§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the proportion of under-fives in nursery education in the United Kingdom: and what information he has about the equivalent figures for France, Japan and the United States of America.
§ Mr. Dunn[pursuant to his reply, 14 May 1986, c. 460]: The figure in column 4 of the table in respect of the United States was incorrectly printed in the Official Report.
There is no standard definition of "nursery education". The forms of pre-school provision vary between and within countries, as does practice in the age and times of year at which children are admitted to compulsory education. The table shows the latest available comparative information on all forms of grouped provision for young children. Rates for both three and four, and three to five-year-olds are shown, as in the other countries compulsory schooling starts at age 6.
liabilities or to fulfil the reasonable expectations of the insurance policy holders. In February the Government Actuary's Department, which examines for my Department the statistical returns of life insurance companies, reported that it had been in touch with the actuaries of the United Kingdom Provident Institution and that the company might be in financial difficulties. My officials met representatives of the company, who undertook to prepare urgently a detailed assessment of its solvency position as at the end of 1985 and to retain a firm of consulting actuaries to assist in this work.
Officials of the Government Actuary's Department, after discussing the company's assessment of its solvency position with the company's own actuaries and the actuarial consultants, were satisfied that the company could honour its liabilities, including bonuses already allotted, and had sufficient free reserves to meet the required margin of solvency.
185WThe company was questioned in February about its ability to continue paying bonuses at the rates then in force. Neither my Department nor the Government Actuary's Department formally advised the company to reduce its rates because the company's actuaries, after making their own assessment, accepted the need for a reduction.
On 10 March I reviewed with representatives of United Kingdom Provident the alternative courses of action open to the company. They mentioned the possibility of a merger with Friends Provident Life Office. I encouraged them to pursue this option and also made my views known to Friends Provident. Agreement between the two companies on a merger of their operations was announced on 8 April. My Department continues to be in frequent contact with the new management about progress.
None of the powers of intervention under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 have been exercised in this case, because the remedial action taken by the company has been considered satisfactory.