be a recognised part of the procedures for dealing with family disputes, and so on, it is important that everyone should be satisfied about the way in which children's interests are satisfied. However, that is another matter which does not fall squarely within the terms of the Bill. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7:
Page 3, line 9, after ("who") insert ("— (i)") .
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("; and
(ii) at the time the family mediation took place was capable of understanding the nature and significance of the matters to which the information which is sought to be admitted as evidence relates").
Page 3, line 15, leave out from ("evidence") to end of line 17.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.56 to 8.30 p.m.]

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 190:
Before Clause 114, insert the following new clause:
("Retirement pension: absence from Great Britain
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before Parliament, before the expiry of a period of six months beginning with the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, a report on—

(a) the numbers, age and economic circumstances of persons absent from Great Britain who, but for the provisions of section 113(1) (a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, would be eligible under that Act for a retirement pension of any category or graduated retirement benefit (including any increase of the amount payable in respect of any such retirement pension for adult and child dependants); and

(b) the implications for persons mentioned in paragraph (a) above of the establishment of reciprocal pensions and benefits arrangements between Great Britain and the government of the country in which such persons are resident.

(2) Unless either House of Parliament resolves, in the light of the report mentioned in subsection (1), that this section should no longer apply, the Secretary of State shall, before the expiry of a period of one year, beginning with the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, by order make regulations to disapply, in whole or in part, the application of section 113(1) (a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 in respect of a retirement pension of any category or graduated retirement benefit (including any increase of the amount payable in respect of any such retirement pension for adult and child dependants).
(3) An order under subsection (2) shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the above amendment in a slightly different atmosphere to that which prevailed earlier in the afternoon. However, I hope that the small presence in the Chamber will not make too much difference. I expect that noble Lords are all hiding somewhere or still having dinner. I do not intend to make a long statement because I believe that I have made two or three already and many people, both inside and outside the House, are now beginning to latch on to the fact that there is an injustice here. Indeed, it is another one of those injustices about which we heard so much this afternoon.
People are beginning to understand that there is an injustice. Something is wrong where people who qualified for a pension in exactly the same way as I did, after 44 years of paying Class 1 stamps on a contribution card, are now not able to receive the increases that I and many people receive every year.
It is a question of the three main principles that we have argued about throughout the proceedings. First, there is the statutory right which has been accepted by the Government and by previous government Ministers as being correct. Secondly, there are the reciprocal agreements which have already been accepted and which operate in 33 different countries. Again, that is an accepted principle, so such pensions can be paid to some pensioners who live abroad provided that there is a reciprocal arrangement in existence. That takes care of the argument that it is an impossible request; indeed, it can be done. Thirdly, because it is an entitlement, we certainly do not accept the argument that it would cost too much. You cannot argue that for one case when the opposite takes effect in those cases where reciprocal agreements apply. If there are 33 or 34 reciprocal agreements where pensioners receive all increases and then you say, "We cannot give those pensioners the same treatment because it would cost too much", that is an argument against itself. Therefore, we do not accept it.
We heard this afternoon about former servicemen and pensioners. We have here a very similar case. A great many of the people whom I have been discussing for many years now served this country as servicemen, as taxpayers and, in the past two or three years, as overseas electors. Indeed, I imagine that both major parties at present are canvassing for the support of such people, who are the same pensioners in those same countries, for the forthcoming general election. Therefore, they are good enough to vote and good enough to serve in the forces, and so on; but, when it comes to their pension entitlement, it is said that because they live in those Commonwealth countries they are not entitled to it because there is no reciprocal agreement and the Government do not intend to have one. We say that that is wrong for many reasons. It is an injustice, it is immoral and it is almost a deceit to say that we will have reciprocal agreements with others but not with those countries.
I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, who spoke about conscience this afternoon. Again, we are discussing a conscience issue; indeed, it affects people's consciences. They cannot believe that there are people living in America and others living only a few minutes away in Canada and that, on one side of that divide, people receive the full pension while, on the other side, they receive the pension that was frozen when they left this country, which is usually under £10.
Twenty thousand pensioners live in those conditions in Canada with a pension that is under £10, although, as I said, they have the required qualifications for a full pension. It is wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, echoed the sentiments expressed in our recent debates by saying that, if there is to be a time to change the system, this year would be the time: the 50th anniversary of the end of the last war is a perfectly good time—if time is needed—to put such injustices right.
802
We are discussing one of them. I believe that it should be given the same kind of priority as some of the other matters. That is why I have changed the form of the amendment from the usual kind in the hope that the Government will accept it as being a more constructive proposition.
In the first part of my amendment, I simply ask for a report to be produced to give us all the information on the subject. We have been bedevilled over the years by various statistics from different sources that never seemed to match as regards numbers, costs or anything else. I am asking for a report that would put that situation right. Once we know the size of the problem, how many people are involved and where they are, we shall then know the implications of applying a reciprocal agreement to those people.
No one has ever explained to me why we cannot come to a reciprocal arrangement with, for example, Canada as, indeed, we have done with America, or with Australia in the same way as we have done with Israel, Cyprus, Greece or Spain. No one has ever been able to tell me why we cannot do so. Therefore, I must ask: what would be the effects of reciprocal pensions and benefit arrangements between the UK Government and the government of the country in which such persons are resident? It is no good saying that those countries do not want to do so because most of the Commonwealth countries have asked for such arrangements. They would be quite happy to sit down and negotiate.
The second part of my amendment would require the Government, in the event of the production of a report being agreed to, to come forward 12 months thereafter with regulations that would take care of the section in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 which, at present, excludes such pensioners from receiving increases in their benefits. My proposition is fairly simple. There is time to consider and implement it. Indeed, there are ways and possibilities as to how it would be implemented when the time comes and as regards the wording of the regulations, and so on. However, it would give us a little more scope and would take care of the "knockabout stuff" that we usually have. I hope that the Minister will put forward a more positive approach in his response to what is really an injustice that the Government continue to support; indeed, he has never given us a proper reason for the Government's refusal to come to some reciprocal agreement. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. It is quite an irrational position. The burden is on the Government to establish why there is any justification for a pensioner who is in exactly the same position in every other respect who lives one side of the American border receiving an increase in his pension while another person, who is in all ways identical, but lives on the Canadian side, does not. It is an irrationality which surely demands an explanation.
The only explanation that I have heard so far from the Government Benches is that it would cost a little more money. Well, that is at least an argument—if you accept it. However, it does not meet any of the other

803
arguments about the irrationality and the injustice of dealing with the matter in such a way. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has put forward his proposition in a form which surely makes it easy for the Minister to accept. It does not commit the Minister to anything: it would merely provide the House with more information with the prospect, on the basis of that information, that we could then go ahead to reach a logical and justifiable settlement for what has been a nagging problem for a great many years.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this amendment is different from the previous amendments on the same subject in that it recognises to some extent the force of the Government's argument that, where pension increases are paid, reciprocal agreements exist. One hopes that the report envisaged in the amendment will give further impetus to the search for reciprocal agreements. If they really could not be obtained, the fallback position would apply which would mean that the position of these pensioners would then be safeguarded in the way that my noble friend suggests. It seems to me that this different approach warrants a rather different response from the Government. On that basis, we on this side of the House on the Front Bench support the amendment.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, I hope I may join in the discussion for a moment. As a Canadian it seems to me an affront to those who live in Canada as expatriate British citizens that they have been discriminated against in this way for so long. It is not a happy situation since outside the old Commonwealth a citizen of Windsor, Ontario gets a pension of something like £10 a week, while another British expatriate citizen in Detroit gets a pension of £95 a week. There must be something wrong with that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, your Lordships will, I am sure, recall the comprehensive and thorough debate in Committee on Amendment No. 183 which sought to entitle pensioners abroad to the same amount of retirement pension as if they had resided in Great Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, put his measure to the vote on that occasion and he did not win. I must congratulate him on the ingenious device he has deployed to return to the subject at Report stage. However, no amount of dressing-up can get away from the simple fact—which I put before the Chamber at Committee stage—that the cost of this proposal is £235 million, which is a £¼ billion, give or take a few million.
I am not in the least surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, can happily clock up another £¼ billion. I must put her on my list of people whose expenditure commitments I add up as we go through the days and weeks. A quarter of a billion pounds is a lot of money. I believe I detected the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, adding the Labour Party's voice to the expenditure of £¼ billion. On a very quick estimation, that makes a promise of enormous extra expenditure by the next Labour Government, if we ever have one. However, I believe the greater the expenditure that party promises, the more the electorate might see through the new Labour Party. I have now
804
reached an expenditure figure of £335 million for the day so far, and I still have a little calculation to make as regards one of the Divisions.
However, I thought we agreed in Committee on my proposition, which is as follows. If I had £¼ billion more from the Treasury to spend, I am sorry to inform the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that I could find many other cases in the social security field which I consider would have a greater priority on the British taxpayers' money than the one we have before us, however it is disguised. I see the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, rising. He wishes to add more money to these promises. I am happy to give way.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, far from seeking to add money to the noble Lord's calculations, I wish to ask him a question. Is the calculation which he or his department has made in terms of the cost of this amendment a gross or a net figure? Is the saving in terms of, for example, expenditure on the National Health Service that would be incurred if these people were resident in this country included in the equation? What estimate have the Government made of the net effect of this proposal in years to come? I use the example of someone who retires in the next year or two. He may decide either to stay in this country or to go abroad. If the pension continues to be paid and is uprated in line with the UK figures, that pensioner will cause a drain on the Exchequer in a number of other areas apart from pensions. But if that pensioner is abroad, that drain, particularly in terms of the National Health Service, will not exist. The fundamental question concerns whether the Minister is talking about gross figures or net figures.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I think I explained at the Committee stage, I am talking about gross figures because it is very difficult to subtract the figure the noble Lord mentioned. But before he thinks he has scored a bull point, he must remember that, if he is looking for net figures, he also has to take account of the tax which these people are no longer paying to the British Exchequer as British taxpayers, but which they are paying in Australia, New Zealand or wherever else they live. Therefore I do not think he has scored too great a point. I say that just in case he thinks he has scored a point. The simple fact of the matter is that the provision would add £¼ billion to the pensions bill in this country. I reiterate that I believe that in the unlikely event of Treasury staff phoning me tomorrow morning and offering me an extra £¼ billion to spend, I would have far better causes inside the social security budget in this country on which to spend that money rather than go down the road we are discussing.
I turn to the amendment before us. The numbers of people receiving frozen pensions are well known. We also know their ages. However, the noble Lord seeks to place an impossible burden on the Secretary of State in asking him to report on their economic circumstances. The following statistics make it abundantly clear why that would simply not be possible. We pay our pensions at frozen rates to some 400,000 people in almost 150

805
countries worldwide. It is simply not possible to hazard a guess at the economic circumstances of people with widely varying amounts of British pensions, to say nothing of their other income, living in countries such as, not only Australia and Canada, but also Pakistan, Kenya, Brazil or even Saudi Arabia.
It would also be impracticable to attempt to prepare a report on the implications for these pensioners if the United Kingdom were to establish reciprocal agreements on pensions and other benefits with the governments of the countries where our pensioners live. It would not be possible to conclude such arrangements with the many countries which do not have a social security system with which to reciprocate. Other systems may be so different as to make reciprocity impracticable, while others may have a very limited range of benefits. Some countries may simply be unwilling to negotiate with the United Kingdom. In short, the duty which the noble Lord seeks to place on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is neither reasonable nor practicable.
The noble Lord seeks to impose a further duty on both Houses to reconsider the whole question of frozen pensions again in the light of the report. That would not be possible, of course, if no such report is published because a meaningful report would be impossible to produce. Furthermore, this House has already rejected an amendment to unfreeze pensions. If a similar amendment were to meet the same fate in the other place, it would be totally unreasonable to expect both Houses to revisit the issue as soon as within 12 months from when this Bill is passed.
We discussed this matter at some length in Committee. The Chamber came to a conclusion. I congratulate the noble Lord on the ingenious way in which he has returned to this issue, but I believe that the suggestion he has made about a report is totally impracticable. It is, of course, simply a vehicle to allow the subject to be aired again—I am well aware of that—but I think the important point is the matter of principle that I have mentioned, the sum of money involved and the other ways in which we could use that amount of money if we were to take it from the British taxpayer. I could go on about the need to control our social security budget for the benefit of all taxpayers and of our economy, but I shall spare the House and the noble Lord a lecture on that particular subject—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall spare the House that lecture much as I am being tempted to go down that road by those in a sedentary position. I have nothing to add to the point that I made in Committee, and nothing that I have heard this evening persuades me otherwise. While I congratulate the noble Lord on a clever amendment, I hope that he will withdraw it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks about the amendment. It would have been better had he answered it or even discussed it. I am not asking for the kind of report to which he referred. I am asking for a very limited report. It relates only to
806
those people who are eligible under the Act for a retirement pension of any category. That would reduce the numbers he mentioned.
I gather that the relevant statistics are already available on computers in the various countries. It is merely a question of getting them together and publishing them in one report. It is not as far fetched as the noble Lord would have us believe, involving millions of clerks sitting down with pen and ink and big ledgers to collate the statistics. They are all on computer and could be taken up.
The number of pensioners in some of the countries the noble Lord mentioned are no more than 10, 12 or 15. In one country I believe there are only two pensioners. Therefore, it is not the major task that he says it is.
The biggest task is in the Commonwealth countries, where pensioners are entitled to more consideration. Certainly the statistics for those Commonwealth countries are available. Details of the economic circumstances of their populations are compiled in those countries in the same way as we collect details of the economic circumstances of our own population. In England we always seem to imagine that everybody else lives in the dark ages and we are far in advance of everyone. I can tell the noble Lord that in those countries they are just as advanced, and in some cases they are more advanced than we are in the collation of these vital statistics. The Minister did not reply to that point, or certainly not adequately.
The Minister never mentioned reciprocal arrangements. He said that some countries would not want such an arrangement. We can do nothing about it if they do not want it. Those countries are entitled to say that. I say that there are countries which would welcome such an arrangement, in the same way as America, Finland, Greece, and a total of some 33 countries. We have accepted their willingness to enter into a reciprocal arrangement and have done so. Nobody can understand why we refuse to make such an arrangement for Commonwealth citizens, to whom many of us are indebted for so much.
I shall not go on any longer. I cannot accept the Minister's response. I know that I may stand to win by 12 votes to nine, but I should like to test the views of the House.
8.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 190) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Airedale, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McCarthy, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

807

Stallard, L.

Tordoff, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howe, E.

Addison, V.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Aldington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kimball, L.

Annaly, L.

Kingsland, L.

Astor, V.

Leigh, L.

Barber, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blaker, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bridges, L.

Brookes, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Butterfield, L.

McConnell, L.

Butterworth, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moyne, L.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Northesk, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Coleraine, L.

Parkinson, L.

Courtown, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pym,L.

Rankdllour, L.

Crathorne, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Dundonald, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hacking, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9p.m.
Schedule 4 [Equalisation]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 108, leave out from beginning of line 11 to end of line 40 on page 110 and insert:
("(1) From the date of commencement of this Act, any person shall be entitled to be treated as having attained pensionable age at any time between the dates upon which they attain the age of 60 and 70.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 191 encompasses the Labour Party's position on the flexible decade of retirement. Until 20 or 30 years ago, men worked full time until they were 65, whereupon they stopped work and moved smoothly on to their pension, which would support them and their wives. They moved smoothly from work to pension. That world has gone. People's working lives are becoming more uncertain, more precarious, more casualised and shorter. Forty per cent, of people experienced
808
unemployment in the past five years, and as many expect to do so again. Those in work find the steady full-time job dissolving like wet sand under their feet. Their jobs are becoming casualised; they are put on temporary contracts—just as the Government have put people on to contracts of 51 weeks at a time to avoid providing statutory employment rights. I have to say that that is a pretty disgraceful activity. Others see their work fragmented into part-time fractions. Still others, especially if unskilled or in poor health, find that after the age of 55 or 60 they never again find another job.
All the government arguments which were advanced at Committee stage, about the ratio of working age to pensioners founder on one simple fact: that what matters is not the ratio of people of working age to pensioners, but the number of workers to those of pension age. If people are not in work, whatever their age, they are likely to be on benefit of some kind. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
Pushing up the pension age will do nothing to alter the so-called dependency ratio unless those people denied pensions are in work; and increasingly they will not be. And why not? The whole of the Government's argument founders on that simple fact. The trend across Europe shows that people, especially men in manual jobs, are leaving the workforce earlier and earlier. They are not wanted in the labour market. In the scramble for jobs, unskilled men in late middle age and with uncertain health lose out on the one hand to the young and fit men with more skills, perhaps with a family to support, and on the other to women who, as second earners, are often willing to work part time for very low pay, at rates of £1.50 or £2 an hour. Those rates are not a living wage but such people can do so because their wage is the second income of the family.
At the very time that the relatively poor men are leaving the labour market earlier—that is happening across Europe —the Government are retaining the pension age at 65 and are pushing up the women's pension age to join it. Instead of most families stopping work one day and drawing a pension the next, they will experience a twilight gap of at least five years when they are neither in work nor eligible to claim their pension. A few in that gap will have decent occupational pensions. For the remainder, the gap will still have to be spanned by benefit—invalidity benefit, unemployment benefit, income support, call it what one will as long as, in the Government's eyes, one does not call it a pension.
And why, my Lords? It is because the Government are obsessed with an inappropriate concept of a dependency ratio which takes no account of unemployment, no account of women's capacity to work longer than the part-time hours they work at present, and no account of the country's potential with investment for economic growth. It ignores the fact that by 2020 the UK will have one of the best support ratios in Europe and one of the cheapest.
Hence the amendment, which takes account of all those considerations. It proposes a flexible decade of retirement with a pivotal age of 63. Such an amendment has three great advantages. First, it is cost neutral. It costs no more than the present system and may even generate modest savings. Secondly, it is fair between men and women.
Thirdly, it is flexible because it allows men and women to choose when to retire and not to have an arbitrary year before which they cannot retire imposed on them by government. The choice is in their hands. They may be comfortably off with a good occupational pension and happy to draw a reduced state pension. If they or their partner are in deteriorating health or if they have demanding caring responsibilities for an elderly parent, they, too, would welcome that choice. But equally the choice, as now, would remain to work past the fulcrum year of 63. The choice will be theirs, not the Treasury's, not the Minister's, and not that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. It will be made according to their health, family responsibilities, financial situation and work prospects. And why not, my Lords?
The provision is cost neutral and actuarially neutral. I am confident that a flexible decade is what most people would like and welcome. With a pivotal age of 63 we can afford it. It permits a much smoother progression between work and retirement. It empowers people to make their own choice of when to retire. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is an important issue. The amendment proposes that we should proceed towards the desirable objective of equalising state pension ages as between men and women via a flexible decade of retirement. The idea that we attempt to promote is that men and women should be able to retire at any time between the ages of 60 and 70 and should be able to make a choice based on personal circumstances and, of course, as a result of negotiations with the employer as to when they should retire.
As my noble friend Lady Hollis said, there has in this concept to be a pivotal age—an age at which full state pension becomes payable. I believe that that should be 63. We have chosen that age because it is cost neutral. That would have a number of benefits. In the first place it would reduce the number of years a man would have to work before he became entitled to the state pension. Women, although having to work longer than now, would not have to work until 65—which is the Government's current idea.
Of course, that was not always the Government's position. In 1989—it is one of the reasons why I attempt to intervene in the debate—I was a Member of your Lordships' committee which produced a report entitled Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Pensions and other Benefits. It was our job then to look at the draft European directive completing the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in statutory and occupational social security schemes. Naturally, equalisation of pension ages in the state scheme received a great deal of consideration from us at the time.
We took evidence from a wide range of organisations, including the CBI, the TUC and also the DSS and the Minister. It is true that the TUC position was then, as it is now, that there should be equalisation at the age of 60. The CBI, however, was very sympathetic to the whole idea of the flexible decade of retirement. The evidence submitted by the CBI explored a number of options, but concluded:
810
"After careful consideration, CBI members are in no doubt that the fourth option, that of flexible retirement with common pension entitlement for men and women, is the approach which should be pursued. Provided appropriate transitional arrangements are adopted, such an approach should eliminate the differential treatment between men and women, without generating significant additional costs and without adversely affecting reasonable expectations of individuals. It will also provide the flexibility essential to the future well-being of the economy".
The CBI also submitted in its evidence a number of proposals as to the way in which the new arrangements could be phased in.
Not only the CBI, but also the House of Commons Select Committee on Social Security recommended, in its 1982 report on Age of Retirement, that there should be flexible retirement based on a notional common pension age of 63 for both men and women. It is worth recalling that the Government's own Green Paper in 1985 referred to the idea of a flexible decade as being a particularly attractive one, and certainly at that time the impression was widely around that the Government were favourably disposed towards that notion.
Clearly it has its attractions. In the first place, not all employments are the same or make the same demands— particularly physical demands—upon employees. Everyone who has experience of the world of work knows that some people can hardly wait to retire, while others look upon the prospect with something like dread. Although the rate of possible pension after retirement is a factor—people with good pension expectations are more likely to want to retire earlier than others (and we should be working towards a situation in which people do not dread retirement because of a rapid possible descent into poverty)—there are other considerations. There is a social element in work. Even in employment that does not, to an outsider, appear particularly rewarding, there is the presence of fellow workers with whom the individual may have developed close ties and friendships. Many people approaching retirement do not want to lose those connections. That is one reason why counselling for retirement and pre-retirement courses— encouraged and provided by many good employers—have an important role to play.
But, as my noble friend has already said, there has to be an element of individual choice. There are many occupations where the physical labour involved is such that individuals should be encouraged to retire earlier on health grounds and the pension provision available should be such as to make that an acceptable proposition. One can think of a number of industries where that might apply—mining is an obvious example, or an industry like deep sea fishing, where I understand the industrial injury statistics are particularly high.
On the other hand, there are jobs which involve a high degree of expertise and commitment where the individual may be perfectly capable of carrying on and making a contribution for some time after what we now regard as normal retirement age.
Those were all considerations which weighed with the committee of your Lordships' House which reported in 1989. We strongly recommended that equalisation should be through a decade of retirement between the ages of 60 and 70 and that the pivotal age should be 63 for both sexes. We were advised that it would be

811
cost-neutral. We were well aware of the cost involved in equalising at the age of 60, as was recommended by the TUC.
We believed that we were recommending what would represent an improvement for everyone, with a fair system which treated people as individuals, capable of and willing to exercise a choice. We were also heartened by the fact that, judging by the CBI's evidence which was put to us in great detail, after much consultation with CBI member firms, there would be no opposition from employers. Indeed, it appeared to us that employers would welcome it and would be willing to participate in its introduction.
I do not think that circumstances have changed greatly since we made our report. The conclusions are still relevant and important and I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Baronesses have explained, this amendment would introduce a flexible decade of retirement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pointed out, it is one of the options which the Government considered carefully during the period of consultation on the state pension age. We decided that it would not be in the interests of current or future pensioners and workers to have a flexible decade of retirement. The expression of course is not correct: most people can choose when to retire. What is really meant by the amendment is a flexible decade for starting to draw the state retirement pension, but that phrase, while a little more exact, is a little less elegant.
Perhaps I may begin by describing what a flexible decade of retirement will look like. People would choose the age at which they would draw their state pension. The earlier they did so the lower the level of pension they would have for the rest of their lives. That is because the level of pension that they would receive would be set actuarially. The additional years during which the pension is drawn will be paid for by a permanent reduction in pension.
There are two key features to a flexible scheme: the age at which it starts, and the pension level in the first year. The amendment provides the former only: age 60. To set the level in the first year, we shall also need to fix the age at which the full rate of pension can be drawn. This is normally called the pivotal age. The higher the pivotal age, the lower the level of pension in the first year. The noble Baroness in her amendment does not specify the pivotal age. However, I did not have to wait until she spoke this evening, because in the Observer her honourable friend Mr. Donald Dewar—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to give way. All of this was discussed at Committee stage when the Minister was glad to be told where our pivotal age had been set.
812
I am sorry that he has had to be reminded between Committee stage and Report stage by newspaper cuttings.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that I have stung the noble Lady to the Dispatch Box. My point is that the pivotal age of 63 does not figure in the amendment before us. I am just trying to be helpful to those of your Lordships (if there are any) who were not here at Committee stage when the pivotal age of 63 was discussed. It is to be 63 so far as the Labour Party is concerned. It does not have to be 63; it can be 60, which is equalisation by another name. I should remind your Lordships as part of the present discussion that equalisation at 60 will cost £13 billion more of public expenditure by 2030 than the Government's proposal, which is 65.
If the noble Baroness will contain herself, as I have to do during her speeches, I can come to the point. I am just trying to lay the groundwork for the Government's decision on this matter. Unless the noble Baroness is trying to hurry to a vote, I am not entirely sure why she is trying to move me along on this subject. The last vote was all right, and a few more of those will redress the balance.
I am trying to deal with the actuarial position. I take the pivotal age of 63. If one pivoted the present pension arrangements at 63, the actuarial reduction would mean that a person retiring at 60 would receive £46 per week, as opposed to a retirement pension of £57.60. What I find odd about the noble Baroness's espousal of this cause is that she always appears to tell us how poor everybody is in retirement. Her proposition will tempt more people to retire when their pension will be less than the current state retirement pension. It may be as low as £46 a week. That £46 a week—up-rated perhaps—will go on for the rest of their lives. When they come to 65, or whatever is another magic age, they will not suddenly be up-rated as if they have retired at that age. They will carry on with that rebated lower pension for the rest of their lives.
Those people who were tempted to take advantage of this age of flexibility will need to augment their retirement income with income-related benefits or other pensions. It seems to me that women, for whom the noble Baroness continually flies the flag, will be at a particular disadvantage. Many will retire at the same age as they do now (60) but at a lower rate of pension. It will also mean a higher start-up cost. For example, the first year cost of a scheme with a pivotal age of 63 introduced overnight is likely to be about £5 billion.
Two other OECD countries have flexible retirement schemes: Belgium and Sweden. A number of others have early retirement benefits, but these are normally limited to those in ill-health or the long term unemployed. Some are subsidised by employers. These schemes do not offer flexibility to individuals who wish to plan an early retirement as they have restrictions of entitlement similar to our own benefits, such as incapacity benefit, industrial injuries benefit and unemployment benefit.

813
The limited experience of flexible schemes in these countries demonstrates some of the points that I have made. In 1991 Belgium introduced a flexible retirement age. The majority of people now appear to retire at the earliest possible opportunity. That has led to a rapid increase in pensions expenditure, obviously a rapid increase in the number of pensioners and an increasing number of pensioners who retire on less than the full retirement pension.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I take the point about people in Belgium retiring at the earliest point to draw retirement pensions. But the Minister was, as we would expect, fastidious in his choice of words. He did not indicate that those people were leaving work to retire. His description could very easily apply to a situation in which people were currently unemployed and therefore chose to re-label themselves as "retired" at the earliest possible age. All the evidence is that in most of Europe people are leaving work even earlier than in the United Kingdom. I suspect that my description of Belgium may very well be accurate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness paints the usual picture that her party paints; namely, that almost everybody in this country is unemployed. The simple fact is that when I last saw the unemployment figures they were 8.5 per cent, for the United Kingdom and falling, unlike most of our friends in the rest of the European Community. So I do not think that her argument is a good one. I want to see as many people as possible carry on working. That is important for reasons that I have certainly mentioned in earlier speeches: what is called the support ratio, which is the number of people of working age as opposed to the number of pensioners.
The present pensioner system offers a flexible half decade of retirement. The Government propose to maintain and enhance that flexibility. Anyone who defers retirement beyond the new state pension age of 65 will be entitled to an increment for each successive year. That increment will be increased to 10.4 per cent, per year as against the present 7.5 per cent. No limit will be set on the number of years that a pensioner can defer beyond 65. In effect, that is a flexible decade and more, starting at 65.
As I hope to have shown, a flexible decade of retirement does not deliver the benefits that its supporters believe. Perhaps I may just point out that the argument about support ratios is still important. It is very important to the future of our country that we do not burden the working population with costs, especially in the social security budget, which, frankly, they and the economy are unable to sustain.
I have read out the figures before in Committee. I make no apology for doing so again. If we do not move on this issue, the number of people of working age will fall from the year 2010 to 36.2 million; the year 2030 to 33.7 million; and by the year 2050 to 32 million. Correspondingly, the number of people of pension age in the year 2010 will be 11.7 million; in 2020 it will be 13.5 million; in 2030 it will be 15.8 million; and in 2040 it will be 16.3 million.
814
The proposal in the Bill will decrease the number of people above state pension age in, for example, the year 2030 from 15.8 million to 13.7 million and will increase the number of people of working age from 33.7 million to 35.8 million. With regard to the support ratios, the ratio of the number of people of working age per pensioner, which is set to go down if we do nothing to 2.12, will go up to 2.6 and 2.4 in the years 2030 and 2050.
Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord's question without him intervening. Of course, that is the present situation against 65. The problem with the flexible age of retirement is that it is very difficult to predict exactly when people will take the pensions, except for the point that I made about the experience in two quite small countries. That was quite limited experience, where there is much evidence that people have taken their pensions at the earliest possible moment. Thus, the situation may move closer towards a retirement at 60 than in fact the so-called pivot at 63.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. He did not in fact guess correctly the question that I intended to ask. My question to him is: what estimate for the rate of unemployment was considered by the Government when they deduced their figures for the support ratios? Obviously, if there is an unemployment rate of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., the figures are rather different from those with an unemployment rate, which it is to be hoped we would achieve under a Labour Government in the future, of between 1 and 2 per cent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a nice promise. A Labour Government will have 1 or 2 per cent, unemployment. The noble Lord picks 10 or 15 per cent, as the norm, supposedly, under this Government. I have to tell him that the current rate of unemployment is 8.4 per cent, or 8.5 per cent.—one figure is for Scotland and the other is for the UK—and falling. Most of our European friends have higher rates of unemployment, including those countries which have been blessed with the wisdom of socialist governments, who, I have no doubt, the noble Lord and his friends consider to be their blood brothers in some way or other.
We believe that we have unemployment on a downward trend. We believe that, with a properly run economy—we are getting it that way with a lot of inward investment coming in and exports booming—unemployment is set to fall further. I cannot predict other than that the trend would reverse if the party opposite took over and started to put up the costs of employing people and of producing goods and made this country less competitive. Perhaps I am being diverted and should come back to the question at hand.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord thinks that there is a vote coming up and that he has to filibuster.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think there is a vote coming up. I suspect that there are not enough members of the party opposite who really believe in this scheme of 63 and a flexible decade in order to muster a decent vote on the subject. Further

815
down in the same Observer article, Mr. John Edmonds, the general secretary of the GMB union, who I understand is a significant supporter of the party opposite, said:
"The party policy at conference is for a retirement age of 60. The party policy is straightforward and clear. I don't want any change in the party policy".
Given the way the policy of the party opposite changes so regularly—every other day it seems to me—I think that poor Mr. Edmonds has a shock coming.
I shall pray in aid another Labour Party document. Perhaps it was not a Labour Party document. It is only a Labour Party document when the party wants to agree with it. I refer to the interesting report of the Commission on Social Justice. It came to the conclusion that 65 was the right age. With that, if not with anything else in the document, I completely agree.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand that I was not referring to Labour Party policy particularly but to a document produced by your Lordships' Select Committee in 1988–89? It was an all-party document which made a strong recommendation for a flexible decade of retirement. It was a very distinguished committee. Not only was I a member of it but it was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, a noble Lord with considerable experience in these areas.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, all committees of your Lordships' House are distinguished. Clearly, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is putting them a cut above—perhaps a considerable cut above —the Commission on Social Justice. I might agree with her about that because she is praying in aid a committee of your Lordships' House against the Commission on Social Justice.
This has been a difficult but interesting and important debate on what conclusion we should come to on equalising pensions. There are a number of proposals about and there have been for some time. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we looked seriously at all the propositions in front of us, including the flexible decade of retirement. We have concluded, for some of the reasons I have given this evening and for some of the reasons I gave—dare I threaten your Lordships—at even greater length during the Committee stage, that the proper proposal to go for is a common retirement age at 65. Attempts were made in Committee and have now been made at Report stage to persuade me to change my mind. However, the logic of our position is backed up very clearly by the same move taking place all over the world. Most of our friends in the European Community and most of our competitor countries around the world are moving their retirement pension age up, to 65 and indeed in some cases beyond.
One cannot be oblivious to what is happening in the rest of the world. The Government's decision is a right and sensible one. While a flexible retirement age, with a pivot at 63, has its attractions, it has some serious downsides, not just for the economy but for the individual who may be tempted to retire at 60 with a much reduced pension upon which he or she would have
816
to live for the rest of his or her life. I should have thought that that would be a subject that would interest the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham.
Having heard the debate, and having explored the issues, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment. But if we must have a vote on it, I am confident that my noble friends will support me.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that must be the first confident statement the Minister has made today. I concede that were we to have a vote his noble friends would probably support him. The Minister failed to address the two substantive points that I sought to make. Despite a newly alert and invigorated Minister, we had, I am afraid, the same tired old arguments about tempting people to retire at 60; we would all retire young; and what is happening in Europe.
We were trying to make two basic points on this side of the House. Whether the Minister acknowledges this or not, there is a gap now between when people leave the labour market and when they will draw their pension. The Government's actions are making that gap wider. The Social Justice Commission, which the Minister is fond of praying in aid when it suits him, noted that 59 per cent, of men between the ages of 55 and 64 are now not in work. That is the majority of men. Some have retired with an occupational pension. They have to live on something. Nothing the Minister said seemed to recognise the world in which we now are as opposed to the world we were in when the Tory Government inherited from the Labour Government a half-way decent pensions policy which they have now warped and deformed by their changes to SERPS and subsequent changes to unemployment policy, such as record counting.
That world has changed. We have seen men in manual employment leaving work earlier; more and more jobs fragmented into part-time jobs; and an increasing casualisation of the labour market. The Minister did not say one word to connect the world of pensions to the world of work. I am amazed. I should have thought that by now the Minister would have appreciated that pensions carry into old age the life chances, the affluence of support and the opportunities one has experienced in work. As they are shrinking in work, there are further problems to be addressed with regard to pension age. The Minister offered no recognition of that at all. He gave us just the tired old stuff about dependency rates for the third and fourth time around the roundabout.
I wish that the Minister could sometimes strengthen the depth of his briefing and take on board what is happening in the world of work to see how that maps on with the increasing insecurities and uncertainties of the pension world that we are facing. At the very time the world of work is becoming precarious, the Minister is trying to make the world of pensions more harsh and rigid. That is absurd. He must intellectually start calibrating those two things otherwise—I am sure he

817
will not mind me saying this—he is failing to put the message of an appropriate task for social security to his department and to his colleagues.
The first point relates to the gap that now exists between the world of work and the world of pensions about which the Minister said not one word, as though the speeches made by my noble friend Lady Turner and myself had never been heard by him. I am sure of course that that was not the case.
The second point that the Minister did not acknowledge was that the difference between our position and his is choice. On the one hand, the Minister knocks a flexible decade, because many people might retire at 60. He says that we are tempting them, as though he, the Minister, knows what is in other people's best interests rather than trusting them to make an informed choice for themselves. Then he went on to say that they have half a decade of flexible retirement at the other end. In other words, on the one hand he is conceding flexibility when it suits his case, but he rejects it when it suits the fortunes of the people on the ground.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In the half decade of flexible retirement that I mentioned, the pensioner starts off with a full retirement pension. That would not be the case in the flexible decade of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I entirely accept that. It is the same pot of money being redistributed over a lifetime in different proportions according to which point one wishes to take it. Actuarially it ought to be neutral whether one takes it at 65 or 62; it is the same pot of money spread over. People make that choice. The difference between us is that the Minister will make the choice for us. The Labour Party position is that people should be able to make their own informed choice as to whether they take a lower sum earlier or a larger sum later according to their circumstances.
Why should the Minister tell people what to do? Why does he know best what most suits the 2 million to 3 million families who approach retirement each year? How can he know? Their health, their family circumstances, the type of job they do, the age differential between spouses, the income and affluence they already enjoy will all inform their choice. Why, when we see around us a world of work becoming increasingly flexible and uncertain, will the Minister not only not seek to smooth that situation at the point of pensions, but will produce a harsh rigidity of his own which takes no account of people's choice?
The position that the Minister is adopting—this is not a personal comment because the Minister is not an arrogant man—is one of supreme and lofty arrogance: that the Minister, and behind him the Treasury, knows best when people should retire from work and be eligible to draw pensions, even though the world of work is changing around them. I find it sad that not one word of what the Minister said tonight engages with the real world outside of working pensioners. But, as the
818
Minister so percipiently diagnosed, we shall not be seeking to press the amendment to a vote tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 113, line 12, leave out ("2000") and insert ("2010").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 192, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 193. These amendments are minimal and therefore I shall be brief. However, they are important to the people they affect.
The purpose of the amendments is to introduce a transition period of 10 years with a reduction in survivors' entitlement to the additional pension on the death of the spouse. Under the current proposal, if a man dies on 5th April 2000, his widow will receive a 100 per cent, entitlement to the additional pension. But if he dies one day later, that entitlement is cut in half.
To phase in the reduction over a 10-year period between 5th April 2000 and 6th April 2010 would remove the huge difference in entitlement caused by the delay of death by one day. It could be as much as £3,000 per annum, and would certainly have the effect of driving women into claiming income support with the extra cost to the Government that that would involve.
We consider that at a time of great stress the knowledge that an exact date of death will make such a large difference to an entitlement will place an additional emotional strain on the family of a terminally ill person. It is insensitive as well as being unfair. Reluctantly we are willing to accept the cutting entitlement. But to help alleviate possible suffering we would argue that it should be phased in in small steps over a 10-year period. The cost of phasing it in in that way will be relatively small. The full reduction will only be delayed; it will occur and will result in savings.
We hope that the Government will feel able to accept the delay and, in the name of compassion, accept the spirit of the amendment and draft a mechanism to enable it to happen. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, these amendments seek to introduce a phased reduction in the amount of additional pension which a person inherits on the death of their spouse. As the legislation stands the amount of additional pension inherited by a surviving spouse is one half where the death occurs on or after 6th April 2000. Under the amendment the amount inherited reduces from 100 per cent, in steps of 5 per cent, per year to reach 50 per cent, in the year 2010.
The reduction in the amount of additional pension which is inheritable from April 2000 was introduced by the Social Security Act 1986. The change had two purposes. It was part of the package of measures designed to bring spiralling expenditure on the state earnings related pension scheme under control. And it was designed to bring state provision into line with occupational pension scheme provision.
As noble Lords will be aware, the state earnings-related pension scheme offers a second tier pension to those who are not members of an

819
occupational or personal pension scheme either by choice or circumstance. The provision of full survivors' benefits, as opposed to the half which is the norm in occupational schemes, is the main area of disparity between state and private pension provision. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that an alignment of survivors' benefits is quite justified.
This reduction and alignment in the amount of additional pension which can be inherited will not come as a surprise. As I said earlier, it was announced and legislated for in 1986. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that 14 years is a more than adequate lead-in period. To ask, as the noble Baroness does, for a further 10 years of phasing seems to be stretching this issue out just that little too long. Of course we accepted in 1986, and we have accepted since, that this is a sudden drop—and without phasing of course it is a sudden drop—but 14 years seems to us more than enough notice to give people who may be affected when the year 2000 comes. With that explanation of where the Government stands, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I take the point about alignment, but that takes no account of the reduced earnings opportunities of women who do not always have the occupational pension scheme or private pension scheme that many men have. That has been ignored. There is also the question of awareness of the change. My understanding is that there is little awareness of it and that this measure is still going to come as a great shock to many people when it happens.
There is no doubt that a change of this magnitude from one day to the next will lead to considerable unfairness and stress on the families involved. I regret that the Minister has not had the compassion to make this minor but important concession. With regret I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 193 to 195 not moved.]
Clause 120 [New requirements for contracted-out schemes, other than money purchase schemes]:
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 71, line 9, after ("subsection") insert ("(2A) or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 198 and 202. The purpose of this group of amendments is to enable those contracted out schemes which wish to do so to have the opportunity to continue to use the guaranteed minimum pension test for periods of pensionable service after 1997 instead of being required to pass the new requisite benefits test.
The Bill proposes that the present guaranteed minimum test should cease to apply for periods of pensionable service after April 1997, and that schemes should only be able to contract out if they pass the new requisite benefits test outlined in Clause 120. One of the difficulties of which noble Lords will be aware with this proposal is that it would give rise to difficulties for
820
scheme administrators who would need to run two systems side by side for at least 40 years after April 1997 until no scheme members were left in active employment who had periods of pensionable service before that date. Another difficulty is that the resulting complexities will make it even harder than is at present the case for an existing member to comprehend exactly how his benefits are to be calculated.
If the new requisite benefits test was a straightforward simple test, these problems might not matter too much. However, it is clear from the description of the reference scheme in the Bill and the consultation documents which have been issued, that it is likely to be far from straightforward. For example, it would include salary definitions that will not necessarily conform to those used by the scheme. Some schemes might therefore find that they could not be certain of passing the requisite benefits test in respect of all their members; for example, those with high earnings but low basic pay. They may therefore need to build in the requisite benefits as a minimum test applied to each individual member in much the same way as the guaranteed minimum pension but, of course, using the new method of calculation prescribed for the reference scheme. One method of calculation would apply to pre-1977 benefits and another to post-1977 benefits for each member.
If the use of the guaranteed minimum pension test were to continue to be permitted for post-1977 service, as I propose, a modification would be needed in connection with the pension increases which schemes would have to provide on guaranteed minimum pensions accruing after April 1977. My amendment provides for those increases to be at 5 per cent, instead of 3 per cent, if the increase in the cost of living exceeds 5 per cent. In my view, that change is unlikely to cause great administrative problems to contracted out schemes since it is, in principle, the same kind of change as they had to cope with in 1988 when contracted-out schemes were required to start to provide increases on the guaranteed minimum pension at the 3 per cent, level.
Finally, my amendments provide that the anti-franking provisions should not apply to guaranteed minimum pensions accruing after April 1977. These provisions are of labyrinthine complexity and I believe that few people understand them fully. They do not sit easily with the concepts underlying contracting out, which have taken a broader brush approach. I hope that my proposal that the anti-franking provisions should be faded out will be acceptable.
In conclusion, my amendments would open up an important opportunity for schemes to avoid administrative complexity, help to prevent the position from becoming even harder for the member to understand and reduce the danger of contracting back into SERFS with its likely adverse financial impact. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I find this a complicated group of amendments. Perhaps it would help the House and my noble friend if I were to pick my way carefully through them. I almost feel like

821
saying that if anybody does not understand this explanation, I shall read it again slowly. As I have said, this is a complex matter.
Amendment No. 196 affects subsection (3) of Clause 120 which introduces new subsections (2A) and (2B) into Section 9 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. The effect of this amendment is to amend Section 9(2) of the Pension Schemes Act so that, after the principal appointed day, contracted-out salary-related schemes can choose whether to contract out either on the current GMP basis or through the new scheme-based quality test.
Amendments Nos. 198 and 202 appear to be based on the assumption that Amendment No. 196 will be accepted and that contracting out via the GMP system would continue to be an option for the future.
Perhaps I may address first the principal amendment, Amendment No. 196, and explain why we are not prepared to agree to it. I shall then say something about the other two amendments. Many employers have criticised the current system for its complexity, a criticism which was repeated in the PLRC report and by the deregulation task force.
Giving contracted-out salary-related schemes a choice in the method of contracting-out would complicate future arrangements. Employers opting to retain the GMP system would not benefit from the simpler administration introduced through the new contracting-out test. Of course, it would be for individual employers to decide, but, frankly, I would be amazed if many employers were to decide to continue to operate them.
We discussed yesterday the difficulties which the Barber ruling has created for GMPs. GMPs are linked to the state pension age and SERFS, hence they are unequal. Unequal GMPs make it very awkward for pension schemes to achieve equal treatment in their schemes. Our proposed new contracting-out arrangements, under which GMPs are to be abolished and replaced for the future by a test of overall scheme quality, will make it easier for schemes to achieve equal treatment. Schemes will be free to do so in a way which best suits them within the limitations imposed by existing European law.
My noble friend's amendment also has implications for contracted-out rebate. In future the rebate will be based on the value of SERPS forgone rather than the cost of providing a GMP. Therefore, this amendment by itself would result in employers and employees who chose to contract out on the GMP basis being over-compensated for contracting out of SERPS. The only workable solution would be to have two rebates, one based on the cost of GMPs and the other based on the value of SERPS forgone. I do not believe that anyone would welcome a complication of that kind.
Such dual arrangements would also have serious implications for the operational effectiveness of the contributions agency, adding to government costs of administration. This would inevitably complicate the requirements placed on schemes and employers; for example, in transfers between different types of pension provision.
822
The Government have listened carefully to all the criticisms of the complexity of the current contracting-out arrangements, in particular following the Barber ruling. We consulted widely on proposals for change and the overwhelming preference was for the abolition of the GMP and its replacement by an overall test of scheme quality. The Government have listened and acted, and I am somewhat surprised that there seems now to be a view, though I doubt widely shared, that GMPs are not so bad after all.
I turn to Amendment No. 198, which would come into play if Amendment No. 196 were agreed. It would remove the protection of the anti-franking provisions in respect of any guaranteed minimum pensions which accrued after the principal appointed day. It will not be possible for benefits accrued under the proposed new contracting-out arrangements to be franked. The pension will be considered as one element rather than being split into two separate components. But it is still our intention that the anti-franking requirements should apply in respect of GMPs which have already accrued.
I cannot recommend this amendment to the House for two reasons. First, if GMPs were to continue we would not wish to see a reduction in the degree of protection given to early leavers by removing the anti-franking requirements. Secondly, and more fundamentally, if GMPs were not to continue, the amendment would have no effect whatever.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 202. If GMPs were to continue to accrue after the new arrangements come into force, my noble friend would of course be right to want to ensure that those future GMPs would be indexed by the retail prices index up to a maximum of 5 per cent, in line with the requirement on occupational pensions generally.
However, my noble friend's amendment is worded in such a way that it applies both to past and future GMP accruals. The amendment therefore has the potential to add significantly to employers' costs. This is because the contracting-out rebate paid in respect of past GMP accruals assumed a rate of indexation of the GMP up to a maximum of 3 per cent., not 5 per cent. We believe that the present arrangements for increasing GMPs are about right. They strike the appropriate balance between what is affordable and protection against inflation.
My noble friend may be anxious about how different indexation rates would impact on the contracting-out rebate for salary-related schemes and may believe that, if pre-1997 GMP accruals were not to be subject to the same degree of inflation-proofing, considerable difficulties would arise in setting that rebate at the appropriate rate. I believe that I can assure him on that score. The contracting-out rebate is set, usually for a period of five years, following a review of contracting-out terms by the Government Actuary. Under present arrangements, the rebate is based on the cost to schemes of providing GMPs. Currently it assumes that schemes are required to index the GMP by the RPI up to 3 per cent. The cost of meeting that future liability is therefore taken into account when setting the current rebate. If, however, subsequently, the contracting-out terms were altered retrospectively by

823
requiring schemes to index the GMP up to a maximum of 5 per cent., schemes would have been inadequately compensated for this additional liability.
I am sorry for speaking at length on complicated arrangements. However, their complication makes it difficult to speak briefly. I hope that I have explained the position and the reason why we cannot accept the amendment. I have also explained why, as always, we are trying to get the right balance between the employers and the potential pensioners.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear explanation as to why the amendments should not be accepted by your Lordships. It is just as well for both of us that we do not have to answer supplementary questions on the little test which has been set for us this evening. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 71, line 11, leave out ("24") and insert ("23").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 209 and 210. Amendment No. 210 repeals Section 24 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and amends Section 25 of that Act.
Section 24 requires the Occupational Pensions Board to be satisfied that the resources of contracted-out salary related schemes are sufficient. It will not be needed when the board disappears and the provisions in this Bill which introduce new funding requirements for schemes come into effect.
Section 25 deals with discretionary requirements. The amendment repeals those subsections that give the Occupational Pensions Board powers to impose conditions about investments and resources on contracted-out and formerly contracted-out salary related schemes and to require steps to be taken to increase resources. The remainder of Section 25 is amended to enable the Secretary of State to monitor the security and sufficiency of scheme resources in respect of guaranteed minimum pensions during the transitional period before the minimum solvency requirement is fully implemented.
Amendments Nos. 197 and 209 remove references to the repealed Section 24 in other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 71, line 19, leave out from ("12A") to end of line 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 200 and 201. To contract-out in future, salary related schemes must satisfy a number of conditions which are set out in Clause 120. Amendment No. 200 clarifies the wording relating to employer-related investments.
Subsection 9(2B) (a) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, as amended by this Bill, provides for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the scheme complies with
824
the statutory standard, subject to its modification in regulations for prescribed cases. A similar modification power is needed for the provision in subsection 9(2B) (b) which relates to the requirements on employer-related investments set out in Clause 33. This is because there are some schemes to which Clause 33 does not apply. They will mainly be certain types of overseas schemes which fall outside OPRA's remit because they are outside the jurisdiction of UK law. Regulations will need to specify that they may not invest more than a prescribed limit in employer-related investments if they wish to contract out. Amendments Nos. 199 and 201 effect that addition in an aesthetically satisfactory way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 200 and 201:
Page 71, line 22, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert:
("(b) restrictions imposed under section 33 of the Pensions Act 1995 (restriction on employer-related investments) apply to the scheme and the scheme complies with those restrictions").
Page 71, line 31, at end insert:
("(2C) Regulations may modify subsection (2B) (a) and (b) in their application to occupational pension schemes falling within a prescribed class or description.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.]
Clause 121 [State scheme contributions and rebates]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 77, line 5, at end insert:
("() The reference in subsection (2) to a period of tax years (not exceeding five) is a reference to a period of tax years in relation to which an order has effect under section 42B(2).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 205 to 207 and 220 to 222.
I am sure that the Minister will have no problem with the amendments, and therefore he can start looking cheerful. They are about giving choice and relieving burdens on the taxpayer. Indeed, they are matters about which the Minister has shown great enthusiasm during the past two days. They are also about creating a level playing field.
Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 provide that the same age-related rebates should be paid to appropriate personal pensions as are paid to contracted out money purchase schemes. At present, there are higher rebates for personal pensions than for money purchase schemes. In Committee, the Government gave three arguments in favour of the latter. First, they argued that it is essential to make allowance for a reasonable level of expenses as, otherwise, it would not be best advice to contract out of SERFS into a personal pension. Secondly, it was argued that personal pensions relieve a burden on the workforce of the future by reducing expenditure on SERPS. The third argument was that personal pensions play a vital role in extending the pensions choice.
Perhaps I may respond to each of those arguments in turn. It is now well understood that personal pensions are expensive. Estimates vary; but the typical level of expense ranges from 15 per cent, to 30 per cent, of contributions. Whatever the expense, it is significantly

825
higher than the equivalent money purchase occupational scheme where a technical level of expense is less than 10 per cent. There is no dispute about that as the difference has been made clear in the table in Appendix C of the report by the Government Actuary.
In cash terms, the cost of the higher rebate for personal pensions which is suggested by the Government Actuary means that personal pension providers will be subsidised to something like £300 million per year. It needs to be emphasised that that money will not go towards higher benefits but simply as a subvention to the companies which sell the personal pensions.
The need for that subsidy dents the claim that personal pensions offer a much better deal. If an extra expense allowance for personal pensions is so important, it suggests that the choice is not as obviously in favour of contracting out as the industry often suggests. Indeed, given the greater security and certainty of SERPS benefits, it suggests that few people should actually be advised to take out an approved personal pension. The Government are always anxious to save taxpayers' money, especially when used as subsidy. Here we have the opportunity save about £300 million and thereby create a level playing field.
The second argument used in Committee was that approved personal pensions relieved a burden on the workforce of the future by reducing expenditure on SERPS. But, in doing so, they are placing even greater burdens on current workers because of the need to subsidise personal pensions. Thus, in the period from 1988 to 1993 £10 billion of rebate was paid out to personal pensions, while only saving prospective SERPS benefits that had a current value of some £4 billion. As a result, they are imposing a greater increase on the current rate of national insurance contributions than the reductions achieved in the next century through lower SERPS benefits. That net cost to the National Insurance Fund by approved personal pensions of £6 billion over that period represents, in large part, a subsidy to the higher expenses of personal pension providers. Here again, why not remove the subsidy and create a level playing field?
The third reason given by the Minister in Committee was that approved personal pensions play a vital role in extending choice. Of course they do; but the choice is distorted by the subsidies. By all means have choice, but let someone who chooses an appropriate personal pension bear the cost of that choice and not expect to have it paid by national insurance contributions at large.
I hope the Minister will be consistent and accept this argument. Yesterday when we were debating the funding of OPRA the Minister said that those who benefit from OPRA should pay for it instead of the cost being paid out of general taxation. To be consistent, the same argument should be applied here. Remove the subsidies paid by the taxpayer to personal pensions and then provide true choice based on a level playing field.
There are other elements of the level playing field in this group of amendments. Clause 121 sets out the rules for contracting out and reduced national insurance contributions and rebates. Not only could there be two different contracting out rates, but these rates could run
826
in different five-year periods. This would make it difficult to judge how level the playing field is, and therefore it would be far more logical and practical to ensure that the five-year periods run concurrently for COMPS and personal pensions. Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 do this. Then a direct comparison can be made. The Minister may consider that in practice the rates will be set to run at the same time, and the rebates can alter as they are subject to affirmative resolution procedure. If that is the case, why does not the Bill say so?
Another element of a level playing field is dealt with in Clauses 142, 143 and 144. The Government intend to apply limited price indexation to protected rights elements of appropriate policies only. Why should this not be applied to all pension schemes, whether occupational or personal? Applying it to one type of scheme not only tilts the playing fiéld, but it makes it more difficult for individuals purchasing pensions to make a sensible, long-term choice. I would have thought that all pensions should be liable to indexation so that people .are not tempted by what appears to be the cheaper product because there is no guarantee that the final pension will be as good as the indexed one.
Amendments Nos. 220 and 221 make this a level playing field by applying indexation to all pensions. Amendment No. 222 brings all these arguments in this group of amendments together and permits earners to choose their own appropriate personal pension scheme on a level playing field without any distortions. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has carefully explained, deal with various aspects of personal pensions. I believe it would be for everyone's convenience—certainly for mine—if I take them in order. I hope that that way I shall deal with them all and the points that the noble Lord has raised. I shall start with Amendments Nos. 204 and 205. These are about national insurance rebates for personal pensions and occupational money purchase schemes which are contracted out of the state scheme. The amendments seek to align the periods for which the rebates are set.
The Bill provides for the reviews and the orders setting the levels of rebate for personal pensions and occupational money purchase schemes to be completely independent. That includes the year in which the reviews and orders are to be carried out. It also includes the duration of the orders, subject to a maximum of five years. Normally the rebate reviews for personal pensions and occupational money purchase schemes will be carried out simultaneously and the orders made will have the same durations. However, the differences between these two types of pension provision may mean that it makes sense to make orders of differing durations. But I can assure your Lordships that such action is not envisaged at present.
There are two other important points worth noting here. First, when the Government Actuary carries out a review of the rebate, there is normally a full consultation exercise. This gives any interested party an opportunity to comment on the rebate, including the most sensible duration for the rebate order. Secondly, the system of

827
age-related rebates will mean that the rebate rates will change every year anyway. This is because the rebate is designed to replace SERFS, which is still maturing. So the rebate rate needed for any given age group one year will be different from that needed the next.
The orders setting the rates of age-related rebates will set out separate levels of rebate for each of the years which they cover. So even if the orders for personal pensions and money purchase occupational schemes were made in different years, it would actually make no difference to the administration of schemes, since new rates of rebate will have to be implemented every year in any case.
The rebate reviews for personal pensions and occupational money purchase schemes are separate because these types of pension provision are separate and have different needs. I suggest that there is no point in linking the orders setting the rebate in the manner proposed by the noble Lord.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 206 and 207. These amendments are also concerned with the contracted out rebates for personal and occupational money purchase pension schemes. In this case the amendments seek to have the same level of rebates for both types of scheme. The Government believe that there needs to be different levels of rebate. We have already discussed this subject in Committee, and I can do no better than rehearse the arguments I used then, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, would expect.
There are two reasons why the rates for occupational schemes are likely to be lower than those for personal pensions. First, the different types of scheme have different levels of expenses. Occupational schemes relate to a particular employment. Therefore, they would generally be expected to incur lower expenses due to economies of scale. While each member of an occupational money purchase scheme has his or her own fund, all members work for the same employer. Their contributions can be collected from the same payroll and so on.
Personal pensions are entirely individualised and can thus be expected to incur greater expenses. The rebates need to reflect that. The Government Actuary will be asked, in advising on the levels of age-related rebates, to make allowance for the reasonable costs and charges of the more efficient personal pension providers.
Secondly, for administrative reasons, members of money purchase occupational schemes and their employers will receive part of the rebate during the course of the tax year as a reduction in national insurance contributions. The balance will be paid after the end of the tax year. For personal pensions, the whole rebate will be paid after the end of the tax year. This means a loss of investment return on the rebate in respect of this later payment. That will be taken into account in calculating the rates.
The net effect of these differences is that the rebate for occupational schemes is expected to be at a lower rate than that for appropriate personal pension schemes. I must stress that we are not proposing preferential terms for personal pensions. The rebate is intended simply to be the amount required to be invested now to replace
828
the future SERFS given up by contracting out. If the rebate is too low to do that, it will generally not make sense to contract out through that route.
If the amendments were accepted personal pensions would be likely to get a lower rebate. It could well be too low to replace the SERFS given up. Most personal pension holders would then be best advised to return to SERFS, as I suspect was the noble Lord's intention. A personal pension is, of course, the only alternative to SERFS for many people, so there would be a reduction in choice. Moreover, it is important to lift the burden of high SERFS expenditure in the next century. Our ability to do that would be jeopardised if, as a result of these amendments, the rebate were set so low that personal pensions were not worth while for most people.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 220 and 221. These affect Clause 142, which requires annual increases in the rate of pensions from protected rights in an appropriate personal pension. I assume that these amendments seek to extend the provisions to all of the pension derived from a personal pension.
It is a regrettable fact that many people still do not make adequate provision for their retirement. That is a position that we all wish to change. But even where such provision is made, even quite low inflation can erode the value of a pension over time. People are now living longer and spend more time drawing their pensions. I believe that indexation is necessary to help maintain an adequate income stream, protected against possible inflation, throughout retirement. It is right and sensible to apply this indexation to the protected rights in an appropriate personal pension because such schemes replace SERFS, which is itself indexed.
However, we have to recognise that in other circumstances there is a large element of personal choice. Where individuals are not members of an occupational scheme, they are not compelled to save for their retirement. We do not want to deter them from setting aside adequate provision. It is possible that a requirement to index such optional arrangements might have such an effect. The requirement would inevitably mean a lower starting rate of pension, for any given size of personal pension fund. People could well be put off by this.
There is nothing to stop a person having the whole of his personal pension uprated annually if that is his choice. But we do not think it right to make that compulsory, as this amendment would do. Deterring individuals from setting aside adequate provision for retirement is not in anyone's interests. Finally, your Lordships will be pleased to hear me say that I turn to Amendment No. 222. This seeks to extend the circumstances in which the department can refuse to accept the earner's choice of appropriate personal pension scheme. It would include instances where the department considers that it would not be in the earner's best interests to join the scheme for whatever reason. That would mean that my department's officials would be called upon to make complex judgments about the likely returns of the appropriate personal pension plan. They would need to have regard to factors such as the

829
individual's age and earnings, the provider's charges and investment returns, and the levels of additional contributions which would be made.
In short, the amendment proposes that my staff should assume the role of financial advisers and undertake a function that they have neither the training nor the authority to tackle. Giving such advice is tightly regulated under the Financial Services Act and can be carried out only by authorised persons. However, I totally agree that people who invest in personal pensions must be able to rely on the highest standards of expert advice from those authorised advisers. They must be able to have confidence that the regulatory framework will protect their interests.
I am glad to say that the Securities and Investments Board, the chief investments regulator, has taken a series of steps to act as an effective watchdog of the standards of professionalism of those who sell personal pensions. These include the requirement for financial advisers to disclose the amount of commission they stand to gain from recommending a particular product; the use of a mandatory transfer value analysis; and the "reason why" letter which explains why a particular product has been recommended.
SIB has also taken steps to ensure that those who are found to have lost out as a result of bad advice in the past will receive appropriate redress. With effective regulation, people making decisions about whether to buy a personal pension can have confidence in the quality of the advice they receive. I do not believe that it would be right to place that responsibility on the officials of the contributions agency.
I have gone into some detail on the amendments because I believe that each amendment is important; it addresses a slightly different issue. I hope that while I may not have entirely satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I have at least allayed some of his fears and explained why the Government have included the detail that they have in the Bill and why we are not keen on his amendments.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, responds, I had put my name to Amendment No. 220. I may have missed some reference in the Minister's reply on indexation and free standing additional voluntary contributions as regards personal pensions. If the choice as to whether or not they should have indexation is to be given to free standing additional voluntary contributions in personal pensions, I fail to understand why the same choice is not given to additional voluntary contributions within occupational pension schemes. The same arguments apply. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend has caught me rather late at night, not paying the close attention to his argument that I ought
830
to have done. If he will allow me—since I do not normally do so, perhaps the House will forgive me— perhaps I may take refuge in sending him a letter.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I shall take a leaf out of the Minister's book and take refuge by saying that I shall study carefully what he said. These are complicated amendments. I am most grateful to the Minister for going into such detail in his response. I still do not quite understand why he does not take this opportunity to save money and reduce the subsidies to the personal pension schemes. I suspect it is because the Minister wants people to take out personal pension schemes. However, I shall study what he said in detail in Hansard tomorrow and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Clause 122 [Minimum contributions towards appropriate personal pension schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 208:
After Clause 128, insert the following new clause:
Limitation
(" . In the Limitation Act 1980, after section 4A there is inserted—
"Special time limit far actions in respect of personal pensions, etc.
4B. An action founded on a claim that a person has suffered loss as a consequence of leaving an occupational pension scheme and becoming a member of a personal pension scheme under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 may not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the person became aware of his loss, but the right of action in such a case shall not be barred by any failure to obtain information as to whether a loss has been suffered which is attributable to the failure of another person to provide such information.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment tries to calm the fears of those who are victims of the mis-selling of personal pensions, about which the Minister told us a few minutes ago. Your Lordships will remember the scandal of those in the pensions industry who sold personal pensions on the basis of "best commission" instead of on the basis of "best advice", as they were required to do. As the Minister told us, the SIB is now trying to rectify the position by reviewing pensions sold in that manner. If there has been any mis-selling, there must be financial compensation.
The exercise is expected to be expensive for many insurance companies and independent financial intermediaries. If there has been mis-selling, the insurance companies can probably afford to pay the compensation, but many intermediaries may not. Because of that, there is a suspicion that some intermediaries will simply drag their feet, in the hope that eventually claims will be barred by the usual time limit of six years for bringing a case to court.
The SIB has two years to carry out its review and the six years do not start until there is "reasonable knowledge". However, there is some concern that the reasonable knowledge could be construed to start when the publicity came out and people should have started to act then instead of waiting to be contacted. That may

831
encourage those who have mis-sold pensions to drag their feet. The amendment will render that meaningless, avoid any doubt and clarify the position. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, the amendment affects people who have suffered loss as a result of being advised to transfer from an occupational pension scheme into a personal pension scheme. Its aim is to allow them to bring an action in respect of that loss after the expiry of the six-year time limit imposed by the Limitation Act 1980. This would apply in cases where a third person has failed to give them information about whether a loss had been suffered.
The Securities and Investments Board, the chief investments regulator, last year issued guidance on mis-selling of personal pensions to people in occupational pension schemes. This covered how to recognise mis-selling and how to calculate redress where due. It specified cases for automatic review, together with a timetable for carrying out the task.
That means that those people concerned who fall within the priority groups identified by the SIB will have their cases looked at again to see whether they have suffered loss as a result of bad advice. The priority groups are those who have started to draw their pensions; men aged 55 or more and women aged 50 or more at the time of the transfer; and those who have died. People who are not in the priority group but have transferred into a personal pension can also ask to have their cases looked at again. Where loss is found to have resulted from bad advice, whoever is responsible for giving that advice will have to offer appropriate redress. This may mean reinstatement into the occupational scheme where that is possible, or a top-up of the personal pension plan.
By requiring firms to review past business, SIB has sought to remove the need for individual investors to spend time and money on legal proceedings. Where investors nevertheless seek to pursue their claims through the courts, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties about time barring. But I believe that these are misplaced. Under the Latent Damage Act 1986, investors have three years from the date on which they receive the relevant facts in which to bring a claim. The review timetable set down by SIB should therefore mean that there are few, if any, cases where time barring is an issue. If such cases should arise, SIB and the other regulators will consider whether further action is necessary to protect investors. The Personal Investment Authority said on 22nd February that firms should complete reviews in all circumstances where they had reason to believe that a relevant limitation period might be about to expire. If such a period was exceeded, an investor would still be entitled to lodge a complaint with the ombudsman. I understand that the ombudsman would be likely to exercise his discretion in favour of investors whose rights had become time barred because of delays engendered by the review process itself.
The Government's first priority in financial services regulation remains investor protection. The action taken by SIB and the PIA is an example of how the regulators can act to ensure that people are properly protected.
832
I hope that with my explanation of how we envisage that the procedures will work, together with my assurance that there are safeguards—in case anybody decides to drag this out—the noble Lord will appreciate that his amendment is unnecessary and will withdraw it. I am, however, glad to have the opportunity to place on record again exactly those procedures which have been set out to deal with this problem.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reassurance. I am sure that people who have any doubt about whether their claims can be time-barred will be gratified by his reply. In view of the very strong reassurance that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Amendments relating-to Part III]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 209 and 210:
Page 121, leave out lines 12 and 13.
Page 123, line 7, leave out paragraph 16 and insert:
(". Section 24 (sufficiency of resources) is repealed.
. In section 25 (conditions as to investments, etc.)—

(a) subsections (1) and (3) are repealed, and

(b) for subsection (2) there is substituted—

"(2) A salary related contracted-out scheme must, in relation to any earner's service before the principal appointed day, comply with any requirements prescribed for the purpose of securing that—

(a) the Secretary of State is kept informed about any matters affecting the security of the minimum pensions guaranteed under the scheme, and

(b) the resources of the scheme are brought to and are maintained at a level satisfactory to the Secretary of State.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 together with Amendment No. 197. I beg to move both amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 125, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert:
("() in subsection (1)—

(i) paragraph (a) is omitted,

(ii) in paragraph (b), for "that section" there is substituted "section 58", and

(iii) paragraph (c) is omitted,

() subsection (2) is omitted,
() in subsection (3)—
() paragraph (a) is omitted,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 211. Some noble Lords may feel that this amendment comes perilously close to painting the lily or gilding refined gold. Its sole effect is to beautify the drafting of government amendments made at Committee stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 125, line 32, at end insert:
(". In section 84(5), paragraph (b) and the preceding "or" are omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 212. The provision in the Bill to dissolve the Occupational Pensions Board has caused us to look again at the power which allows the board to approve a scheme's alternative revaluation arrangements. This power has never been used, nor is it needed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 127, line 17, at end insert:
("() in paragraph 4(3), for the words from "does not cease" to the end there is substituted "which, apart from the regulations, would not be contracted-out employment is treated as contracted-out employment where any benefits provided under the scheme are attributable to a period when the scheme was contracted-out".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 213. Paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 2 to the Pension Schemes Act 1993 allows an individual to remain contracted out on those occasions where temporarily his service does not qualify him for a guaranteed minimum pension. An example of this would be a period of unpaid maternity leave where national insurance contributions would not be payable for that period. Consequently, contracted-out benefits would not accrue. The amendment extends this provision to service after the principal appointed day.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 127, line 26, leave out paragraph 60.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 181. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135 [Breach of regulations under the Pension Schemes Act 1993]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 215 to 217:
Page 87, line 36, at end insert:
("(4A) Where—

(a) apart from this subsection, a penalty under subsection (4) is recoverable from a body corporate or Scottish partnership by reason of any act or omission of the body or partnership as a trustee of a trust scheme, and

(b) the act or omission was done with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any persons mentioned in subsection (4B),

such a penalty is recoverable from each of those persons who consented to or connived in the act or omission or to whose neglect the act or omission was attributable.
(4B) The persons referred to in subsection (4A) (b)—

(a) in relation to a body corporate, are—

(i) any director, manager, secretary, or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, and

(ii) where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, any member in connection with his functions of management, and

(b) in relation to a Scottish partnership, are the partners.

(4C) Where the Regulatory Authority requires any person to pay a penalty by virtue of subsection (4A), they may not also require the body corporate, or Scottish partnership, in question to pay a penalty in respect of the same act or omission.").
Page 87, line 39, at end insert:
("() Where by reason of the contravention of any provision contained in regulations made, or having effect as if made, under this Act—

(a) a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, or

(b) a person pays a penalty under subsection (4),

then, in respect of that contravention, he shall not, in a case within paragraph (a), be liable to pay such a penalty or, in a case within paragraph (b), be convicted of such an offence.").
Page 87, line 41, at end insert ("and "Scottish partnership" means a partnership constituted under the law of Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 215 with Amendment No. 19, to Amendment No. 216 with Amendment No. 177 and to Amendment No. 217 with Amendment No. 19. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 88, line 12, at end insert:
("() In section 186 of that Act (Parliamentary control of orders and regulations), in subsection (3), after paragraph (c) there is inserted "or
(d) regulations made by virtue of section 168(2)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 229.
These amendments ensure that regulations made under the provisions of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and under Part I of the Pensions Bill that provide for a breach of duty to be a criminal offence by virtue of Clauses 135 and 105 respectively must be subject to the affirmative procedure. These amendments take account of the concerns expressed by the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers and concerns voiced in this House during Committee stage by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Seear, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the provisions that allow criminal offences to be created in secondary legislation.
In introducing these amendments we have balanced, I hope to the House's satisfaction, the need to have the flexibility to create criminal offences in regulations with the need to ensure that Parliament is able to give proper consideration to any that are created in this way.
It should be noted that the regulations made under the provisions of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 that already contain criminal penalties for failure to comply have been included under these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like briefly to say that we appreciate the fact that the Government have taken note of the representations that have been made and we are glad to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 137 [Jurisdiction of Pensions Ombudsman]:
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 90, line 15, after ("proceedings),") insert ("after subsection (4) there is inserted—
"(4A) On any application to the court by any party to an investigation or by the Pensions Ombudsman the court may order that the case be transferred to the court if it is a case which the court considers is more fit to be adjudicated on by the court)."; and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment surrounds the role of the pensions ombudsman and the interaction with the courts. There are certain disputes which can be satisfactorily resolved by the ombudsman process and others, involving potentially complex issues and large sums of money, that would normally be better dealt with by the courts. The issue is made more acute by the extension of the ombudsman's jurisdiction, both under the Bill and as a result of the current ombudsman's recent policy decision not to rule out consideration of cases concerning the disposal of scheme surplus, the exercise of trustees' discretion or the validity of actuarial calculations, especially as to transfer values.
In its 1989 report, Protecting Pensions: Safeguarding Benefits in a Changing Environment, the Occupational Pensions Board recommended the establishment of a pension tribunal to deal with not only individual grievances but also disputes between different trustee bodies and disputes between trustee bodies and other organisations. In the event, a pensions ombudsman dealing only with individual grievances was set up with subsequent recourse to the courts restricted to points of law. The jurisdiction of the ombudsman has now been extended to that which the Occupational Pensions Board originally envisaged for a pensions tribunal.
This amendment would allow the ombudsman to continue as an inexpensive and informal one-stop forum for addressing straightforward individual grievances but open up recourse to the courts where more complex issues are involved. It would avoid the cost associated with a pension tribunal, to which my noble friend may well object. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment seeks to allow either party involved in an investigation by the pensions ombudsman to approach the court to seek the transfer of the case from the ombudsman to the court.
The office of pensions ombudsman was created in 1990 to provide a low cost, efficient and effective alternative to the courts for the resolution of disputes and disagreements. It has provided individual scheme members with a route by which their concerns may be addressed without the need for expensive and time-consuming litigation. Building on the PLRC's recommendations, we announced in the White Paper that the ombudsman's jurisdiction would be extended to include disputes between trustees and employers; and between trustees of different schemes. The Bill makes provision for this.
Disagreements between trustees and employers and between trustees of different schemes can often result in lengthy and costly litigation. We believe it sensible that, as an alternative to action in the courts, the ombudsman should be given the power to consider such cases. This
836
will offer schemes the opportunity, which their members already enjoy, to have disputes resolved effectively and speedily, without the costs associated with litigation.
We think it right that the expertise and experience which the pensions ombudsman has clearly demonstrated, and which was recognised by the Pension Law Review Committee, should now be available for the resolution of a wider range of pension disputes.
The current arrangements allow for considerable flexibility which will not be affected by the change in jurisdiction that we propose. They provide a number of routes by which cases can be handled by the courts if that is more appropriate. First, it is open to trustees of a pension scheme to apply to the court for directions if they wish to seek guidance on the appropriate course of action on a particular issue. They may do this at any time, whether or not a case is already before the pensions ombudsman.
Secondly, the pensions ombudsman considers each case for investigation on its merits and has discretion as to whether or not to accept a case. If the matter is one which he feels is more appropriate for the courts, he may decline to conduct an investigation. He may also, if he wishes, refer cases to the courts to determine questions of law. If court proceedings have already begun before the case is referred to him, he is precluded from conducting an investigation.
Thirdly, should the ombudsman accept a case for investigation, either party to the dispute retains the right to go to court at any time if they feel it appropriate. And the court would handle the case unless the other party to the dispute makes an application to the court to "stay" the proceedings—that is, asks the court to take no action until the ombudsman has completed his investigation.
If such an application is made the court is required, under Section 148 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, to consider whether there is sufficient reason why the ombudsman should not handle the case. The court will, effectively, be considering whether the matter in dispute is one which it is appropriate for the ombudsman to consider. That, I think, goes to the heart of my noble friend's concern.
We believe that the provisions already in place are sufficiently flexible to allow cases to be considered by the most appropriate body, be that the courts or the ombudsman. As things stand, it is for the courts to decide matters of appropriate jurisdiction and that, I believe, is what my noble friend is hoping to achieve.
We accept that it may not be appropriate for the ombudsman to investigate all referrals made to him. Indeed, we intend that certain matters should be specifically excluded from the ombudsman's jurisdiction and be the sole responsibility of OPRA. These are matters where the authority's enforcement powers are more likely to be effective in securing compliance with the legislation than the ombudsman, whose role is one of adjudicator rather than regulator; for example, cases involving payment from surplus to an employer, failure to meet the minimum solvency requirement, failure to comply with audit requirements, and procedures for the appointment of member nominated trustees and the scheme actuary.

837
I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that the current arrangements and our proposals for the future are sufficiently flexible to meet his concerns. As I have explained, both the existing arrangements and the proposed future arrangements allow full access to the courts where appropriate. On the basis of that explanation I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear and reassuring reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 142 [Annual increase in rate of personal pension]:
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Clause 143 [Section 142: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Clause 144 [Power to reject notice choosing appropriate personal pension scheme].
[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
Clause 145 [Levy]:
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 94, line 14, at end insert:
("() Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1)—

(a) in determining the amount of any levy in respect of the Regulatory Authority, must take account (among other things) of any amounts paid to the Secretary of State under section 168(4) of this Act or section 9 of the Pensions Act 1995, and

(b) in determining the amount of expenditure in respect of which any levy is to be imposed, may take one year with another and, accordingly, may have regard to expenditure estimated to be incurred in current or future periods and to actual expenditure incurred in previous periods (including periods ending before the coming into force of this subsection).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (a) ensures that civil penalties imposed by the authority must be taken into account when determining any levy.
Rather than give the authority direct control of income from fines, we have provided for those amounts to be taken into account when the levy is set by the Secretary of State. The Bill provides for levy receipts and fines to be paid to the Consolidated Fund because the Secretary of State will control the authority's funding and it will have to agree its budgetary requirements with him. That will ensure that the authority's expenditure is subject to the full public accounting procedures and value-for-money scrutinies. To pay fines directly to the authority would place the money raised outside that system of control. Also, if the authority is allowed to bolster its budgets by increasing the number and size of the penalties it imposes, there would be a clear danger of jeopardising the authority's objectivity.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire expressed considerable interest in the use which would be made of money received as a result of civil penalties imposed by the regulatory authority. At the time we explained that they would go to defray
838
the costs of the authority. That intention is now placed beyond all doubt by the explicit provision introduced by this amendment.
With regard to subsection (b), when setting the rates of the levy for any year, it will be necessary to estimate the costs that will be incurred during that year.
Once the accounts of each organisation have been finalised, the total expenditure actually incurred will be compared with those estimates and with levy income. Any shortfall, or excess, will then be taken into account in setting future levies. That will ensure that all amounts collected by the levy will be used for the purposes laid down and surpluses will not simply disappear into the Consolidated Fund. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 225:
After Clause 145, insert the following new clause:
("Pensions on divorce, etc
.—(l),In the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, after section 25A there is inserted—
"Pensions.
25B.—(1) The matters to which the court is to have regard under section 25(2) above include—

(a) in the case of paragraph (a), any benefits under a pension scheme which a party to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, and

(b) in the case of paragraph (h), any benefits under a pension scheme which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, a party to the marriage will lose the chance of acquiring.

(2) In any proceedings for a financial provision order under section 23 above in a case where a party to the marriage has, or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, any benefit under a pension scheme, the court shall, in addition to considering any other matter which it is required to consider apart from this subsection, consider—

(a) whether, having regard to any matter to which it is required to have regard in the proceedings by virtue of subsection (1) above, such an order (whether deferred or not) should be made, and

(b) where the court determines to make such an order, how the terms of the order should be affected, having regard to any such matter."

and, in section 25(2) (h) of that Act (loss of chance to acquire benefits), "(for example, a pension)" is omitted.
(2) Nothing in the provisions mentioned in subsection (3) applies to a court exercising its powers under section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (financial provision in connection with divorce proceedings, etc.) in respect of any benefits under a pension scheme which a party to the marriage has or is likely to have in the forseeable future.
(3) The provisions referred to in subsection (2) are—

(a) section 203(1) and (2) of the Army Act 1955, 203(1) and (2) of the Air Force Act 1955, 128G(1) and (2) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or 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 82 of this Act,

(c) any provision of any enactment (whether passed or made before or after this Act is passed) corresponding to any of the enactments mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), and

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

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it seems a considerable time since we debated this matter. I should like to say just two things. First, I again thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his help in this matter, and my noble friend the Minister. I am grateful to them for their help and sympathetic understanding. I should like to say on behalf of my noble friend Lady Elles, who is unable to be here today, that she supports the amendment. I know that she is pleased, as am I and I am sure everyone in the House is, that the Government have accepted this principle. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 225, Amendment No. 226:
After Clause 145, line 27, at end insert:
("(1A) Where the court determines to make an order under this section, such an order may bind a person who is not a party to the marriage but who is, or is likely to be in the foreseeable future, liable to pay any benefit under a pension scheme to a party to the marriage.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are not sure whether this amendment is providing belt and braces, given Amendment No. 175. It may be valuable to have an alternative phrasing which the Bill team can clear up later. I ask the House to support the amendment in the spirit of Amendment No. 175. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am prepared to accept the amendment. We shall sort out the wording between the two amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, Amendment No. 226, as an amendment to Amendment No. 225, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 225, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 148 [Amendments consequential on Part IV]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 95, line 39, leave out ("amendments consequential on this Part") and insert ("general minor and consequential amendments").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Amendments relating to Part IV]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 129, line 32, at end insert:
(".—(1) Schedule 9 (transitory modifications) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), sub-paragraphs (ii) to (v) are omitted,

(b) in sub-paragraph (3) (a) (i), for "provisions mentioned in paragraphs (i) to (v)" there is substituted "provision mentioned in paragraph (i)", and

(c) sub-paragraph (5) is omitted.

(3) Paragraphs 3 and 4 are omitted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 151 [Parliamentary control of orders and regulations]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 96, line 40, leave out from ("contains") to ("must") in line 41 and insert ("any regulations made by virtue of—
() section 56(4),
() section 70(6), or
() section 105(1)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 129, column 3, line 43, leave out ("84(6)") and insert ("84(10)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 231 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 232 to 236 and 238 to 246. These amendments are designed to bring the contents of Schedule 7 into line with the amendments made to the Bill in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 232 to 246:
Page 130, column 3, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert: ("In section 110, subsections (2) to (4).

("In section 110,

subsections (2) to (4).

Section 112.

Section 114.").

Page 130, column 3, line 16, at end insert:

("Section 144.").

Page 130, column 3, line 21, leave out ("and subsection (6)") and insert (", paragraph (d) and the preceding "or", and subsections (6) and (7)").
Page 130, column 3, leave out line 24.
Page 130, column 3, line 28, leave out ("the first "104(8)"").
Page 130, column 3, leave out line 36.
Page 130, line 39, at end insert:

("1988 c. 1.

The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

In section 187, in subsection (2), the definition of "pensionable age",").

Page 130, column 3, line 42, at end insert:

(" In Schedule 3, in paragraph 5(7) (a), "(or at least 20 of them, if that is less than half.").

Page 131, line 11, at end insert:

("1992 c. 5.

The Social Security Administration Act 1992.

In Schedule 4, the entries in Part I relating to the Occupational Pensions Board.").

Page 131, line 19, at end insert:

("1993 c. 8.

The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.

In section 13(9), in the definition of "personal pension scheme", "by the Occupational Pensions Board".").

Page 131, column 3, line 20, at end insert:

("In section 9(3), "22 and".").

>
Page 131, column 3, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert:

("In section 45, subsection (2) and, in subsection (3), paragraph (d).

In section 55, subsection (1) and subsections (3) to (6).

In section 56, subsection (1), in subsection (2), the words following "the prescribed period", and subsection (3).

In section 58, subsections (1) to (3), (5) and (6). Section 59.

In section 60, subsections (1) to (3) and (6) to (10).

In section 62, subsection (2).

In section 63, in subsection (1), paragraphs (a) and (c), subsection (2), in subsection (3), paragraph (a) and the words following sub-paragraph (ii), and subsection (4). Sections 64 to 66.

In section 84, in subsection (5), paragraph (b) and die preceding "or". Sections 133 to 135.").

Page 132, column 3, leave out line 20 and insert:

("In section 177, in subsection (3) (b) (ii), the words from "sections 55" to premiums)", and in subsection (7), paragraph (b).").

Page 132, column 3, leave out lines 42 to 44 and insert:

("5, in sub-paragraph (1), "or the Board" and "or, as the case may be, the Board", in sub-paragraph (3), "in relation to state scheme premiums" and paragraph (b), and sub-paragraph (5).

In Schedule 6, paragraph 11.")

Page 132, column 3, leave out lines 48 and 49 and insert:
PART IV
MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL
CHAPTER SHORT TITLE EXTENT OF REPEAL
1971 c. 56. The Pensions Increase Act 1971 In section 3, in subsection (2) (c), "is a woman who".
1993 c. 48. The Pension Schemes Act 1993 Sections 136 to 143.
In section 149, in subsection (3), at the end of paragraph (a), "and".
In section 164(1) (b) (i), the words from "136" to "143".
In section 166(5), the words from "136" to "143".
Section 172(1) (b).
In section 177, in subsection (3) (b) (i), the words from "136" to "143".
In section 178, in paragraph (b), the words from "136" to "143".
In section 181, in subsection (3), the words from "136" to "143".
In section 183, in subsection (1), the words from "136" to "143".
In Schedule 9, in paragraph 1, in sub-paragraph (1), sub-paragraphs (ii) to (v), and sub-paragraph (5), and paragraphs 3 and 4.
The repeal in me Pensions Increase Act 1971 has effect in accordance with section 156 of this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 156 [Commencement]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 97, line 25, at end insert:
("() Section (Pensions on divorce, etc.) shall come into force on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.

  Palestinians: Aid
  Palestinians: Aid
  Hong Kong One-Way Immigration Scheme: Quota for Children
  Hong Kong One-Way Immigration Scheme: Quota for Children
  Tuzla Airfield: NATO Report
  Tuzla Airfield: NATO Report
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Legislative Review
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Legislative Review
  Inghushetia: Aid for Displaced Populations
  Inghushetia: Aid for Displaced Populations
  Bethnal Green City Challenge: Grant
  Bethnal Green City Challenge: Grant
  Peat: Planning Guidance Note
  Peat: Planning Guidance Note
  Radioactive Waste Repositories: Study Group Report
  Radioactive Waste Repositories: Study Group Report
  Community Forest Programme: Planning Implications
  Community Forest Programme: Planning Implications
  Transport Research Laboratory
  Transport Research Laboratory
  Airports: Economic Regulation
  Airports: Economic Regulation
  Community Sentences: Effectiveness
  Community Sentences: Effectiveness
  Powys Unitary District: Policing
  Powys Unitary District: Policing
  BA 2000
  BA 2000
  Royal Parks: Management Policies
  Royal Parks: Management Policies
  Car Parking
  Car Parking
  Traffic calming measures
  Traffic calming measures
  Visitor Survey
  Visitor Survey
  Provision of services and buildings
  Provision of services and buildings