Sitting of 25 March 1991

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

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the amount of carbon dioxide that would be emitted by fossil fuel power stations equivalent to existing nuclear capacity.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): Britain would emit around 15·5 million tonnes more carbon if the electricity currently provided by existing nuclear power stations were to be generated by coal, increasing total United Kingdom emissions by nearly 10 per cent. The environmental benefits of nuclear power in this context are recognised in a joint declaration on nuclear co-operation, which I am issuing today with my counterparts in France, Germany and Belgium. I am placing copies of the declaration in the Library.
    Mr. Squire: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer about co-operation. However, does not he find it astonishing, not merely on common-sense grounds, but on environmental grounds, that the Labour party is pledged to phase out nuclear power? Does he agree that that is idiotic and can lead only to environmental damage and a reduction of our present open choice of fuel?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The declaration of the four Governments agrees that nuclear power can make a significant contribution to the solution of environmental problems associated with fossil-fuel power generation, such as global warming and acid rain. When we review nuclear power in 1994, it will be important to take such considerations into account.

    Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the home energy efficiency scheme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): During the first two months some 16,000 direct applications for grant were received by the administering agency. In a full year, £26 million will be available under the scheme for assistance to low-income households.
    Mr. French: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent progress that the scheme is making and especially
    592
    on the way in which it encourages voluntary groups to assist elderly people. However, will he try to ensure that the scheme is publicised more widely among the general public, because, although small, it is a very good illustration of the way in which Conservative policies ensure that talking about caring for the elderly and about energy conservation are translated into positive action?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Initial interest in the scheme has been high, suggesting that the publicity associated with its launch in January achieved the desired effect. It would be helpful, however, if hon. Members of all parties would help to publicise the scheme locally and would point out to low-income households and groups that substantial grants are available to help with better insulation and to provide good draughtproofing. The scheme also includes energy efficiency advice.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, welcome the scheme. However, I deduce from the Minister's answer that it is cash-limited. I agree that we should all join in publicising the scheme, but does he accept that, if it is cash-limited, not all legitimate applications will be granted? If the scheme is really to be a success, would not it be better for it not to be cash-limited?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The sum allocated to the scheme is generous. I can confirm that there is no danger of the scheme running out of cash in the near or foreseeable future.
    Mr. Morgan: I welcome the question of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), which has enabled both him and me to point out to the Minister the Government's hypocrisy in claiming that they are committed to the scheme. Their advertising budget has been spent almost entirely on the privatisation of the electricity distribution and generating companies when it should have been spent on a scheme such as this. Given the sky-rocketing increase in domestic electricity prices this coming year and in the past two years, is not the best investment that any family can make insulation to combat high electricity prices? But insulation is something which the Government have completely neglected.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I reject utterly the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The home energy efficiency scheme has been well publicised and the administering agency in Newcastle has not asked us to provide further advertising or expenditure to promote the scheme as yet. However, we shall monitor the position in the light of further developments.

    Coal Imports
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet the chairmen of National Power and PowerGen to discuss coal imports.
    Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairmen of both companies from time to time to discuss a range of
    issues.
    Mr. Barron: Is the Secretary of State likely to talk about coal imports? It was reported in the press earlier this year that the chairmen of the new generators had said that they wanted to import up to 50 per cent. of the coal that they currently receive from British Coal. Given the devastating effect that that would have in two years when the current

    593
    contract with British Coal runs out, does he have immediate plans to start talking about long-term contracts for an industry which is vital to the nation?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not give credit to British Coal for obtaining long-term contracts for the first time. The three-year contracts are longer ones than it has ever had before.
    The choice of fuel is a commercial matter for the generators. Privatisation opened up the prospect of greater diversification of fuel sourcing. Both National Power and PowerGen have stated that they intend to take advantage of the opportunity. However, I expect British Coal to remain a major supplier to National Power and PowerGen in the years to come, especially if British Coal can maintain its good record of efficiency improvements.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent policy statement from the Labour party on opencast mining threatens the Nottinghamshire miners' jobs and 13 of the 17 collieries which require low-chlorine coal to blend with their products before the power generating companies will buy? Is not that another sign of the Labour party's lukewarm stance on the extension of the Humber ports, which would enable British collieries to import the coal that they need to operate?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend, with his deep knowledge of the coal industry, makes a good point.
    Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman has not read the document.
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government favour a successful opencast sector. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have read the document, which Opposition Members have not. If the Opposition set an annual limit on opencast coal output, British Coal's viability would be reduced and job losses would result, in both the opencast sector and deep mines, where opencast output is relied upon for blending.
    Mr. Hood: What is the Secretary of State doing about coal dumping in the EC? Is he aware that countries such as America and China are dumping coal at well below the price of production? British Coal has made representations to the Commission, but as yet has had no positive response. I met Sir Leon Brittan in Brussels a fortnight ago and raised the matter with him. He took a Pontius Pilate attitude and said that it had nothing to do with him. I find that strange because he is the Commissioner for competition. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he does not intend to play Pontius Pilate with regard to coal dumping in the EC? Does he accept that the British coal industry produces coal more cheaply than any other country in Europe? Will he fight the case for British coal in the EC?
    Mr. Wakeham: Of course, I should be concerned about any coal dumping, but it is for the European Commission to decide whether to investigate complaints of this nature. There is no evidence of subsidised imports from the main coal-exporting economies. The heavily subsidised exports from the German coal industry account for only about 2 per cent. of coal imports.
    Mr. John Marshall: As the world price of coal is somewhat lower than the price charged by British Coal, would not increased coal imports lead to lower electricity
    594
    prices, which would benefit consumers such as pensioners and benefit energy-intensive industry and employment therein?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. If we protected coal from overseas competition, industry would have to pay extra for its electricity and would be less competitive in the world market. That is where real damage to jobs and the balance of payments would occur. But provided that British Coal is competitive, National Power and PowerGen expect it to remain a significant supplier. That will be apparent when the coal contracts are signed.

    Offshore Installations
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met representatives of offshore trade unions to discuss safety on offshore installations.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the Trades Union Congress, together with representatives of a number of trade unions, on 12 February 1991.
    Mr. Doran: The Minister will be aware how seriously trade unions take the question of safety, but is he aware that the Scottish Trades Union Congress, with support from offshore unions, has established a training course for health and safety representatives? Will he encourage oil companies and other offshore employers to use the facilities offered by that course? We await the ministerial announcement on the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive and wonder whether the Minister can give us a progress report.
    Mr. Moynihan: I welcome any project that involves trade unions in improved training and I wish them well with the projects to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I understand that the Health and Safety Commission will formally consider a proposal regarding the transfer at a meeting tomorrow. I hope that an announcement will be forthcoming shortly thereafter regarding a possible transfer in April.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that every employee involved in the offshore oil industry should be involved in safety in every possible way? Will he also confirm that that has been enshrined in recent regulations?
    Mr. Moynihan: I can confirm that. The safety committees are intended to allow for full and active involvement of the work force as an essential formulation for improvements in safety, irrespective of whether the work force is unionised or non-unionised.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister recall our recent debate on Piper Alpha and Lord Cullen's report during which many specific instances were given of people being elected to safety committees and then suddenly losing their jobs? As he promised to investigate allegations of victimization—and some were made—has he checked them out? Will he confirm that it would be much better if there were proper trade union representatives to give their backing to safety?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I promised on that occasion to take up any specific case. That promise remains on the table. I have received no details of specific cases, but I should be only too happy to take up an individual request and respond to it fully.
    In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, Lord Cullen also recommended measures along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman that safety representatives should he given protection against unfair dismissal. We agree with that conclusion and we shall implement it accordingly.

    Colliery Closures
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many collieries were closed (a) between 1964 and 1970, (b) between 1970 and 1979, and (c) how many have been closed since 1979.
    Mr. Wakeham: According to figures available from British Coal, between 1964 and 1970 there were 263 closures; between 1970 and 1979 there were 67 closures and since 1979 there have been 132 closures. Those figures do not include colliery mergers.
    Mr. Hannam: I thank my right hon. Friend for those figures, which show that under successive Governments the coal industry has been streamlining itself in order to become more competitive. Does he agree that it is vital for British Coal's future that it continues to aim to achieve the right balance between size and productivity and will he continue to support those aims?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Since 1979, the Government have approved over £7 billion of new investment and made available grant aid of about £17 billion, including the provision of over £6 billion in deficiency grant under the Coal Industry Act 1990. I say with absolute confidence that no Government have ever given more assistance to the coal industry than this Government. We have cleaned up the balance sheet and given it long-term contracts. It has every opportunity to establish itself on a long-term viable basis with the privatised British generators.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State agree that many of the collieries that have closed since 1979 did so following substantial and often recent investment about which the Government boasted and Conservative Members supported? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that many of the post-1979 closures have meant the locking away of at least a century's worth of Britain's coal reserves while Conservative Members and the Government welcome, and are enthusiastic about, coal imports?
    Mr. Wakeham: No one could accuse me or any of my hon. Friends of not wishing British Coal to be a competitive and successful player in the coal business of Britain—and I expect British Coal to remain so. I would not say that every investment that British Coal has made in its history has necessarily been wise. I want wise and profitable investment because I believe in a long-term future for the coal industry. Only if British Coal makes wise and sensible investments will it be able to continue to improve productivity, as it has done so remarkably well in recent years.

    New Housing
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what statutory provisions cover consultations between the gas industry and a developer prior to new house building developments.
    Mr. Moynihan: There is no statutory requirement for consultation in the relevant gas or planning legislation.
    Mr. Steen: As I understand it, the first that a gas company knows of a new housing development is when someone calls and asks to be connected. Does my hon. Friend agree that the right way to proceed is for the gas company to be consulted—just as the National Rivers Authority is consulted—before a new housing development takes place, so that the infrastructure can be in place before new housing is built?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in pursuing this matter, not least with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy on 28 January. It is common practice for developers to consult British Gas before proceeding with their proposals to ensure the adequacy of supply and transmission lines, but we do not believe that it is necessary to superimpose a rigid statutory requirement on the process. My hon. Friend referred to the National Rivers Authority. The requirement for developers to undertake prior consultation with the NRA in certain cases applies only to developments where water contamination problems may occur. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that there is no close analogy with gas.

    Coal Industry Productivity
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since 1983–84.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: British Coal has increased productivity in its deep mines by more than 85 per cent. since 1983.
    Mr. Knox: To what does my hon. Friend attribute British Coal's extraordinary good performance on productivity? How much does he expect productivity to rise in the next five years?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The existence of a Conservative Government has helped the process and British Coal's management and workers have worked together to put behind them the spectre of industrial strife and dislocation that gave the industry a bad name in the past. I cannot predict what will happen in the next five years, but if British Coal continues its impressive improvement in productivity, its future will be bright.
    Mr. Lofthouse: How does the Minister think the miners, who have put such massive efforts into increased production, feel now that Mr. Baker, chairman of National Power, says that, whatever British Coal's results, he proposes to import 50 per cent. of his coal? If that comes about, it will add a further £750 million to the balance of payments deficit and put out of action millions of tonnes of our national energy resource. Does the Minister think that that is good practice and does he have no influence on Mr. Baker whatever?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It would not be in the long-term best interests of the mining industry or British industry generally to keep out imports and try to insulate this country from world trade. The future of the coal mining industry is in the hands of the workers and the management and I am sure that, if they can sustain the productivity improvements, the electricity generating stations will continue to buy substantial quantities of coal from British sources.

    Oil Production
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total amount of oil produced from United Kingdom land and waters in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and what he anticipates will be the change in this level of production.
    Mr. Moynihan: In 1990 oil production from the United Kingdom continental shelf was 91·6 million tonnes. I expect that by the mid-1990s, output will be significantly higher.
    Mr. Taylor: Does that remarkable total mean that Britain is still self-sufficient in oil—that we produce more oil than we consume? Can the Minister give us an estimate of how long he expects Britain's oil reserves to last?
    Mr. Moynihan: On the latter point, I believe that those reserves will last well into the next century. On the first question, with the exception of low production in the second quarter, due primarily to safety-related platform shutdowns, oil trade for 1991 is expected to show a significant surplus. I believe that that surplus will continue.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although I welcome the increase in production, has the Minister taken steps to ensure that orders for the modules, jackets and platforms are allocated to British companies? Is he aware that recently two major contracts went to Norway? I represent a constituency which depends greatly on the offshore fabrication yards and I should welcome a clear statement from the Government on their intentions in that respect.
    Mr. Moynihan: Only last week I visited Highland Fabricators and McDermotts and I believe that the outstanding contribution that the workers in those yards make to high-quality fabrication will ensure that they have an important role in the future.
    There is additional competition coming from mainland Europe, not least because many of the yards are working at capacity with a high level of activity in the market. I assure the hon. Lady that last year, on the most recent figures published, 98 per cent. of orders on the United Kingdom continental shelf for the specific items to which she referred were placed with United Kingdom companies.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend accept that the price of oil will justify in the foreseeable future the exploration and drilling in the deeper waters west of the Shetlands?
    Mr. Moynihan: We are extremely pleased with the response to the frontier round, the first of its type, which covers the area to which my hon. Friend referred. I am confident that the interest shown—there have been 13 applications, involving 53 companies—is a reflection of the buoyant prospects that the frontier round presents to the oil and gas sector.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister translate the expected quantities of oil into oil revenue? Does he accept that many of us believe that the most astonishing feature of the past decade and more has been that the vast revenues to the Government from oil production in the North sea have not been matched by industrial regeneration in many parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom? Will he accept it from me that under the next Labour Government the income from oil will be spent on regenerating the British economy and not squandered as it has been in the past decade?
    Mr. Moynihan: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. Oil revenues undoubtedly have played an important part in industrial regeneration.
    The hon. Gentleman will know full well that it is impossible to predict prices for one month, let alone throughout the 1990s. We can, however, create a stable fiscal and regulatory framework that enables companies that work in the North sea to exploit our resources, through the licensing round, given the available opportunities. I am confident that that will lead to growth in an already buoyant sector.

    Coal Industry Manpower
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has received regarding contraction of manpower in the coal industry.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Manpower levels within the coal industry are a matter for British Coal. The key factor will be the extent to which the industry can maintain a profitable share of the energy market.
    Mr. Eadie: But surely, as has transpired during this Question Time, it is absurd that at the same time as miners are creating record levels of coal production, Mr. Baker has announced that, when the next contracts are agreed, National Power wants to import 50 per cent. of its generating capacity. Does the Minister agree that that policy will mean that there will be more pit closures and thousands of miners will be flung on the scrap heap? Is his answer to the House that all that the Government can do is appoint a new chairman for British Coal at a salary of £250,000 and depend on the privatisation of the coal industry to solve its problems?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We could not isolate ourselves from the world energy market, even if we were allowed to by the rules of GATT and other international treaty obligations. To keep open uneconomic pits would not provide long-term job security for mineworkers. In recent years there have been a number of job losses, but it is to the credit of the industry that they have been achieved without a single compulsory redundancy. Every mine worker wishing to remain in the industry has been offered alternative employment.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister may believe that this is British Coal's responsibility, but is he aware that a good number of mine workers who have been made redundant because of pit closures are still trying to obtain employment? Men have been thrown out of work because of pit closures, but the Government are idly standing by and doing nothing to offer alternative employment. Is that not the Government's responsibility?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Government have not been idly standing by. We support British Coal Enterprise, which has been extremely successful in promoting and finding alternative employment in the areas hit by colliery closures.

    Independent Generators
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the amount of electricity likely to be generated by independent generators by 1995.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Twenty major independent generating schemes have come forward for approval. The eventual total capacity will depend on planning decisions and on the commercial decisions taken by the companies concerned.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful response. Clearly, independent generators are expressing interest in sites in urban areas, such as Rugby in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend suggest to developers that they go to derelict areas rather than green-field sites? Do the planning regulations have sufficient teeth to protect the environment?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend has written to the Department about a planning application in his constituency. I cannot comment on that, save to say that the planning conditions and requirements are as strict as ever and if a local authority objects to a proposed generating site, a public inquiry will be held.
    Dr. Reid: Does the Minister share my hope that when approaching independent generators with advice, the Government will do so on the basis of more information and less stupidity than they have shown in the privatisation of the electricity industry? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm from his experience that the sulphur content of Scottish coal used in Scottish generation stations is much lower than that of coal in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he therefore comment on the extraordinary report in this morning's newspapers that the Scottish electricity industry has been asked to bear the £300 million to £400 million costs of flue gas desulphurisation equipment to extract sulphur from coal with the lowest sulphur content in the United Kingdom? Would not that money be better spent extracting sulphur from coal with the highest sulphur content?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have a programme to retrofit 8 GW of capacity of coal-powered stations in the rest of the United Kingdom to meet our international obligations to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions.
    Mr. Rost: Is my hon. Friend aware that many new power generation schemes are seriously at risk because of British Gas's overnight increase in gas prices of 35 per cent? If my hon. Friend wants genuine competition in the electricity market as against a duopoly, will he ensure that there is proper competition in the gas market by encouraging the oil industry to market gas independently of British Gas?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Gas prices are a matter for discussion between the independent regulator and the firms concerned. I confirm that it is only a short-term problem and in the longer term gas reserves in the North sea and around our coastline will remain high.

    BNFL
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on future prospects for BNFL.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: British Nuclear Fuels plc is a profitable and experienced supplier of nuclear fuel cycle services both at home and abroad. The company has a strong order book including business worth some £6,000 million for the first 10 years of operation of its thermal oxide reprocessing plant.
    Mr. Butler: Are not BNFL's exports to countries such as Germany a sound indicator of a secure future for the company?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is to the great credit of BNFL that it has not only secured the first 10 years of operation of that plant, but is on its way to securing the profitability of its second decade.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that my reply to the Daily Star questionnaire on the future of Sellafield was too ribald, rude and vulgar to be repeated in Parliament? What did the Government say to the Daily Star?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: On the information that I have, I believe that the Daily Star article was seriously misleading. I can well believe that the hon. Gentleman's reply was robust as he has been a staunch supporter of the responsible use of civil nuclear power in the past and doubtless will be in the future.

    Combined Cycle Gas Technology
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has discussed with the Director-General of Ofgas the sale of gas for generation of electricity using combined cycle gas technology.
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Pike: When the Secretary of State met Ofgas, did he discuss the maximum proportion of electricity that should be generated by PowerGen and National Power? If not, does it mean that the Government have no policy on the best use of our energy resources?
    Mr. Wakeham: Government policy is to have diverse sources of supply so that, so far as possible, we can move to a point at which they all pay their proper economic cost. Generators can then decide which fuel to use in the best interests of their business.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: British Gas is increasing its prices because it says that it is losing £250 million due to bad weather. It seems to think that it can insist on doing that when it loses money due to problems of bad weather, good weather or lack of industry. If private industry could have things so easy, it could earn riches beyond the dreams of the Pharoahs. Can we not stop this kind of nonsense in nationalised industries which have become private cornucopias?
    Mr. Wakeham: Since becoming privatised, British Gas has a good record of keeping consumer prices down. The role of Ofgas is to be welcomed. There is a supply problem in terms of gas for the generation of electricity, and the company could have become over-committed on previously scheduled prices. I understand that the problem

    601
    relates to 1993–94. I welcome the efforts being made by British Gas and Ofgas to find a solution which offers a positive future for independent gas-fired generation. That is the right way forward and I am hopeful that a solution will be found.
    Mr. Barron: The 35 per cent. increase in British Gas prices to industrial generators has implications for the long-term supply of gas to domestic users and raises a number of questions. Does the Secretary of State think that it is right for the Government to talk about the need for a diversity of supply and that the matter should be left to the market? We want to know how domestic consumers will be provided with gas in the not-too-distant future if the burning of gas for electricity generation takes off in the way that the right hon. Gentleman wishes.
    Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, not much gas will be burnt at prices that are 35 per cent. higher than before. We shall have to see how negotiations proceed. British Gas is not the only source of power station gas. Some projects have already obtained supplies direct from producers, and I hope that others will also do so.

    Coal Imports
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet the chairmen of National Power and PowerGen to discuss coal imports.
    Mr. Wakeham: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
    Mr. Lofthouse: Has the chairman of British Coal ever expressed concern about the strong rumours that the retrofit flue gas desulphurisation plants at Ferrybridge may be transferred to the Isle of Grain? That could have a major effect on the Yorkshire coalfield. Are those rumours true?
    Mr. Wakeham: The position about the retrofits was clearly set out in the prospectus for the sale of the shares in the generating companies. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has authority in these matters and I do not envisage any changes to what was set out in the prospectus.

    Combined Heat and Power
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many combined heat and power schemes are in operation throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My Department's current estimate is that there are more than 500 sites in the United Kingdom using combined heat and power technology.
    Mr. Page: Is it not true that combined heat and power is more efficient and produces less carbon dioxide, which is important in terms of minimising the greenhouse effect? What are the Government doing to ensure that within their own Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, such energy-saving methods are introduced for the benefit of the whole country?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right to say that the combined use of heat and power at appropriate sites is a good way to reduce the output of greenhouse
    602
    gases. My Energy Efficiency Office operates a vigorous programme to educate and inform potential users about that technology.

    Oil Industry (Safety)
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the amount spent on safety measures by the oil industry since 6 July 1988.
    Mr. Moynihan: We do not have comprehensive estimates of oil industry expenditure on safety measures. I understand, however, that since 6 July 1988 the industry has spent or committed approximately £900 million on fitting pipeline emergency shutdown valves and sub-sea isolation systems.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Given the British oil industry's safety experience, what steps has my hon. Friend's Department taken to help overcome the Gulf oil crisis? Are British companies playing their part in sending equipment and resources to assist in that devasting oil disaster?
    Mr. Moynihan: Yes, we have offered support and our offer has been taken up and is being co-ordinated by my colleagues in the Department of the Environment.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Visits
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last visited the county Palatine.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what visits he has made to the county of Lancashire in the last three months.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): I have made five visits to Lancashire in the past three months. My last visit was two days ago.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is it true, as Frank Johnson claimed in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, that my right hon. Friend would
    "prefer to pop down to the social market rather than Romford Market"?
    Are not Esssex man and Essex woman just as keen as Lancastrians on greater choice in housing and education? Will my right hon. Friend take time off from his duties in the north-west to visit my constituency and hear the views of my constituents for himself?
    Mr. Patten: I certainly did not agree with everything that Frank Johnson wrote. He suggested, for example, that my idea of Essex man is probably Constable. However, my hon. Friend is entirely right to point out that we have extended the choice available to parents, children, patients, and council house tenants over the past few years. We have plenty more still to do in extending choice, but I fear that all our proposals will be resisted by Labour.
    Mr. Pike: The right hon. Gentleman's visit to Ribble Valley and to Southport last week will have caused him to rethink the answer that he gave me on 11 February. Does he now acknowledge the serious concern that exists about many of the Government's policies? When shall we see further changes and U-turns in a vain attempt to defend themselves?
    Mr. Patten: I have little doubt that we shall win back Ribble Valley at the next election. Apparently, those who live in Ribble Valley do not have much doubt about that, either. We shall win the next election, whenever it comes, on our policies. I suspect that a large number of Liberal Democrat Members also believe that we shall win the next election.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend's office this morning that he is to visit us in Bilsbrorrow in October, as he promised several years ago. Is he aware that my constituents are delighted at today's trade figures, which are the best since February 1987 and will increase Britain's prosperity still further?
    Mr. Patten: I have been looking forward to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency for many years. It promises to be the highlight of my autumn. My hon. Friend is right to point to the substantial improvement in the trade figures. It is yet a further indication of the sense and effectiveness of the Government's economic policy.

    Official Duties
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much time he has spent in the past month on official business.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what official duties he has carried out in the past month.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have spent up to a quarter of my time carrying out official duties in the past month. These include signing instruments authorising the appointment, transfer and removal of magistrates, placing a list of future high sheriffs before Her Majesty the Queen and carrying out day-to-day responsibilities as a Government Minister.
    Mr. Winnick: That is all very interesting, but would it not be the wish of many Conservative Members that the right hon. Gentleman should spend more time on official business, considering the right mess that the Conservative party is in at present? I well understand and entirely appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's apparent wish for the election to be postponed as the smell of death is all over the Government.
    Mr. Patten: We all know that a large number of Opposition Members spend their evenings, and certainly supper once a week, wondering what to do with the Leader of the Opposition after he has lost another general election, so that remark is pretty ripe coming from the hon. Gentleman. We shall spend the next months and perhaps even a year and a half continuing to govern the country extremely effectively and developing policies to implement during our next period in government.
    Mr. Burns: During the carrying out of his official duties in the past month, has my right hon. Friend had time to ruminate? If so, will he confirm that the Government will not be bamboozled by the press into an early election simply to make a story for the media?
    Mr. Patten rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are questions about the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Patten: I am not sure that I ruminate as much as I should, but I am sure that if I ruminated as my hon. Friend has suggested I would agree that it is unwise to be bandwaggoned by the media into taking any decisions, let alone decisions about the timing of the next general election. As I said earlier, however, whenever the election comes I am absolutely convinced that we shall win it and I believe that a number of Opposition Members also think that we shall win it.
    Dr. Cunningham: When the Chancellor next goes to the north-west, will he find time to visit Barrow and talk to the people there about the disaster that will hit the town as a result of the projected redundancies at VSEL? Will he consider the repercussions that that will have throughout the engineering industry in the north-west, including many companies that operate in the Duchy? It is a devastating blow to an isolated community when our economy is sliding ever deeper into the second recession this decade. What hope, from the Budget or from any other aspect of Government policy, can the Chancellor offer the people in Barrow and further afield in the north-west who are to lose their jobs?
    Mr. Patten: I will, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friends who will be concerned about job training and other measures that the Government will be anxious to implement in Barrow and elsewhere. Given the Labour party's policies on defence spending and procurement in the past few years, anyone with any job in engineering or the defence industries would have a great deal to fear in the albeit distant prospect of a Labour Government being elected. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. We can look forward to a period of resumed economic growth, on the back of low inflation, provided that we stick to the policies on which we are currently set.

    Property
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy or Lancaster how many properties for which he is responsible are mortgaged.
    Mr. Chris Patten: None, Sir.
    Mr. Cohen: Are not the Minister and his colleagues working a stroke here? Is that not what the odd 0·5 per cent. cut in interest rates amounts to when building societies do not reduce the mortgage rate? Presumably there will be a reduction just before the general election, but if by some horror the Conservative party were to remain in power, interest rates—including mortgage rates—would immediately go up again. Does the Minister agree that that would be to the disadvantage of every mortgage payer in the Duchy of Lancaster and throughout the country?
    Mr. Patten: There is much in the hon. Gentleman's question with which I disagree. It will be in the interests of home owners in the future, as it has been in the past, to have a Conservative Government. Thanks to the fact that the country has had a Conservative Government for the past decade, there are more than 3 million additional home owners. All those who have purchased council houses will recognise that if the Labour party had been in power they would not have been able to do so. I am sure that all home owners are very pleased with the 2·5 per cent. reduction in

    605
    interest rates since we joined the exchange rate mechanism and look forward to seeing that reduction feed through to their mortgages.

    Visits
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit the Duchy.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to visit the Duchy in the immediate future.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I plan to visit Lancashire on 12, 22 and 23 April.
    Mr. Shersby: When my right hon. Friend next visits the Duchy will he make a particular point of calling at Preston and at Fulwood, where I had the good fortune recently to spend a very interesting day calling on Conservative voters? Will he reassure people there that the crippling community charge imposed by Preston council and by Lancashire county council will be greatly abated by the introduction of the new measures announced last week by the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that the measures announced last week will be good for people in Preston, and also for people elsewhere in the county Palatine. Voters in Preston should take note of the number of Preston Labour councillors who have refused to pay their community charge but continue to draw their allowances.
    Mr. Bowis: When my right hon. Friend visits the county Palatine he will see that the Government's resolute support for the measures in the prevention of terrorism Acts receive a widespread welcome there and that there is widespread puzzlement at the Labour party's opposition to that legislation and its desire to deny people protection.
    Mr. Patten: It is a matter of genuine regret that the Labour party has recently proved so feeble in its resistance to terrorism. It has slipped away from the line that was pursued, for instance, by the noble Lord Mason when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Research Assistants
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many research assistants are currently employed in the House.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The total number of research assistants holding photo-identity passes for the House at 12 March 1991 was 465.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I suspect that there has been a significant reduction in the number of research assistants since the new limit was introduced. Is there any means of checking the quality of work of those assistants? Clearly, the Labour party's figures do not add up.
    Mr. MacGregor: There has been a reduction in the number of research assistants, although the limit recommended by the Services Committee relates to
    606
    photo-identity passes for all staff and not just for research assistants. When that limit was introduced, the number was over 600. It is now 465. Beyond what hon. Members do, there is no check, as such, on the quality of work of research assistants. In response to my hon. Friend's final point, I confirm that many questions could be asked about various aspects of Labour party policy.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the leader of the House aware that some of us are becoming rather fed up with the continued gratuitous attacks on people who do a good job of work? It is about time that we had more politics in this place instead of the commercial entertaining that is done by Conservative Members. The flummery of this place, with swords and all the other paraphernalia, is so outdated. The sooner that this is a working Parliament, the better it will be for the people of Britain.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am not quite clear what the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has to do with the original question. It seems that the hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, is being a little sensitive especially about the quality of some of the work that is going into Labour party policy, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).
    Mr. Simon Hughes: As a serious proposition has been put forward by the London School of Economics for the use of county hall as a library for this House and the other place, and as the Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee has canvassed with some support the idea of Members' accommodation being found in county hall—and bearing in mind that the consortium bidding for county hall has gone bust,—will the Leader of the House seriously consider using that building to accommodate research assistants, other support staff and even Members of this House and the other place?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that it would be right to continue with the completion, which is very near, of phase 1 of Bridge street, which will improve facilities for Members and their secretaries considerably, and then to move on to phase 2, which will again add considerably to facilities.

    Stationery
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any plans to change the glue on envelopes which are not of the self-seal variety; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Greenway: I represent my secretary's misgivings about the glue on envelopes not of the self-seal variety. Will my right hon. Friend take some action to change the obnoxious glue currently used on envelopes to something decent such as peppermint or strawberry-flavoured glue?
    Mr. MacGregor: I will ensure that my hon. Friend's complaint is drawn to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms, who can deal with such matters. In view of the question that my hon. Friend asked previously, I am not sure whether rice pudding-flavoured glue would be appropriate for envelopes.

    Procedures of the House
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is now in a position to announce the review of the hours and procedures of the House; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: With regard to procedures, shall continue to look at the scope for improvement and to liaise with the Procedure Committee at its work. As for the hours the House sits, I am considering the variety of opinions that have been expressed to me.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that he has received many representations from all quarters, including some Members, about changing the hours and procedures of this place? Will he confirm also that no Member has asked him to include Sunday sittings? Does that mean that those Members who want to change the hours of work of people outside this place so that they work on Sundays are not altogether keen to work here—I use the word "work" loosely—in Parliament on Sundays? In other words, they wish to keep Sunday special for Parliament.
    Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm that I have had a variety of opinions expressed to me about changing working hours. The difficulty is that they are often contradictory. I am considering what might be done in considering these matters. If we make any moves which go beyond the work that the Procedure Committee undertakes, it is important that they are made with some measure of agreement. I can confirm that no request has been made to have the House sitting on Sundays. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that many Members do a great deal of work on Sundays.
    Mr. Dykes: As the job of a Member of this place is definitely a full-time one now, apart from a small minority of thoroughly idle Members whose names he may be able to guess, does my right hon. Friend accept that, as well as making improvements which will modernise the hours and procedures of the House, it is essential to provide the mechanical and physical tools to enable Members to do their job more effectively? Does not that include the ability to make official telephone calls to other Community institutions?
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that Members who have some outside interests are idle, as I can assure him that that is not so. Indeed, many of them work very long hours in this place. I am always seeking to improve facilities. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the Services Committee has recently agreed that steps should be taken to ensure that very soon it will be possible to make telephone calls as he requests.
    Dr. Cunningham: Does the Leader of the House reca:ll the suggestion that he should commission a comparative study on the way in which Parliaments in other democratic countries work and place that study in the Library? What progress has been made on that?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is one of the suggestions that may be worth pursuing in relation to looking at other aspects of the way in which the House works. As the hon. Gentleman knows, such comparative studies of other countries' legislature take a long time, and I have to bear
    608
    that in mind. It is also relevant to bear in mind the different traditions and practices of other legislatures. However, I see the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

    Mesopotamia
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to set up a Select Committee to consider health problems in Mesopotamia.
    Mr. MacGregor: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: As waterborne diseases are silent assassins and millions of people with whom we are told that we have no quarrel have to drink water from a river awash with human faeces, and as a horrendous civil war has developed since my question was tabled, is it satisfactory that the House will not discuss those matters for at least another 21 days and has not done so, other than in private Members' or minority party time, since January?
    Mr. MacGregor: That does not relate to the hon. Gentleman's question. As I have told the hon. Gentleman on other occasions, I do not believe that a Select Committee is an appropriate place to consider that issue. It is always open to departmental Select Committees to study aspects of problems germane to their specific subjects if they so wish, but any discussions must relate to the subject that concerns them.
    On the situation in Mesopotamia, a multi-agency United Nations mission recently returned from Iraq, where it was assessing humanitarian needs. It has yet to report to the United Nations. The Government have already contributed a considerable sum to emergency relief supplies.

    Parliamentary Medical Services
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he has on the on-site medical provision for members of other EC Parliaments including the European Parliament.
    Mr. MacGregor: Meaningful information about medical facilities in the Parliaments of the European Community is not readily available.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend undertake a survey to gather such meaningful information to ensure that we are not the poor relation in that respect?
    Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend has much interest in those matters, but I do not think that a survey would add greatly to the knowledge which led the Services Committee, the authorities of the House and qualified and professional medical opinion to conclude that a general practitioner service would be inappropriate for the House. All those bodies came to the conclusion that such a service could not operate in accordance with criteria set down by the family practitioner committee, would not operate in the best interests of Members and their relationship with their regular GPs, and would be detrimental to agreed emergency procedures. I assure my hon. Friend that a number of people have studied the matter with considerable care. Having studied it carefully myself, I believe that the right conclusion has been reached.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Leader of the House agree that the bulk of Parliament's work is carried on the backs

    609
    of a relatively small number of assiduous Members of Parliament who rightly complain about the lack of resources and facilities? Will he undertake a comparative study of the facilities available——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the question relate to medical facilities?
    Mr. Banks: —medical facilities, secretarial facilities, research facilities and other facilities, to see how we compare with other Parliaments in Europe?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I am trying to improve facilities wherever possible. The building in Bridge street will soon be an important additional step. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assumption that only a small number of Members carry a heavy load in the House. The vast majority of Members work extremely long hours. Moreover, I do not see how the hon. Gentleman's question relates to on-site medical provision in other Parliaments.
    Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who takes a different view from mine on the Gulf war, mentioned that the House will not be sitting for two weeks. I should like to seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, because there have been persistent reports that the Saddam
    610
    Hussein regime is using napalm weapons against the forces fighting in the present civil war. That appears to be in clear breach of international conventions and United Nations resolutions on the Gulf. Would it be right and proper for the House to break up without a statement from the Foreign Secretary? Many of us believe that the allies should give a clear warning to the Saddam Hussein regime that, should such action persist, the allies will have to consider what action to take.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to advise the hon. Gentleman on tactics, but if he was here last Thursday he would have heard me say that subjects for the Adjournment debate should be in my office by 10 o'clock this evening. The subject that he mentioned seems an admirable one to raise if he is fortunate in the ballot.

  BILL PRESENTED
    HOSPITAL SCHOOLS IN LONDON
    Ms. Harriet Harman, supported by Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Tom Cox, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. John Fraser, Ms. Diane Abbott and Mr. Clive Soley, presented a Bill to make arrangements for the education of children in hospitals in London: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 19 April and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

Special Constables
3.36 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to the conditions of service of special constables; and for connected purposes.
My Bill will amend the Special Constables Regulations 1965 and, if necessary, the Police Act 1964. I have been informed by Michael Hedges, the chief commandant of Norfolk special constabulary, that the current strength of specials in Norfolk is 280, out of an establishment figure of 411. That is an improvement on the 1980 figure, which was only 180. I should like to pay tribute to the special constables in Norfolk and the regular force, the Norfolk constabulary, with whom the specials have an excellent working relationship. I have been in touch with the Police Federation of England and Wales, and agree with it that the specials should not be a cheap alternative to a well equipped and professional regular police force. I would never support such an idea, and I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in his place, listening to the introduction of this ten-minute Bill.
There has been an improvement nationally in recruitment of specials, which I expect to accelerate following the current Home Office poster campaign. We all see the posters with the teaser question,
"When does an optician ever keep an eye on football supporters?"
as we drive around our constituencies. It is a good campaign, and I hope it succeeds in its recruitment of special constables.
However, there is an overwhelming case for further recognition and help for the specials. There were 24,000 special constables in 1974, but now there are only 15,500. That case has been powerfully made in the House by my hon. Friend the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Moynihan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), both of whom I am pleased to see in their places. They made their arguments effectively in Adjournment debates in 1986 and 1990. There is not time for me to repeat all their arguments in my short speech this afternoon.
If enacted, my Bill will provide the Home Secretary, the police authorities and chief constables with the necessary powers to achieve the following objectives quickly. First, it will speed up recruitment procedures for our special constables. Secondly, it will provide better equipment and protection for specials, who should be entitled to the best standards at present available to the regular police force. Thirdly, it will provide improved and extended training for special constables. The training programmes should be fully structured in future. Fourthly, we should aim for improved training of regular officers who are responsible for the supervision of special constables during their induction period and in their work. Fifthly, there should be fairer arrangements for sick pay and improved help for
612
those injured in the course of their duty, on a par with that available to regular officers and members of the police forces generally and nationally.
There should also be improved allowances for special constables and the provision of an annual bounty. I am aware of the experimental scheme that is currently being applied by the Home Office to metropolitan specials, but a national bounty should be payable as soon as possible. It should be payable after a minimum service of, say, two years, and its value should increase with longer service. Also, it is very important that any bounty must be new ring-fenced money and should not come out of the present police authority budget. After all, the bounty system has worked well in the Territorial Army. I served in the Territorial Army for six years, and I see no reason why such a system should not work well for special constables as well. There is no evidence that a bounty would result in a loss of prestige or of the voluntary spirit.
The ideal of voluntary service is part of our national life. We see it also in the St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross. We in Parliament have a duty to provide positive incentives so that suitable recruits will volunteer for service in all ways, and particularly for the special constables.
The changes in the law and regulations that will secure those objectives are essential. In future, we shall need increasing numbers of special constables who are prepared to take more responsibility, become more involved in crime prevention, and be fully accountable to the public. I hope that we shall thereby slow down or reverse the growth of vigilantes, Guardian Angels and less reputable security firms. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in his Adjournment debate last October.
Total annual spending on the police at the moment is £4·5 billion, but on special constables it is less than £1 million. The Bill is intended to put in place the necessary powers to increase the numbers, improve the quality and enhance the effectiveness of specials. All that is needed is the political will. After all, the history of special constables can be traced right back to the voluntary peace officers established by the Statute of Winchester in 1285. By allowing me to introduce the Bill, the House will demonstrate strong support for special constables in every part of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick Thompson, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Christopher Hawkins, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr Roger King, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. James Pawsey Mr. David Porter, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. Neil Thorne, and Mr. Peter Viggers.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES
Mr. Patrick Thompson accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the conditions of service of special constables; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 123.]
Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [19 March].
  WAYS AND MEANS

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

    (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

    (b) for refunding any amount of tax, otherwise than by virtue of goods or services supplied to one person being treated for the purposes of section 14(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 as supplied to another person;

    (c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

    (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

    Question again proposed.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
[Relevant document: European Community document No. 4433/91 on the Annual Economic Report 1990–91.]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call Mr. Secretary Lilley, I should say that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate on the last day of the Budget debate. [Interruption.] They have indicated their wish to participate. That being so, I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.
3.43 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a Budget for enterprise. It is a Budget which has rightly been welcomed by businesses throughout the country.
The president of the CBI has hailed it as
"a budget for soundly based recovery, for savings and for investment."
He went on:
"The Chancellor has listened to those who create the nation's wealth".
The president of the British Chambers of Commerce said that the Chancellor
"really listened to everything we had to say. Chambers are delighted at the practical measures of support to help business during a difficult time. This was the Budget for business we needed."
Even The Guardian applauded the Chancellor's
"cascade of measures to help industry big and small".
I welcome the Budget because the Chancellor targeted his measures to help small firms, to ease cash flow pressures on those hardest hit by the recession, and to strengthen the incentive to invest. Small firms will benefit particularly from the halving of the wait for bad debt relief, from the dramatic increase in the small firms profit limit, and from the 38 per cent. increase in VAT thresholds. I particularly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's forceful advocacy in finally persuading the
614
European Commission to permit that increase. It will take 150,000 firms out of VAT entirely, relieving them of the compliance burden as well as the cost of the tax.
It is always particularly difficult to use the tax system to ease the position of companies which may be making no profits this year and so paying no tax. I applaud my right hon. Friend's ingenuity in finding ways of doing that: 700,000 businesses will be allowed to pay their employee's PAYE quarterly, thus enabling them to keep the cash longer; firms will be able to carry back losses against profits in any of the past three years; and the corporation tax rate on last year's profits has been reduced retrospectively.
The objective of all our industrial reforms over the past 12 years has been to make Britain the most attractive place in Europe for industry to invest in. Even before the Budget, we had achieved that.
Mr. James Wallace: Many of the measures introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are advantageous to business. However, does the Secretary of State accept that, if we add up the benefit to businesses as a result of the various tax changes announced in the Budget, that is still not as much as the additional £1·6 billion that will be taken by local authorities in the forthcoming year in respect of non-domestic rates as a result of the 10·9 per cent. increase in the uniform business rate announced for the next financial year?
Mr. Lilley: The purpose of introducing the business rate and the assurance it gives was to guarantee that the business rate would not rise unpredictably and capriciously in Labour-held areas, but by an amount governed by the rate of inflation.
The clearest proof that we have provided the environment that makes Britain the most attractive area for investment in Europe is the fact that Britain is now the No. 1 choice for inward investment. We attract over four times as much investment from Japan as France does and more than six times as much Japanese investment as Germany. Forty per cent. of all American investment into the Common Market comes into Britain, and German companies put more of their foreign investment into Britain than into any other EC country. Those inward investments are not bribed by discriminatory subsidies; they come here because our overall business environment is attractive.
Moreover, not a single grant or scheme is made available to inward investors that is not just as readily available to indigenous firms. Everything that makes Britain an attractive place for foreign companies to invest in also makes it an attractive place for British companies to invest in.
The Opposition, and some of our competitors, believe that the best way to attract inward investment is by outbidding each other with subsidies, nursing firms with quangos, and offering special tax reliefs. A recent study by Strathclyde university shows that they are mistaken. The majority of foreign investors studied were not interested in higher subsidies. They were not looking for quangos. They were not even looking for cheap loans.
The most important single factor was lower taxation. A major reason that the United Kingdom has been such an attractive place to invest is that the tax burden on companies here is significantly lower than in our main

615
competitors. The sum of corporate and payroll taxes was 17·2 per cent. of national income in France, 10·5 per cent. in Germany—but only 8·9 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Our lead will be even greater as a result of this Budget.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Despite a 11 the measures that the Secretary of State has publicised today, and despite all his boasts about inward investment, why is investment this year to fall by 9·75 per cent.?
Mr. Lilley: Investment is about 75 per cent. up on the bottom of the recession. It is slowing this year, and that is not surprising, because it usually does so in recessions. However, the hon. Gentleman always ignores the rise in investment that has already taken place.
Mr. Brown rose——
Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman is not content with a 75 per cent. increase, nothing will make him content.
We can now claim the lowest rate of corporation tax, not just in Europe, but lower than the United States or any other major industrial country.
Mr. Brown: Will the Secretary of State simply explain why, if the record he is describing is so successful, business investment is to fall by 9·75 per cent. this year?
Mr. Lilley: I have just explained that business investment is falling from a record level in a short-term recession. The hon. Gentleman is obsessively short-termist; I shall return to that.
It is instructive to compare the Chancellor's Budget with the taxation changes that the Labour party proposed before the Budget. The Labour party offered nothing targeted to help small firms, to help cash flows or to reduce tax rates. Instead, it offered a proliferation of tax distortions. Some were vague—for example, an enhanced allowance for certain categories of plant and machinery. Unfortunately, nothing about that proposal was certain. The Labour party did not specify which categories of plant and machinery would benefit, who would decide which would benefit, by how much or for how long.
Other proposals are unworkable, for example that
"genuinely innovative investments will be eligible for up to 100 per cent. write off''.
Just imagine if the Inland Revenue had to determine for each and every investment—£100 billion-worth every year—which were "genuinely innovative" and which were not. It would be a nightmare. Far from encouraging investment, it would cause huge delays and damaging uncertainty to industry. Other proposals are demonstrably ineffective.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does the Secretary of State recall that, for about eight years, plant and machinery were defined clearly, and that the system worked without any particular disadvantage to the Inland Revenue, which allocated capital allowances based on that definition?
Mr. Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but the Labour party's proposal was that certain categories of plant and machinery should be given different reliefs from others, without defining which those certain categories were. I noticed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) had to lean across to the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer to find out.
Mr. Gordon Brown: When?
Mr. Lilley: Just when I was making the point. Far from encouraging investment, the Labour party's proposal would cause huge delays and damaging uncertainty.
Almost every published study of tax credits for research and development shows that the costs far exceed the benefits, usually by a multiple of between two and five. Moreover, the apparent benefits often seem to be largely illusory.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although there are many excellent measures in the Budget and that we on the Conservative Benches are not concerned with the Opposition, who are likely to remain in opposition for some years to come, this should be the last Budget in which the motor industry is singled out to be clobbered? At present, £1·5 billion of extra taxation is levied from one of our greatest employers. If we believe in Rolls-Royce, Jaguar, Bentley and Range Rover, is it not time that we stopped clobbering the motor industry at every turn? Without it, a great deal of engineering would disappear. Let this be the last Budget in which we clobber the motor industry above all other industries.
Mr. Lilley: I do not accept that a tax on personal benefits in kind constitutes clobbering an industry. It is only right that people should pay tax on the benefits in kind that they receive.
The Labour party proposed a tax credit for research and development, but ignored the evidence that it has been ineffective in other countries where it has been applied, that the costs exceed the benefits, often fivefold, and that the benefits are often thought to be illusory, as all that happens is that accountants reclassify expenditures as research and development in order to gain the tax break.
If we had accepted the Labour party's pre-Budget proposals, we would have given accountants a field day. We would have made the life of the production manager more complex and less certain. Labour's Budget proposals would have produced a Budget for creative accountancy. By contrast, our approach of cutting tax rates and pruning reliefs reduces the reward and scope for accounting ingenuity. It also increases the incentive for profitable investment. That is why, following our tax reforms in 1984, the amount of business investment has increased by 50 per cent. Even more important, the quality of investment has improved as well.
All too often, it used to be the finance director who made the investment decisions, simply to reduce the tax charge. Now it is the production engineer and the marketing director who make the decisions, on genuine business grounds. I believe that it would be the height of folly to reverse the 1984 changes, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took them further by again cutting tax rates and reducing reliefs.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has just said, is the Secretary of State aware that there has just been an announcement that 1,800 more workers at Lucas Industries Ltd. will lose their jobs? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one characteristic of the Government's past 12 years in office has been that there are more and more building societies and estate agencies littered along every high street, but the factories

617
that used to be located behind them and which used to employ our workers in every town and city in Britain have now been closed? Does the Secretary of State accept that our manufacturing economy has been almost wiped out by the Government, and that the casino economy has flourished?
Mr. Lilley: Manufacturing output fell under the previous Labour Government, but it has risen under this Government. We still have not heard from the Opposition what priority they will attach to inflation; nor have we heard any credible strategy from them for defeating inflation.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has recently been talking about "credit management"—his latest euphemism for credit controls—as an alternative to high interest rates. He and his hon. Friends continue to peddle the notion that other countries in Europe somehow keep interest rates down by intervening in credit markets. The fact is, they do exactly the opposite. The special deposits and reserve ratios imposed by central banks are not designed to reduce interest rates; they are to keep commercial bank interest rates above the central bank discount rate.
I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to name a single European country which uses credit controls to ration credit and keep interest rates below the market clearing level. He does not respond, because he cannot respond.
On this side of the House, we do not pretend that there is any soft option to curb inflation; nor do we deny the pain which high interest rates and weak demand cause. But as a nation we have two great failings: we tend to take a short-term view, and we tend to focus on gloom. Now we can indulge both failings simultaneously, and many people are wallowing in short-term gloom. As I said earlier, nobody is more obsessively short-termist or more indulgently gloomy than the hon. Member for Dumfermline, East. I am sure that we shall soon hear him say that the end is nigh.
But we ought to take a long-term view, both about the changes over the last decade and about the prospects for this decade. Then we would see a big difference between this recession and that of the early 1980s. Demand now is certainly weak, but industry is strong.
In the last recession, demand was weak and industry was weak too—crippled by five years of Labour Government, by 10 years of inflation and by a generation of excessive union power.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall carry on.
In a recent study by Investors in Industry, 80 per cent. of the firms interviewed said that industry was better able to cope with recession now than in the early 1980s, and they are right. Industry has been transformed over the last decade. During the 1980s, manufacturing productivity increased by 58 per cent.—faster than in any other major country, including Japan. Manufactured exports rose by 60 per cent. in volume. The seemingly inexorable decline in our share of world trade since the war came to an end in the early 1980s, since when our share has held its own.
618
That is all the more remarkable, given that, over the last 10 years, Italy, France, Germany, the United States and even Japan have all lost some of their share of world trade to the newly industrialised countries. But we have maintained our share over that period.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: This weekend, I talked to an industrialist in my constituency who drew my attention to a factor which may have escaped the Secretary of State. He said that he recalled that, in every Budget statement since 1979, when the Government were originally elected—12 years ago—the Chancellor of the day had committed himself to defeating and reducing inflation. He could not understand why, after all these years, the Government had not succeeded. He asked me to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why the Government were planning for a 5 per cent. reduction in manufacturing output this year. He could not understand how the Government could plan for a recession.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should have been able to tell him that the inflationary problem from which we are suffering dates back to the measures taken after the collapse of the world stock market in October 1987. At that time, the Labour party urged us to take even more inflationary action. If we had followed its advice, the problems that we face, and the downturn, would have been much more serious. I hope that the hon. Gentleman told his friend that.
The key to competitiveness is quality. Total quality management was an idea born in America, developed in Japan, but now adopted by Britain, which is in the vanguard of implementation in Europe. The British standard for total quality management has, over the past decade, effectively become the European and international standard. Already, some 12,000 British companies have gained certification for quality, compared with just 200 in France and a negligible number so far in Germany. Our lead on this front will give our companies a vital edge in the years to come, amusing though the shadow Chancellor and his colleagues may find quality.
Although the Opposition make great play of the predicted short-term fall in investment this year, they ignore the strong growth in investment to record levels in recent years. On last Monday's "Panorama" programme, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East claimed that our current problems arose because, since the last recession, the Government had failed to ensure that
"any consumer demand increase be accompanied and preceded by industrial investment".
He could not be more wrong. Between 1981 and 1989, investment grew almost twice as fast as consumer spending. That is a marked contrast with the recovery from the 1975 recession under Labour, when consumption grew almost twice as fast as investment. That has been completely reversed this time around.
The improved performance of the British economy over the decade has been the result of a series of reforms, but three key elements have been competition, privatisation, and wider share ownership. Nowhere is the contrast between our policies and those of the Opposition more clearly highlighted than in the Chancellor's decision to sell off more British Telecom shares. We believe in privatisation. Labour is committed to renationalising British Telecom, not to mention the water industry and the national grid. Our programme of privatisation is being

619
copied around the world. By contrast, the Labour party is the only major party east or west of the old iron curtain which still plans to extend state ownership.
We believe in spreading share ownership more widely and more deeply. Hence my right hon. Friend's plans to encourage high street share shops and to introduce other imaginative methods of spreading share ownership more widely and deeply when he sells more of BT. By contrast, Labour would threaten the value of the investments of 1·2 million people, many of them employees, by taking control of BT and requiring it to make £20 billion-worth of uncommercial investment in cable.
Mr. Gordon Brown: When was that statement made?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman said it in his last but one policy document. The phrase used was:
"We shall require British Telecom to make investments."
Mr. Brown rose——
Mr. Lilley: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw or deny that?
Mr. Brown rose——
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Lilley: I shall set the timing of my own speech, and I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he proposes to respond to the point that I made.
Mr. Brown: The Secretary of State did not give way. Mr. Lilley: I am about to give way now.
Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman point to the quotation in which I say that £20 billion of public money will be used for cabling Britain?
Mr. Lilley: The costing was done by ACOST. The Labour party has not costed its own pledge. It has said that it would require British Telecom to make those decisions and investments.
We on this side believe in greater competition. It is bringing cheaper calls, more choice, and better services in telecommunications. The Labour party could do little but sneer at competition when I announced on 5 March the end of the telecommunications duopoly.
I am very pleased with the interest that has already been expressed in obtaining new licences, so I am today publishing guidance notes for firms wishing to enter the market. We said that the consumer would benefit from lower prices. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that there will be a rolling programme of price reductions by British Telecom over the coming months.
On 2 April, the price of local and trunk telephone calls will fall by 4·5 per cent. and 7·3 per cent. respectively. On 10 June, British Telecom expects to reduce the cost of all international calls by 10 per cent. On 1 August, a new, tighter price cap will be imposed on British Telecom's charges, and they will fall by 6·25 per cent. in real terms. As the rate of inflation falls over the coming months, I expect that British Telecom's charges will fall not only in real terms, but in absolute terms as well. That is excellent news for the consumer.
I said that customers would benefit from increased choice. I can now announce two major steps to achieve that—one will liberalise satellite communications, putting us at the forefront in Europe; and the other will enable companies to install their own telecommunication
620
networks. Both schemes will be in place by July. I believe that both will be welcomed by industry, especially by the major companies, including the many that are coming to this country because we now have the most liberal regime for telecommunications.
When we last debated industrial policy, we did not have the benefit of Labour's long-heralded policy document "Modern Manufacturing Strength". The Labour party clearly did not feel that it would stand up to close examination, so it postponed publication until after a debate of its own calling. When it finally was published, all it contained was the same old policies repackaged and relaunched for the umpteenth time. I suppose we should not have been surprised—the one guarantee which we can be sure will be attached to the hon. Gentleman's policies is "Never knowingly under-launched".
The old familiars were all there. There was, as before; the same old mistrust of the market; the same old infatuation with state ownership, with the commitment to renationalise BT reaffirmed; and the same old reliance on quangos, subsidies and tax distortions.
The Independent newspaper—which is scarcely a friend of the Tory party—described the document as
"carefully crafted though philosophically confused-drafted to appeal to those worthies who enjoy sitting on joint working parties."
It concluded that the Labour party's
"understanding of the proper relationship between government and the market remains intellectually muddled."
Mr. George Foulkes: As we are discussing this year's Budget rather than next year's, can the Secretary of State please tell me precisely what measures in this year's Budget are designed to help the hard-pressed knitwear, textile and clothing industries, which form the bulk of employment in my constituency?
Mr. Lilley: I believe that all the measures that my right hon. Friend announced—especially those that I enumerated at the beginning of my speech—will benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Mr. Foulkes rose——
Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman seriously believes that we should have a different tax regime for each industry, he should first tackle those on his own Front Bench, who do not appear to have such a policy.
The Economist was equally devastating about the Labour party's policy document:
"Sceptics still searching for firm evidence of a real anti-inflation policy … will find, when they scratch the shiny new industrial policy, that it is corporatism updated and resprayed".
Nor were industrialists any more impressed, despite the Labour party's efforts to woo them. John Banham, the director of the Confederation of British Industry said:
"There remains, apparently a touching faith that the 'man in Whitehall knows best', and it is difficult to see how the proposals will be financed without levies on industry or raising personal taxes".
Quangos, subsidies, tax distortions—that is Labour's relaunched policy in a nutshell. It did not impress the newspapers; it did not impress British industry, and I am sure that it will not impress ordinary British people.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Would the Minister care to comment on the remarks by the boss of Rowntree Mackintosh, who says that the rise in VAT will affect jobs?

621
The boss of Cross Lee near my constituency says exactly the same, and all the employers in the clothing industry think that the move will damage jobs.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady should realise that the change is neutral. It is a switch of £4·25 billion of taxation from one tax to another, and it leaves the amount of money in people's pockets exactly the same.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Lilley: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Labour party has recently been trying to present itself as the friend of industry. Its Front-Bench spokesmen have been out visiting industrial companies. One suspects that this is the first time that many of them have met industrialists outside their own constituencies, because as far as I can discover, despite the size of the Front-Bench team, not one of its members has ever worked in industrial management.
To demonstrate its love of industry, the Labour party has selected seven industrial virgins, unsullied by any experience of industrial management. There are two former lecturers, a trade union official, a welfare rights officer, a television producer and a psychiatrist. Those are the people, apparently, who are going to pick winners, intervene, take industries back into state ownership and lay down an industrial strategy. When Caligula made his horse a consul, the people of Rome knew what he thought of them. I am pretty sure that British industry knows what the Labour party think of it now that Labour proposes to put it under the control of a group of lecturers, psychiatrists and television producers.
I do not know whether hon. Members saw the recent party political broadcast by the Labour party. In many ways, it was quite a professional effort. It showed pictures of those on the Front Bench, interspersed with pictures of industrial processes and products. But it was wonderfully revealing. It showed how out of touch and out of date the Labour party really is. Almost every process and product shown was at least 20 years old, and nearly every one had piled up huge losses.
Far from living up to the title of its recent policy document, "Modern Manufacturing Strength", the Labour party showed us that it believes in traditional manufacturing weakness. We saw men in cloth caps hammering in rivets by hand, the Flying Scotsman chuffing through the night and seaplanes floating at anchor. That was the best that the Labour party could do to describe modern British industry. It was a history lecturer's view of our industrial past, because Labour has nothing to offer our industrial future.
By contrast, this year's Budget is a Budget for our present problems and our future opportunities. It is the Budget of a Government with faith in the future of our industry, not nostalgia for the past. It is a Budget for the small businesses of today, which will be the bigger businesses of tomorrow. It will lay the foundations of our economic recovery and the basis of a fourth election victory.
4.13 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: Since the "Budget for business" last Tuesday, 14,000 redundancies have been announced. Jobs have gone in Scotland, the north, the midlands and the south. They have gone in textiles, electronics, the retail trade and services. They have gone in every industry, service and occupation and, as I think Conservative Members will realise, they have gone in almost every constituency, too.
Companies are not going bankrupt because of bad management, indisciplined work forces or resistance to change, but because interest rates have been held too high for too long. In the face of the crisis confronting industry, the response of the Secretary of State today seems trivial, complacent and inadequate—a speech from a member of a Government who have failed.
Since the Budget, at least 300 companies have gone under, yet the Red Book admits—even if the Secretary of State refuses to do so—that, far from the recession drawing to a close, 1991 as a whole will see national income fall by 2 per cent.; manufacturing output by 5 per cent. and investment by almost 10 per cent. Unemployment will continue its inexorable rise beyond 2 million people. That shameful combination of events is not happening anywhere else in western Europe and it is rivalled in Britain by one post-war event only, the previous Tory recession.
I ask the Secretary of State to name any Chancellor facing a Budget in another country in western Europe where industrial output, investment, employment and exports are simultaneously falling by the same scale level. Can he name another country where the response would be a Budget that confirms a cut in the industry and training budgets?
Not once in the Secretary of State's speech did he mention the unemployed, the huge skill shortages that bedevil British industry—even in period of rapidly rising unemployment—or the sheer size and scale of the huge interest rate Bill that faces British industry, which is set at £20 billion this year, even after the 0·5 per cent cut. Yet we are told that we had a Budget for business. We were told that we had a Budget for business in 1979, and unemployment kept on rising. We were told that we had a Budget for business in 1980, but unemployment kept rising. Now we have another Budget for business, and I have news for the Secretary of State—as a result, unemployment will keep on rising. What is different about this Budget for business, except that it takes it for granted that thousands will go out of business?
As this Budget proves, there is one longer-running fiasco than the chaos over the poll tax of the past four years—the absence of a policy for industry throughout the 12 years of the Government. The tragedy is that, in this recession, growth is not giving way to slump on the road to the permanent elimination of inflation; growth has given way to recession on the road to the permanent elimination of much of our industrial capacity.
Our argument is clear: this Budget will do next to nothing for the unemployed; it will do little for training and, despite the corporation tax changes that we shall support, it will fail to prevent rising bankruptcies in industry. More than that, however, the Budget reveals that the Government now know that their flagship policies of the 1980s have failed and that they have no flagship policies for the 1990s to put in their place. That is revealed

623
not just in the Budget's attitude to industry, but by what has happened on the poll tax, the public sector deficit and social policy provision. They have no new flagship policies for the 1990s, other than to deal with the consequences of the policies that have failed.
What is the Government's response on the poll tax, on industry and on everything else? The first is to panic, then to dither, then to make a decision—any decision—as long as they think it will help to hold together the divided factions of the Conservative party. A brainstorming session here—it did not last long—a weekend retreat there, and, when the situation is more serious, a Monday morning retreat at Chequers. The Government have been in retreat because they are in retreat. Clearly the Prime Minister and his Ministers felt it safer to go off to the country and to talk to each other when they should have gone to the country to listen to the people.
What of the victims of the recession? Since the previous Budget, unemployment has risen by 60,000 in the north, 54,000 in the midlands and 173,000 men and women in the south and south-east. We have the fastest-rising unemployment in Europe—a 400,000 rise in a year—which is greater than that for the rest of western Europe combined.
What is the response of the Budget and of Ministers to the rising unemployment that they have created? That high unemployment, along with declining investment, should have led to a real Budget for business. Have the Government responded as they should have with the temporary work programme that Labour recommended in its Budget submission? Did they respond with a new skills programme for Britain, which we have advocated, so that Britain is ready with trained men and women to come out of the recession? Did they respond by following Labour's recommendation for a full 1 per cent. cut in interest rates? Did they respond with the manufacturing investment programme that we proposed? Did they respond, as common sense should have dictated, by reversing the £245 million cut in the training budget in the year in which we are supposedly beginning a training revolution and the £300 million cut in the industry budget, which will have an effect this year?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): The hon. Gentleman makes much of comparisons between this country's training budget and those of other countries. Will he explain the figures used in the shadow Chancellor's Budget broadcast? Is he aware that they appear to have been based on a survey commissioned by the EC from a variety of individual national bodies with no common supervision and no common definitions of skilled and unskilled? The results purported to show that the low-skilled countries had more skills than the high-skilled countries. Does the hon. Gentleman think that a survey that purports to show that Greece has a more skilled work force than Germany is accurate?
Mr. Brown: Is the Chancellor telling us that he can visit industries and companies and find that we are spending sufficient on training, investment and skills? Is he really telling us that skill shortages do not exist? We have not spent enough on training.
Mr. Lamont: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question? How can he maintain that those statistics which were broadcast to millions of people are remotely accurate? They are not.
Mr. Brown: My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor was referring to a European Community survey on training. His point is proved by surveys by not only the European Community but the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. If people have any doubts about the training crisis that this country faces, they need not read Labour party or Trades Union Congress documents; they need only read the report published by the CBI a few months ago which said that £800 million more had to be spent on training and which drew attention to the training crisis which has developed as a result of the Government's policies. What are the Government doing?
Mr. Robert Hayward: The hon. Gentleman referred to possible expenditure of £800 million more on training. Is he committing the Labour party to spending that sum immediately in the first year of Government?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my remarks. I said that the CBI drew attention to the fact that £800 million more had to be spent. If the hon. Gentleman had read the report, he would know that the CBI said that industry had to spend £800 million more. If the hon. Gentleman had been here on the first day of the Budget debate, he would have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor draw attention to our training and skill proposals—the temporary employment scheme and the skills programme which add up to additional public expenditure of £900 million. We are committed to that.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about industry possibly paying more, but he talked about additional expenditure by a Labour Government. Will that money be spent at once or will it be spent as resources allow? If the hon. Gentleman does not know the answer, perhaps he will again have a word with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who said that the money would be spent as resources allowed.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is a former Minister with responsibility in these matters. If he reads our Budget submission, as the Chancellor undoubtedly has, he will see that we are committed to investing more in training and skills.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the money be spent immediately or as resources allow? We are talking not about what industry will spend but about the Labour party's proposals. For the third time, will that money be spent at once or as resources allow?
Mr. Brown: My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor made it clear in a press conference held during the first debate on the Budget that Labour would have entered into that commitment if it had introduced the Budget last week. No one believes that the £25 million put towards training—not this year but next year—by the Government in the Budget is in any way adequate to deal with the skills crisis that this country faces.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman does not know the answer.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that I do not know the answer. I have made it clear that this is a commitment by the Labour party to invest in training and skills.
Mr. Nicholls rose——
Mr. Brown: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman gets so excited when I speak in the House. I have made clear the Labour party's commitment to investment in training and skills. That commitment is welcomed not just by people in the Labour party but by people throughout the country.
People find it astonishing not just that the Government have failed to act on training and skills, but that their main contribution over the past few months towards dealing with the problems of the unemployed has been to provide not jobs for the jobless but billboards for advertisements about the jobless. No one can have failed to notice the huge poster campaign ordered by the Government and directed at the unemployed. The posters contain slogans such as:
"I can work, I will work, I am going to work, I will get a job."
That campaign was commissioned from an advertising agency. There is not much in it for the jobless, but a great deal for Saatchi and Saatchi.
The hidden message of all those advertisements is dishonourable. It suggests that all that stands between the unemployed and a job is the determination to find one. Firms are going out of business not because the commitment, flexibility and competence of workers or management are too low but because interest rates are too high. What do Ministers intend to tell their constituents who have been made redundant because of high interest rates? Those people have been made redundant through no fault of their own and they include shop workers, small business men and business women, the self-employed, engineers and building workers. Will Ministers tell them that it is due to their personal failure that they are unemployed, as though attaching to the unemployed the blame that should be attached to the Government?
Is it not disgraceful to stigmatise the unemployed as uncertain, irresolute, incompetent and, as the advertisements suggest, dithering? It is not the unemployed but the Government who are guilty of those moral failings. The people at whom the advertisements are directed believed the Government when they said at the beginning of the 1980s that they would bring about an economic transformation. Those people made sacrifices for the Government and they were told to believe that an economic miracle had resulted. Now they find that the Government who made them unemployed are implying that somehow the unemployed are to blame. It is not the unemployed who have let down the Government, it is the Government who have let down the unemployed.
The British Textile Confederation predicts job losses of 25,000 this year. That is 500 a week. The Engineering Employers Federation says that 100,000 jobs will be lost, and that is 2,000 a week. The Building Employers Confederation predicts job losses of nearly 100,000 this year. Let us look at predictions, which even the Chancellor must accept, for our industrial future. Growth is rising by over 2 per cent. in France and Italy and by 3 per cent. in Germany, but in Britain it is falling by 2 per cent.
626
Manufacturing output is rising by nearly 1 per cent. in Italy, 2·5 per cent. in Spain and 4 per cent. in Germany, but it is falling by 5 per cent. in Britain.
The Budget simply assumes that, having entered the downturn first in Europe, we will not be the first to leave it but almost certainly the last. On Tuesday, the Chancellor told us that this was all part of the ordinary economic cycle and that it was inevitable in a market economy. In other economies, the economic cycle means higher growth giving way to lower growth on the road to higher growth again. In Britain under the Tories, the economic cycle is growth giving way to slump on the road to a permanent loss of industrial capacity.
I shall give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the real position of British industry after 12 years of this Government. He said that we should look at the record as a whole. The real position is that, when the Budget predictions for 1991 are taken into account, manufacturing output in Britain will have grown over the past twelve and a half years slower than any country in the EEC, any of the G7 countries or any of the 20 top countries in the OECD. We will be at the bottom of the manufacturing league.
In 12 years manufacturing output in France has risen by 50 per cent. It has risen by 66 per cent. in Germany and by almost 150 per cent. in Belgium, but in Britain by the end of this year the figure for output will be only 6 per cent. In those 12 years we have had North sea oil and Government promises of miracles. We are entitled now to judge the Government not on their promises but on their performance. They have put Britain at the bottom of the manufacturing growth league, so what credibility do Ministers have left? They received warnings throughout the 1980s, including the House of Lords report in 1985, and subsequently received further warnings even from their own advisers.
What is the Secretary of State's explanation for the Government's neglect? Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman referred to his "Panorama" interview, when he was asked what had gone wrong with manufacturing industry since the House of Lords' famous report. He was asked why the Government had failed to act and ignored the warning signals. Did he stand up for the principles of the free market? Did he show resolution and say that industry must stand on its own feet? Did he defend the record of the two Chancellors of the Exchequer whom he so loyally served, including the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)? Did the Secretary of State continue to fly the colours of the previous Prime Minister and to protect her reputation? When asked the vital question of whether, in the mid- 1980s, the Government had taken manufacturing industry seriously enough—yes or no—the Secretary of State paused, hesitated, dare I say dithered, and replied, "Maybe not."
The right hon. Gentleman went on to qualify that assertion with an astonishing excuse. He said:
"I certainly wasn't a Minister. I was a bag carrier at the time."
So much for collective responsibility. So much for ideological resolution. In other words, "It wasn't me. I was a bag carrier at the time." They were all bag carriers at the time.
Why did not the right hon. Gentleman defend his free market philosophy and say that his No Turning Back group philosophy was the best way forward? Why did he not assert that problems are far better solved by industry

627
itself without Government intervention? Was it because the right hon. Gentleman is trapped, as are the other members of the Government, between the ideology in which they still believe and the knowledge that it has failed?
The reaction today of all Ministers faced with problems in respect of industry, the poll tax, or anything else, is to say anything, as long as they think that they can sell it to all the factions of a divided Conservative party. What credibility do any of them have now? They said that manufacturing industry was merely an obsession with the Labour party and that the trade deficit was of little consequence.
The same Ministers basked briefly in the glory of the 1988 Budget, when they said that Britain was top of the league of manufacturing industry growth in terms of competitiveness, and that the supply side of the economy had been transformed. They claimed that the Government had revitalised the economy and had restored national pride and that no policy for industry was needed.
What credibility do the Government have left when they try to tell us now that manufacturing matters, that the trade deficit is important after all, and that there should be a policy for industry? The right hon. Gentleman may have been carrying the bags in 1985, but his failures since then mean that he must now carry the can.
Only a few days ago the House of Lords Select Committee on manufacturing industry reported that our share of world markets in manufacturing is too small; the implications for our future prosperity are grave; if market forces alone are to determine the course of events, it is conceivable that we will end up with no significant British-owned manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom; and that the Government must abandon their neglect of manufacturing industry. Confronted by the fact that manufacturing growth is falling this year by 5 per cent., investment in manufacturing industry is set to fall, and overall business investment is set to fall by 9·75 per cent., and given the fact that, with 1992 in view, investment in France is increasing by 4 per cent., in Germany by 5 per cent., and in Italy by 4 per cent.—but is falling in Britain by 9·75 per cent.——
Mr. Lamont: A few minutes ago, in giving figures for industrial production, the hon. Gentleman gave the impression, within the hearing of everyone in the House, that industrial production is growing everywhere in Europe except in this country. Leaving aside the fact that industrial production in the United States and Canada has also fallen compared with one year ago, will the hon. Gentleman explain why industrial production in France and Italy is lower than it was a year ago?
Mr. Brown: I have the figures produced by the OECD. The economic outlook produced in December 1990 shows industrial production in Italy rising by 0·6 per cent. in 1991 and that is a fact. It is also rising in France. [Interruption.] I am not prepared to take the Chancellor's word for it, when the figures that he produces continually turn out to be inaccurate.
Mr. Lamont: Will the hon. Gentleman table a written question and accept my word?
Mr. Brown: I shall be happy to table a written question to the Chancellor, but the right hon. Gentleman will agree
628
that I should go on the information produced by the OECD and by the EC and that it is quite fair for me to listen to them in advance of listening to the Chancellor.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose——
Mr. Giles Radice: If the Chancellor looked at his own Red Book, which he was not very good at quoting from in his Budget speech, he would find this:
"In France and Italy growth in 1991 is expected to be around l½ per cent.".
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Not only is that figure recorded in the Red Book, but I have the OECD forecasts for France and Italy in 1991. I am afraid that I prefer to listen to the EC and the OECD on these matters than to listen to this Chancellor.
What is the Government's response to what the House of Lords said about manufacturing industry? What is their response to the recommendations made by the House of Lords which are similar to the policy proposals that the Labour party has published over the past few months?
Although the House of Lords Select Committee recommended that support for industrial research and development should be increased, and although the Minister responsible says that he is in sympathy with that, supply estimates for the past few years show that, in 1989–90, support for industrial research and development was planned at £152 million, in 1990–91 it was planned at £125 million and now it is planned at only £104 million for the coming year. Equally, when the House of Lords Select Committee says that it wants more support for research and development in small companies, and when Ministers say that with the new spur scheme they are doing far more than ever before, what do the Government's own spending estimates reveal other than that they planned to spend £24 million last year, they plan to spend £12·8 million this year and they plan to spend only £12 million next year?
When the Secretary of State and the Select Committee are agreed on the need for regional technology organisations to be expanded, when the House of Lords wants development agencies for England to be considered—something that the Labour party has long advocated—and when the report says that the activities of the development agencies in Scotland and Wales should be taken as a model for exploiting more effectively the technological and industrial potential of other areas of the United Kingdom, what does the Secretary of State do? He does nothing but cut regional and general industrial support from a planned £309 million last year to a planned £250 million this year to only £157 million for next year—a cut of almost 40 per cent. over two years.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: I have given way quite enough.
When the House of Lords calls for new support for innovation, for genuine programmes which are not simply for the sake of gaining political kudos and for a new initiative and demands tax credits for additional research, corporation tax allowances for new investments and what the Labour party has been asking for in its recent document, "Modern Manufacturing Strength", what is the Government's reaction? They propose to cut the industry budget for the coming year by £245 million. They have even cut the consulting initiative in science and technology by 10 per cent. and cut regional innovation grants. The

629
Chancellor's reaction to the House of Lords report on manufacturing industry is to cut support in all those areas—to cut the industry budget as a whole.
One of the few things for which the Budget shows support is bureaucracy and administration in the Exchequer. The Government have no industrial policy worth the name. Their policy is simply to cut and cut. The Labour party stands for industrial opportunity for Britain, whereas the Conservative party stands only for opportunism in the run-up to the next general election.
The centrepiece of the Chancellor's Budget strategy was the retreat from the poll tax via the new surcharge on VAT. That is the sad consequence of the flagship policy, which, unfortunately, not only poisons local government finance but contaminates the whole of public finance. The poll tax has swallowed £175 million in start-up costs, £500 million in additional running costs and £300 million in rebate administration. It will cost £65 million to sort out the chaos of this year's bills. In other words, the first £1 billion will have gone simply on administration of the tax, with not one additional service provided—not one home help, teacher or policeman to show for the first £1 billion. The industry budget has been cut by £350 million, and the training budget has been reduced by £245 million—all to cover up the first £1 billion-worth of the Government's poll tax mistakes.
There are four contradictions at the heart of the Budget. First, Ministers tell us that they will reduce household bills by cutting the poll tax; in fact, the VAT increase—the poll tax surcharge—added to other tax increases, will push household bills up. Secondly, Ministers tell us that the poll tax will be abolished at the earliest opportunity; in fact, it is being kept for two more years, and the Government are determined, even then, to retain a central part of it. Thirdly, the Government tell us that they are helping business; far from stemming the tide of business bankruptcies, the Budget is based on the assumption that more bankruptcies are on the way. The most cruel deception of all is the Government's contention that they are creating a classless society. How will the creation of a classless society be helped when, in their first 100 days in office, the Government have made more than 100,000 men and women unemployed? How can they claim to be encouraging opportunity for all when, for 2 million unemployed people, opportunity does not exist?
The Government now know that the poll tax is wrong, but they have no clear policy to put local government finance right. They now know that they have got training policy wrong, but their ideology prevents them from implementing a programme to put it right. They now know that neglect of industry is wrong, but their crude free market ideology prevents them from adopting any policy that would help.
Trapped between the ideology that they alone support and the fact that the country is now rejecting them, what do they do? When Labour demands a child benefit rise of £2·30 for all children, the Government dispense to most children 25p—the price of a pint of milk. When Labour demands fairness for pensioners 52 weeks of the year—as we did earlier this year—the Government grudgingly give heating allowances, for two weeks only, to those who are lucky. When Labour demands a policy for training in industry, the Government offer a fraction of what is
630
needed, because they have no concept of what could be gained. When Labour demands properly funded, high-quality public services, we get yet more promises. It happened again at the weekend. We have had 12 years of promises.
What will the public remember about the present Government? They will remember them as the Government who brought the chaos of the poll tax; pushed thousands of people into unemployment, and hundreds of thousands more into poverty; made high unemployment, along with high interest rates, the main instrument of economic policy; and, by their neglect of industry over the period of North sea oil revenues, dissipated a unique opportunity to prepare Britain for the 1990s.
What Britain needed was a Budget that would not only take us out of recession but prepare the whole country for the long-term challenges that we face. The Government have given us, instead, a short-term Budget—at best, short-term palliatives from a Government dominated by short-termism and, thank goodness, with only a short term to go.
4.44 pm
Mr. Nigel Lawson: We have just heard from the hon. Member for Dumfermline, East (Mr. Brown) a speech bearing a very close resemblance to other speeches that he has made in this House. Fortunately, as I do not attend frequently nowadays, I am not obliged to hear many of them. The mixture is very well known. The phrases bear the smell of midnight oil, but the hon. Gentleman's figures are made up as he goes along, and collapse as soon as they are challenged. I will give the hon. Gentleman a word of friendly advice. If he were to spend only half as much time checking his figures as he spends polishing his phrases, his speeches might improve.
The other characteristic of the hon. Gentleman's speech was a characteristic of many speeches before he was on the Opposition Front Bench—perhaps before he was even a Member of this House. I refer to the period of the last recession—1980 and 1981. At that time, the Opposition not only pointed out that the country was in recession— something that was well known, and that the Government made no effort to hide—but implied that the recession would go on for ever. As the House and the country now know, that recession was relatively short-lived, and was followed by the most vigorous and longest period of expansion that this country has known in recent years. The same will happen again.
Once more, the hon. Member for Dumfermline, East has tried to suggest that a recession, which will not be so severe as the last one—he himself has said so—will go on for ever. It will not go on for ever, and it is important to demonstrate that fact. It can be demonstrated only by deeds rather than words and, I would add to my right hon. Friends on the Government front bench, it seems to me that that is not wholly ungermane to the timing of the next general election.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Budget. It is not merely because of the very kind words he addressed to me at the beginning of his speech, for which I thank him, that I say that it is a very good Budget.
In the Budget debate last year, I argued the case for early entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system—initially within the wider

631
band. Happily, that took place. It seems that I may have more influence as a Back Bencher than I did as Chancellor of the Exchequer. This now provides the framework for the Government's economic policy. But the Chancellor of the day still has to exercise, within that framework, a Budget judgment. To my mind, my right hon. Friend has got the judgment right—a neutral Budget, allowing the economic stabilisers full play, but with no nonsense about some discretionary, counter-cyclical fiscal policy. And this is all in the context of a commitment to a balanced budget over the economic cycle as a whole, which is absolutely right.
Mr. John Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman, from the Back 13enches, is claiming credit for this country's entry into the ERM. Why did he fail so dismally to persuade his former Cabinet colleagues to go back to the old rating system, which he regarded as so desirable?
Mr. Lawson: All will be revealed when I publish my memoirs.
If I have a concern about the overall fiscal aggregates, it lies not on the tax side but on the public expenditure side. In 1979, we inherited a desperately weak fiscal position. Over the years since then, we have made our fiscal position one of the strongest in the world. We have had a public sector surplus for a number of years. This was not solely, or even chiefly, a cyclical phenomenon. One has only to look at other countries, some of which also had a period of vigorous growth in the 1980s. None of them has achieved the strong fiscal position that we have secured. It was not the result of cyclical movements.
It stemmed in part from tax reform—the switch from high rates of tax, which in many instances were effectively voluntary, to lower rates of tax which companies and individuals had to pay. It stemmed even more from the firm control of public expenditure. Over the whole of the six years from 1983–84 to 1989–90, general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, rose by a total of 4 per cent. That was an extremely small increase. Over the next three years, however—only half of the period to which I have just referred—from 1989–90 to 1992–93, general Government expenditure is planned, according to the Red Book, to rise by 5 per cent. It is planned to rise by more over the next three years than over the whole of the six years to 1989–90. And as we all know, public expenditure has a tendency to outrun what is planned for it. I have quoted what was achieved compared with what is now planned.
Again, table 1.2 in the Red Book shows that about two thirds of the deterioration in this year's public sector borrowing requirement, compared with what was envisaged at the time of the Budget, is due to a public expenditure overrun, even though public expenditure is less affected—it is affected to some extent—by the economic cycle than are tax revenues.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely firm in his resolve to maintain control of public expenditure. It is vital, however, that he enjoys the support of the entire Cabinet, and especially that of the Prime Minister.
As for the economy as a whole, inflation is clearly coming down. That is thanks to the so-called one-club policy of high interest rates, which was so derided in some quarters. I share my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's
632
view that the recession will end and that the economy will start to pick up again later this year. As I said earlier, the recession, although difficult and unpleasant, will prove to be less severe in terms of loss of output than the recession of a decade ago.
I shall not detain the House by going through all the individual measures in the Budget, most of which I applaud. I shall, however, mention one or two things that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not do. First, he did not abolish a tax. I rather regret that. It was a good tradition to abolish a tax in every Budget. I realise, of course, that my right hon. Friend was constrained by the Budget arithmetic. I would, however, gently draw his attention to petroleum revenue tax, of which I have many memories as a former Secretary of State for Energy. Petroleum revenue tax is one of the most complicated and extraordinary taxes on the statute book. An entire division of the Inland Revenue—the oil taxation office—is almost wholly dedicated to looking after it. The Red Book tells us that the expected yield for the coming year is precisely zero. It is a tax that my right hon. Friend could possibly do away with without distorting his Budget judgment.
I realise that there are always those—my right hon. Friend's officials and, even more so, officials in the Department of Energy—who say, "You never know, there might be a sudden explosion of oil prices in future, and then the tax will come into its own again." We have heard predictions of an explosion of oil prices for a long time. For example, in the first debate on the Gulf, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) gave the most extraordinary Cassandra-like warnings. Included among them was the prediction that the price of oil would be $100 a barrel should there be a Gulf war. The price now is about $18 a barrel. An explosion in the price of oil is about as credible as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. As I have said, PRT is a tax that could be dispensed with.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not yield to the clamour to bring back 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances or other forms of special allowances for business and industry. Instead, he chose to reduce corporation tax. He was absolutely right to do that, and I commend him for it. He has avoided the distortions that would otherwise have been incurred, and the reduction in corporation tax will attract overseas investment into this country far more effectively than anything else.
It is important always to bear in mind—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make this point in his Budget speech but I know that he did not want to make the speech too long, and I thought that it was just about the right length—the difference between the main corporation tax rate and the basic rate of income tax. That really determines the incentive for debt finance of industry as against equity finance. Ideally there should be no distortion at all—the rates should be the same.
One of the reasons why I reduced the rate of corporation tax from 52 per cent. to 35 per cent.—it was not the main reason—was that corporation tax of 52 per cent. was offsettable against the cost of loan capital or borrowing, whereas only a 30 per cent. deduction was allowed under the imputation system for dividends. That meant that the incentive to engage in debt finance was very strong. It was and is desirable to narrow the gap as much as possible, and I narrowed it substantially. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recalled, the

633
gap then widened somewhat as a result of reductions in the basic rate of income tax. It is right that he should be narrowing it again.
Mr. Sheldon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a distortion in the corporation tax capital allowances? Only 25 per cent. is given in tax allowances in the first year. Many items of plant and machinery are worth less than 75 per cent. after the first year. That is the distortion, and capital allowances should be changed to accommodate it.
Mr. Lawson: It was the 100 per cent. first-year write-off which was the distortion. The 25 per cent. reducing balance is close to actual commercial depreciation for the vast majority of capital equipment. It is true that there are some items of capital equipment that depreciate more rapidly and I therefore introduced a special provision in the 1985 Finance Act to take account of short-life assets. The right hon. Gentleman should be reassured that this has already been catered for.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not yield to the clamour in some quarters for personal allowances to be increased by more than statutory indexation. Indeed, in some respects he did less than that, because he did not increase some allowances at all. My right hon. Friend was right to resist the clamour. The maxim that almost everyone should pay, although not decisive in all contexts, is relevant to income tax. My right hon. Friend is right to place emphasis—when the time comes for reductions in the burden of income tax—on a reduction in the basic rate. I was glad to hear that.
The concept that everyone should pay brings me to the measure which inevitably dominated this year's Budget, and that is the massive switch from local taxation in the shape of the community charge to an extra 2½ per cent. on value added tax. As a result, the yield of local tax—that is to say, the community charge—will fall from 20 per cent. of local authority revenues in the year that has now ended to an estimated 11 per cent. in the year which lies ahead of us. In itself, and judged apart from the background and the context, I believe that it was a retrograde step. If it was politically inescapable, it is yet further evidence of the damage that the poll tax has wrought.
In so far as an ideal system of local government finance exists in this wicked world, it would concentrate on bringing to an end the two muddles that have bedevilled local authority finance for as long as I can recall. The first of the two muddles is presented by the two tiers of local government so that no one is clear about which tier is responsible for which part of the single Bill received by local taxpayers. The second muddle is the confusion between local government and central Government responsibilities.
Mr. Michael Foot: We are all fascinated by this part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Why, as he felt so strongly about the poll tax, did he not resign over that issue rather than over the much less important issue that he gave as his reason for resigning?
Mr. Lawson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has held high office in his time and I suspect that he did not
634
agree with all his party's policies, but I do not recall him resigning. At least it cannot be said that I was not prepared to give up my office when I felt it necessary to do so.
If those two muddles could be resolved, we would come as close to accountability as possible. If a single tier of local authority wholly financed the services for which it was responsible, and if central Government financed 100 per cent. of those services for which they are responsible, we would at last achieve clarity and the possibility of more accountability. To achieve that, the Government of the day would have to transfer responsibility for certain functions from local to central Government. I believe that there is a strong case for so doing.
Whereas such a solution was thinkable before the Budget, I fear it is unthinkable now. I say that with some regret. Now that local authorities are to raise only 11 per cent. of their total revenues from local taxation—that is the forecast—it is no longer possible. The figure of 11 per cent. comes from table 6.7 of the Red Book and is clearly correct. The community charge rebates must be deducted to arrive at the true figure of what is being raised by local authority taxation. It is inconceivable that local government responsibilities should be shrunk to that extent.
We must dispose of the misconception that local taxation was carrying too large a share of the burden. That is manifestly absurd, as a moment's reflection will demonstrate. Local taxpayers and central Government taxpayers are the same people. The issue is the nature of the tax. For example, if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided to reduce the community charge by £140 a head and switch that amount to a central tax in the shape of a new poll tax levied nationally at £140 a head, would everyone have thrown their hats in the air and said, "What a tremendous improvement"? The problem has nothing to do with the balance, but everything to do with the nature of the tax.
Incidentally, there is no truth in the suggestion that, the Government were somehow mean with grants when the community charge was first introduced. The community charge was first introduced in England and Wales in 1990 and the increase in the total central Government grant to local authorities for that year was an unprecedented £2·6 billion—far in excess of the rate of inflation.
It is the nature of the poll tax that makes it unable to bear that burden. Although many people disliked rates, rates could bear such a burden. I recall the Government's Green Paper, published in December 1981, entitled "Alternatives to Domestic Rates", which came to the conclusion that there was no satisfactory alternative to domestic rates. That Green Paper was published and we did not do so badly in the 1983 general election. We continued with the rating system from 1983 to 1987 and did not do so badly in the 1987 general election either. Although we made a pledge in 1987 to go over to the community charge, if anyone believes that that was why we won the election with a large majority, they were not canvassing the same houses and visiting the same factories as I was.
Mr. John Townend: Was not the reason why we did not suffer badly the fact that we did not have a revaluation for 17 years? When there was a revaluation in Scotland, we were nearly annihilated.
Mr. Lawson: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that issue because, although it is an absurdity, it is believed by many people besides my hon. Friend, who understandably picks up things that he hears other people say. I do not blame my hon. Friend. The Scottish revaluation was a disaster because it was implemented overnight, from one year to the next. Even the 1983 revaluation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) will recall, was phased in over a period. Everyone knows that any revaluation must be phased in gradually over a considerable period. If the change is made overnight, it is a total disaster. But it is quite unnecessary to do so, and no sensible Government would implement a revaluation in England and Wales on that basis.
Mr. Tim Raison: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lawson: Much as I should like to hear what my hon. Friend has to say, I do not wish to take up too much time. Perhaps he will tell me afterwards.
Mr. Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lawson: If I give way to anyone, it will be to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who asked first.
Clearly, we could not go into the next general election with the poll tax. Any new tax must always be broadly acceptable to the majority of British people. Whatever arguments may be adduced, the poll tax was not broadly acceptable to the British people. There was no way in which it could be sustained in a democracy. That was both predictable and predicted.
Where do we go from here? There is to be a new tax —part property tax, part poll tax. Even the Opposition are intelligent enough to discern that the question now is, which part will predominate? Let us suppose that the basic charge is calculated for a household with three adults and that discounts are applied. For example, if there are two adults there will be a discount and if there is only one adult there will be a double discount. If that is the plan, everything depends on the size of the discount. If the discount is large, the poll tax will reappear and we shall have son of poll tax. It would be absurd to go through such an upheaval merely to change from poll tax to son of poll tax, so the discount must be small.
There should also be—to use the jargon—minimum equalisation. By that I mean that the basis for valuation should be the local area and not, to take the other extreme, the nation as a whole. Those who live in districts where property values are particularly high should not be penalised for so doing. In each district, the relativities should take the strain. Those who live in relatively more expensive houses in one district would pay more and those who live in relatively lower-valued houses would pay less. That would have been the right answer before the switch in my right hon. Friend's Budget, but now, as a result of that switch, there are public expenditure dangers, as well as political difficulties, inherent in the sort of local taxation now envisaged.
One phenomenon that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned in his Budget speech—it started during the latter period of the Labour party's term of office, so it is a non-partisan point—was that the total grant to local authorities became a steadily smaller percentage of the total money received by local authorities.
636
That happened under both Governments, for precisely the same reason. If one is determined to control public expenditure, no other outcome is possible.
Local authorities will always want to spend more—Labour authorities certainly do and many Conservative-controlled authorities also want to. If one then gives local authorities a grant to finance, for example, 50 per cent. of a reasonable level of expenditure, they always spend more, so the grant becomes less than 50 per cent. If one says the next year, "We shall validate that and give them 50 per cent. again," it simply encourages local authorities to spend ever more, so there is no control of public expenditure.
That is why we had the inevitable process, which started in 1976 when the then Secretary of State for the Environment in the Labour Government said that the party was over and, for the first time, a serious attempt was made to control local authority spending, of a progression of local authority rates taking a higher proportion, and grants to local authorities taking a steadily lower proportion, of total local revenues.
Why has there been such a welcome among local authority spokesmen for the reduction in the amount that they will have to finance themselves? They see it as a wonderful way of starting all over again and overspending all over again. I realise that the Government hope that they can restrain all that by capping. But capping, although essential, is far from perfect. If the Government try to put too great a strain on capping, it will not work.
Another reason for the difficulty is the gearing effect. If local revenues are such a small proportion of total revenues—they are down to 11 per cent. according to the Government's Red Book figures—it means that, if a local authority decides that it will spend 10 per cent. more than the Government think is justifiable and right, local taxes, which are only 11 per cent., will have to rise by 90 per cent. The consequences of that do not need to be spelt out, because they are so clear. Therefore, capping will be asked to bear too great a burden.
As a result of the switch introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor I am driven to the conclusion first drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor went as far as he did in cutting the amount of revenue that local authorities raise, the Government must now—unless they reverse the policy, and I am sure that they will not do that—go the whole hog and abolish local authority taxation altogether. There is a precedent for that. As hon. Members will recall, when the last Labour Government advanced their proposals for a Scottish Assembly, it was not given any tax-raising powers whatever. I can say with the boldness of one who is not standing at the next general election that a Scottish Assembly would have been even more important than the Blaby district council, and what is good enough for a Scottish Assembly must be good enough for local authorities in England and Wales.
Such a scheme might be financed by changing the zero rate of VAT to 5 per cent. If that is not enough, one year's non-indexation of personal allowances, on top of the zero to 5 per cent. VAT, would achieve the result. There would be great benefit and value in doing that. At present, there is a serious distortion. When Lord Barber introduced the two-rate VAT, the two rates were 10 per cent. and zero; so, although there was a distortion, the gap was only 10 per cent. That has now been widened to 17·5 per cent., which is far too much and economically highly undesirable.

637
Therefore, something closer to the original pattern of the tax, with the same sort of incidence, could be restored by putting the zero rate up to 5 per cent., giving 5 per cent. and 17·5 per cent., so that the gap would be only slightly greater than it was when the tax was introduced.
I am encouraged in my view because the Government appear to be engaged in yet another consultative process, and that is my contribution to it. However, I have to say that the Government are in danger of giving consultation a bad name. Consultation as an aid to government has an important place, but we are now in danger of seeing consultation as a substitute for government. In relation to the shape of local government, the principle of single-tier authorities should be a firm Government decision, with consultation on the way in which it can best and most sensibly be implemented. However, consultation on the nature of the new local tax is nothing less than an infallible recipe for maximising dissent.
I noted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor wisely did not enter into consultation about his switch from the community charge to 17·5 per cent. VAT. I congratulate him on how well the secret was kept—he would not have dreamed of entering into consultations. During my six years as Chancellor, I introduced a far-reaching programme of tax reform. If I had put the process out for consultation, it would have been impossible to enact a single reform.
I think that it was Pierre Mendes France who said that to govern was to choose. I agree with that. To appear to be unable to choose is to appear to be unable to govern.
5.18 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: We have heard some of the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on local government taxation, but the Government's problems with it relate to here and now. They cannot wait for local government reform, which will take at least a year or two, unless they introduce further emergency legislation such as we will be debating tomorrow, which they will presumably pass, so flying in the face of reasonable ways of doing business here.
Under the old rating system, there were people who were losers. By introducing the poll tax, the Government converted a number of those losers to gainers. As a result of further discussions and consultations, they are now about to change the new gainers to losers. So losers have become gainers and then losers again. The Government have a political dilemma here.
Whenever the right hon. Member for Blaby speaks, a soft glow of nostalgia comes over us, and his period of office seems almost pleasant by comparison with what we are going through at present.
The right hon. Member for Blaby talked about the control of public expenditure. He has lost that battle. If the Government are to be a caring Government, they can do so only by spending money. However, there is a dilemma for them. They are still talking about reducing income tax to 20p in the pound. The one thing that they cannot do is spend money in the caring part of their programme and reduce taxation to 20p in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman clearly has it in mind to forgo the first option.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about inflation coming down. We must remember that the core rate—the
638
rate about which the Government used to make a great deal—is not coming down anything like as fast. Sam Brittan pointed out today something that I had overlooked—that is, that last year's Red Book presented a graph of the core rate. The Government have now left out the core rate, because they know that it is the headline rate that will catch the popular imagination and, they hope, the support of the people at the next election.
On the medium-term financial strategy this year, page 9, paragraph 2.08, of the Red Book states:
"Like all the other larger countries within the ERM, the Government will continue to set a monetary target, and to take account of a range of other indicators of domestic monetary conditions. This approach helps to ensure that the ERM as a whole has a firm nominal anchor."
That is a reminder of the monetarist doctrine that we used to hear. The 1980–81 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" once said of inflation:
"It is to provide a firm basis for those expectations that the Government has announced its firm commitment to a progressive reducction in money supply growth."
The certainties of M3, as a result of the Red Book, are in effect laid to rest.
The Government say that it is the exchange rate that really matters. Of course we all know that, but if monetary targets are overrun, would that actually lead to a change of policy of any kind? If monetary targets are overrun by several per cent. or undershot by several per cent., will it lead to any change? Of course it will not. That is what exposes the nonsense of the monetarist position.
The economy is now run by the position of exchange rates in the ERM. Interest rates are determined, and the level of demand is a critical factor. Again, paragraph 207 on page 9 of the Red Book states:
"Membership of the ERM sets a new framework for monetary policy. Interest rate decisions must now be set consistently with keeping sterling within its announced bands … Interest rate convergence will follow inflation convergence. Both are likely to take time to achieve."
Interest rate convergence will not follow inflation convergence for some years.
The position in France is interesting. There, a level of inflation over several years has still not justified a level of interest rates comparable with those of Germany. Why is that? One can have a low level of inflation and still not have interest rates becoming alike. That is largely because France is still suspect, and the attitudes of investors have a long time lapse. The position is likely to remain the same with us. Convergence in interest rates is a long way ahead, and convergence in living standards is even further away.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I should have thought that memory of several devaluations gave rise to suspicion about the French currency. Thank goodness this country will not experience that under the new linkage system.
Mr. Sheldon: It is not the future that determines actions, but the past. We may have future hopes and expectations, but it is the past that matters. That is what has bedevilled France, and the same applies here. Because policy is once again being driven by our exchange rate, our economic management is now back to that of the early 1960s. We are back to old familiar territory. That is what we used to have when the old exchange rate determined so much of governmental economic policy.
I am not against fixed exchange rates; I am only against immutable exchange rates. The trouble with variable exchange rates is the uncertainty they offer to international

639
trade. We have seen fluctuations of 10 per cent. in some important currencies in a matter of weeks. Profits can be turned into losses. Allied Lyons lost £150 million as a result of currency fluctuations.
Hedging in the forward markets offers only limited security. It is far better every few years to have a substantial devaluation than to the 10 per cent. movement that we have seen in the dollar over the past few weeks. At any rate, for very long periods, the security of knowing what the exchange rate is can play a part in foreign trade.
When foreign trade was conducted by letters of credit with a fixed time for delivery and fixed and certain conditions, it was a secure way of trading. One could hedge in the forward markets. Now foreign trade shares many of the characteristics of internal trade within this country. Deliveries can be held up because of trading conditions, cancellations can result, and hedging in those conditions becomes very doubtful. I prefer fixed rates. If necessary, we could adjust them every few years. That would offer more stable conditions than we have in the present method of operation. Economic management has returned to exchange rates rather than the monetary nonsense which provided a foolish interlude.
It is likely that demand management will once again come into its own. We cannot have demand management without being able to use fiscal means of achieving it. We must control it in some way By itself, interest is hopelessly inadequate—it is not enough. We need to be able to use several other means, and the obvious one is fiscal adjustments.
We used to have the purchase tax regulator, which was a marvellous instrument for being able to adjust demand management. We now have rather more cumbersome VAT changes, which always cause some concern. We have income tax and other taxes with which we can deal.
The financial memorandum of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill, which we shall debate tomorrow, states that the cost of delaying the announcement of the change in the poll tax is £60 million. That is to pay town halls for the nonsensical way in which they produced all their bills only to put them in the shredder. That money was squandered because people wasted their time preparing and sending out bills for no purpose. It is the equivalent of Keynes's paying people to dig holes and fill them up again. I wish that other sectors of the economy had to resort to that.
We well understand that it is rare for a Minister to be selected by any Government for his or her administrative competence let alone for any ability in such matters, but it must have been obvious to everyone that every week that went by was a week in which expenditures were incurred and would prove to be wasted. While discussions were going on, bills were being prepared, to be thrown into the shredder. It is disgraceful that concern did not extend to people who were making decisions. We as taxpayers will pay for the administrative incompetence of the operation. Sixty million pounds—many people say that it is rnuch more—would buy some hospitals, schools and other useful matters. What we are getting is frustration and waste paper. A great burden of responsibility falls on those who failed to take those matters into account.
Of course many Government expenditures are wasted. That is something with which we are all familiar. Fortunately, it is much rarer in our country for Governments to know that expenditures are being clocked
640
up like a taxi cab meter—visible to all—while the Government make up their mind which course to take. A proper and contrite apology is needed.
The sleight of hand which reduced the poll tax, increased VAT. The Government are relying on the fact that VAT is less disliked than the poll tax. However, we can draw another conclusion—that VAT increases are more acceptable than the rundown of our transport systems, our schools and the health service. If that is so, the well publicised trade-off between taxation and expenditure does not have the relevance that the Government thought it had. Services have had to be cut to dangerously low levels in relation to what should be provided. Suddenly, an extra £5 billion has been made available, not for our transport systems, hospitals or schools and colleges, but to save the Government's face.
Years ago, we used to talk about people in eastern countries having to avoid saving face. However, the Government are more guilty than those eastern countries. The Government have been led into a blind alley by the persistence of a dominating personality in the previous Administration, and they are having to reconcile that with the present realities.
The Government will not find the solution. I do not agree with the solution suggested by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). The Government are going to have to try to fool the electorate, and I believe that they will be unsuccessful.
5.30 pm
Mr. John Townend: I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that he was going to present a Budget for business. I have always taken an interest in business and have particularly supported small businesses. No Government have done as much for small businesses as this Government over the past 10 years. Before 1979, small businesses were being squeezed by taxation and bureaucracy and we had one of the smallest small business sectors in Europe. Over the past 10 years, there has been an explosion of enterprise and initiative. It is clear from my rural, seaside constituency exactly what has been happening.
Of course small businesses are feeling the effects of the recession. That is why we particularly welcome the help that has been given to businesses, particularly with regard to helping cash flows. We also welcome the reductions in corporation tax and the raising of the level by a quarter, below which companies pay the 25 per cent. lower rate. The halving of the waiting period before firms can receive relief from bad debts is most acceptable; in particular, I am pleased that 700,000 small employers will now be able to pay their PAYE and national insurance contributions quarterly.
By persuading the European Community to allow us to raise the VAT threshold to £35,000, the Chancellor has achieved a success which previous Chancellors failed to achieve. A former Treasury Minister in the previous Labour Government told me last Friday that he had tried to persuade the EEC on that matter, and he was most complimentary about the Chancellor's success.
However, we must not become carried away. Those improvements are only costing the Exchequer in the first year some £630 million. Against that, we must offset the cost of NIC on company cars and benefits, which will bring in £550 million. I was a little disappointed that, in a

641
Budget that was supposed to be for business, the Chancellor, in what I can only consider to be a petty act, decided to tax car telephones, and particularly fixed phones.
I have a business, and I do not give car phones to my representatives as a perk. I give them phones to make them more efficient. Car phones are like computers: they are part of the machinery and equipment that one needs in order to be more efficient. We always talk about our industry becoming more efficient. If the Chancellor is worried about portable phones disturbing his dinners in restaurants, perhaps he could compromise and at least exempt phones that are fitted to cars. I am sure that many executives and representatives do not like the fact that their bosses can reach them on a Sunday afternoon.
I was disappointed that the Chancellor did not go a little further to help the cash flow of really small businesses by accepting the proposal by small business organisations to allow the first £5,000 or £10,000 of retained profits in a business to be tax-free. That would have helped new small businesses and their cash flows.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), I thought that the overall Budget judgment was correct. Basically, it was neutral from a tax point of view, but there has been a slackening of the fiscal stance. There has been a move from a small Budget surplus this year to a deficit next year. That is to allow the automatic regulators to work. The deficit will help to allow the economy to recover from recession later this year.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was right to resist the temptation, particularly as we are moving towards a general election, of tax giveaways so that he could send a message to the markets that his first priority was to conquer inflation. More than anything else, business needs a reduction in interest rates. Clearly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been successful in that regard. There has already been another 0.5 per cent. reduction, and I look forward to another 0.5 per cent. reduction within the next two weeks. However, we are really looking for interest rates to come down to 10 or 11 per cent. in the next two or three months.
It is only when one studies future years in the Red Book that one understands that fundamental changes have occurred in the Government's economic priorities. Only two years ago, the Government were forecasting a Budget surplus and proudly pronouncing that they were systematically paying off the national debt. It was forecast two years ago that, for the three years beginning 1990–91, there would be Budget surpluses amounting to £19 billion. This year's Red Book forecasts a Budget deficit for the same three years of just under £20 billion. That represents a turnround of about £39 billion.
I cannot believe that that enormous change is due simply to the recession and falling revenues. It is partly due to a failure to keep tight control on spending, particularly spending by local authorities, by the health service and by many other Departments. In two successive autumn statements, Government expenditure plans have been raised substantially. Unless we prevent that happening again and rigorously control public expenditure, we will have higher deficits in 1992–93 and 1993–94 than are forecast now in the Red Book, and we will not have a Budget surplus in the foreseeable future.
642
A rising national debt will be a clear sign of fundamental change in policy between this Administration and its predecessor headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I clarify what the hon. Gentleman has just said? Is he advising his constituents that he wants to see cuts in moneys to public services involving cuts in education, and in provision to the elderly and to the national health service? Is he saying that less money should be spent by the taxpayer on those very important services?
Mr. Townend: With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to be obsessed with cuts. I am suggesting what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby suggested. The increase in spending should not rise as quickly as it was rising before. It has been accelerating—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Townend: I am trying to respond to the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to intervene again, I will give way to him.
I believe in a balanced Budget. Obviously, if we believe in Budget deficits, there will be more money to spend in the short term, but in the long term when interest, must be paid on the Budget deficits, less money will be available.
I must say—when I say this, I will probably be in the minority in the House, although not among my constituents—that it sticks in the throat that the Government, with a growing Budget deficit, are giving away £1·5 billion a year in overseas aid, which is contributing not only to the Budget deficit but to our balance of payments deficit as well.
The way in which the Chancellor committed himself to increased child benefit in future years gave me little confidence in the Government's determination to take tough decisions to keep spending down. All my experience of Government forecasting under all Governments in recent years leads me to believe that it will be a miracle if we have a balanced Budget by 1994–95.
If the Government are to have any chance of keeping to their spending targets, they will have to be far more successful than in the past in keeping public sector wage settlements down. The Government are always telling the private sector, "We must get our wage settlements down to the level of our EEC partners." Indeed, in his speech the Chancellor said:
"and come down they must, eventually, to the levels prevailing in other ERM countries. There is no escape route through devaluation, and firms know this." —[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 166]
I hope that the Government accept that. Would it be too much to ask the Government this year to set an example to the private sector in public sector settlements?
Another fundamental change in the Red Book is that, for the first time, there is no item under the heading "Fiscal Adjustments", which, as we all know, is another description for tax cuts. We had fiscal adjustments of £1 billion, £2 billion and £3 billion for the three years from 1990–91. I welcome the Government's aim to reduce the standard rate to 20p, which the Chancellor reiterated, but I cannot see any prospect of that in the next five years. Certainly the tone of the speeches of our new party

643
chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), makes me believe that increasing spending and benefits will be a greater priority than lowering taxes.
The main change in the Budget is the 2·5 per cent. increase in value added tax to fund the £140 per person reduction in the community charge. I welcome that, because it goes some way towards what I see as the only long-term solution to the problems of financing local government. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby on this.
The problem has dogged the Government since 1979. Although the Government have had considerable success in reducing Government expenditure in general and reducing the proportion of spending as a percentage of GDP, they have failed to control local authority expenditure similarly. About 10 Bills have been passed, changing the rate support grant, capping rates and introducing the community charge. Despite all that, spending has risen relentlessly, and the burden on the public has continued to increase. Labour councils have led the way, but, to be fair, many Conservative councils are not without blame.
Therefore, I have concluded that, with some no table exceptions, local authorities have failed the public in providing cost-effective and efficient services. Over wide areas, they have been profligate, overmanned and inefficient.
I speak as one who, for a considerable time, served in local government, including a spell as chairman of the finance committee of the old county borough of Hull and, subsequently, as leader of Humberside county council, where I managed to prevent rate increases being above the rate of inflation. What was significant in all that time was that never once did a chief officer come to me and say, "Mr. Leader" or "Mr. Chairman, I have found a way of doing the job cheaper, of reducing my budget or of reducing my staff." The only long-term solution is to remove major powers of taxation altogether from local government.
Local government should be responsible for providing services, making choices and fixing priorities within a budget provided by central Government. I differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby in that I believe that 50 per cent. of the funding should come from VAT and 50 per cent. from income tax. It should be allocated on a simple per capita basis, unlike present Government grants, which are distributed according to dozens of different criteria which no one understands and most authorities claim are unfair.
I accept that, in the early years, additional block grants will have to be made to high-spending, inner-city authorities, but those grants can be phased out while authorities adjust their expenditure to the norm. Within that total, local government would have flexibility. However, so that authorities cannot wreck vital services and start sacking teachers and policemen every February because they run out of money, I would hand over the police, education and the fire service to central Government.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I, too, have been a long time in local government, but I have come to a different conclusion. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that 50 per cent. of local authority funding should come from VAT and 50 per cent. from income tax. I
644
presume, therefore, that he intends no local contribution and none from the business rate. Does he advocate an increase in income tax?
Mr. Townend: Obviously, if one abolished the community charge and did not replace it with some other form of local taxation, and if one decided to fund local government expenditure from national taxation, one would increase income tax, just as VAT is to increase.
There are significant advantages in my proposal. First, it is simple and, secondly, it is economic. It would save £750 million a year, which is the cost of collecting the community charge. There will be a similar cost if we have a property tax. Moreover, my tax would be collectable and people would pay according to their earnings and expenditure.
I am afraid that, by going only halfway, the Government will have the worst of both worlds. They will continue to have many of the major problems of the community charge system, and the tax will be expensive to collect. If we have a property tax, whether based on capital values or rental values, it will have to be updated frequently, and revaluations will be expensive. Property is not an accurate measure of people's ability to pay. Whatever property tax we dream up, much of the unpopularity and unfairness of rates will apply. We shall have no more control over local government spending than we have now.
The Secretary of State for the Environment seems to believe in the myth that local government is popular, so we cannot remove its powers of taxation. If Ministers consider the experience gained at their surgeries, they will agree that local government is unpopular. People think that it spends too much. Eighty per cent. of my constituents come to my surgery when they should go to see a councillor, but do not know which one to see or even the councillor's name. The Secretary of State's proposals are consultative. I strongly urge the Government to consider the many advantages of going the whole way and solving the problem of local authority spending once and for all.
5.48 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: As a kindly man, I begin by seeking to protect the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). A few moments ago, when the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the former Chancellor who is just leaving the Chamber, suggested that the hon. Gentleman was an idiot and an ignoramus, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was being uncharacteristically offensive. I have long since learnt in this Chamber that in economics the truth is in inverse proportion to what the right hon. Gentleman says. Therefore, any lingering doubts about this being a bad Budget immediately disappeared when the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a good Budget.
In the 19th century, the Conservative party was called the stupid party and to judge from the response of hon. Members to the Budget last Tuesday, it still is. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us—the figures are in table 3.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" —that in 1991 domestic demand would fall by 2·75 per cent., fixed investment by 9·75 per cent., GDP by 2 per cent. and manufacturing output by 5 per cent. At that, Conservative Members waved their Order Papers and

645
cheered and cheered and cheered. Do Conservative Members really care so little for their country that they now gloat at catastrophe?
I suspect that the Budget of 1991 will be known as the "red Budget"—red for deficits, red for bankruptcies and red for the danger that it brings to the economy. In truly miraculous fashion, the Chancellor has put the British economy into the red, not only on our balance of payments account in the depth of a recession, but also back into the red on our income and expenditure account. When the Chancellor told us that he intended to move from public sector debt repayment to a public sector borrowing requirement of £8 billion this year and £12 billion next year—the true figures may be double that —it was miraculous to behold that he showed no sense of shame, guilt or contrition and no feelings of betrayal. Clearly, moving from virtue to vice causes no problems for our Chancellor.
But what of the true Tory worshippers, such as the hon. Member for Bridlington? What of the hon. Members who froze with disbelief as the Chancellor stripped aside the ideology of the Conservative party piece by piece and idea by idea? For the hon. Member for Bridlington, the members of the Bruges group and the Conservative Way Forward group, the questions are all too obvious. Whatever happened to the Thatcherite concept of thrift and the notion that a nation should not live beyond its means? Whatever made the Chancellor cast aside the concepts of fiscal integrity, fiduciary probity and financial rectitude? Where now is the concept of the balanced Budget that was resurrected in the 1980s from ancient times and placed on a pedestal by previous Chancellors as the essence of modern Toryism? How can the hon. Members who are now sniggering on the Conservative Back Benches and who told us in the great Tory slump of the early 1980s, "You can't spend your way out of recession," now tell us that that is precisely what they intend to do in the great Tory slump of the early 1990s?
I wonder whether there has ever been a politican to match our slippery Chancellor who, since being elected to the House, has slid easily from being a convinced Keynesian, to a convinced monetarist, to a convinced neo-monetarist, to now being a convinced neo-Keynesian. It is a bit like the Chancellor first assuring us that he believes in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and then telling us that he also believes in Judaism, Buddhism and Islam. I dare say that I am being naive—
Mr. Irvine Patnick: Yes.
Mr. Sedgemore: I hear a word of assent from the Treasury Bench.
Perhaps at my age I should not be surprised that a Chancellor who has climbed the greasy pole of politics by expressing absolute devotion to all the policies of the former former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who then expressed absolute devotion to all the policies of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and who now expresses absolute devotion to all the policies of the current Prime Minister, should be feckless, feeble and fickle over the economy.
646
On one level and in this regard, the Chancellor reminds me of George Borrow, a man for whom expediency was to be preferred to principle, and who wrote:
"I am invariably of the politics of people at whose table I sit, or beneath whose roof I sleep".
On another level, and in respect of the Chancellor's disregard for economic principle and personal loyalty, he reminds me of that creature in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" who was described as a spotted snake with double tongue. Indeed, this morning's edition of The Independent reported:
"A Cabinet minister close to the Prime Minister said that Mr. Major had to proceed carefully to avoid 'grisly old figures rising up from the snake-pit and biting him'."
The Budget will certainly have bitterly disappointed those Conservative Members who had hoped that it might enable the Conservative party to match Labour as the party of low taxation—[ Laughter.] I deliberately paused for the laughter, because this Budget leaves the Conservative party indelibly, if unenviably, the party of high taxation. That point is made not by me or by some Socialist academic in a polytechnic, but most eloquently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in table 2A.2 of the Financial Statement.
I refer the two Conservative Members who sniggered in their ignorance to that table, which is headed "Non-North Sea taxes, social security contributions and the community charge as a per cent. of non-North Sea money GDP". I am sure that they know what that means. The table shows that in 1978–79 under Labour total taxes were 34·75 per cent. of GDP. However, it then shows those two ignorant sniggering Conservative Members that, in this tax year, total taxes will be significantly higher at 37·75 per cent. of GDP.
But it is even worse than that, because the table then shows that, under the Conservatives, total taxation will be significantly higher than under Labour in 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. Those Conservative Members who are laughing and sniggering can learn from that that it is planned by this Government that taxation should be higher under the Conservatives than under Labour into eternity and, it seems, even beyond—
Mr. Roger King: That is the essence of our taxation policies. We have been trying at great length to persuade the Labour party to agree that when the level of taxation on our population and the rate of income tax are reduced, more income is raised because the entrepreneurs and the enterprise society have been freed. That is the essence of our political beliefs.
Mr. Sedgemore: I knew that it was dangerous to give way to the hon. Gentleman and that he did not understand what I was saying. I was not talking about total taxation as a global figure, but about taxation as a proportion of GDP. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The reason the Government are spending so much money on public expenditure is the massive recession and the massive amounts of money that they are having to spend on social security benefits, including benefits for the unemployed who now number more than 2 million and who, according to most of the projections of serious City economists, will have increased by the end of the year to 3 million. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes away, picks up a copy of the Red Book and spends his weekend or the Easter holiday

647
reading it so that he will return better informed. If that does not help, I will give him some elementary economics lessons.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): While undertaking that study, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remind himself that the public sector borrowing requirement for 1978–79 was 5 per cent. of GDP and that, if we were running such an irresponsible policy now, it would be nearly £40 billion.
Mr. Sedgemore: I do not want to go into the theology of the public sector borrowing requirement, but the hon. Gentleman would do well to be careful about whether there is a direct correlation between the public sector borrowing requirement and economic growth. If the hon. Gentleman studies the current figures for Germany, he will find that the public sector borrowing requirement there is roughly 5 per cent. of GDP and that economic growth is also approximately 5 per cent. What is wrong with economic growth in Germay with a public sector borrowing requirement of 5 per cent. of GDP and with economic growth of 5 per cent.?
Mr. Robert Hayward rose——
Mr. Sedgemore: I shall not give way, because I must get on. Mr. Speaker has intimated that we must push along a bit.
The Budget will also disappoint those Conservative Members who had hoped to see unemployment falling and manufacturing industry growing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has said, one reason why that will not happen is the lack of investment allowances and the paucity of tax incentives to achieve that end. However, another reason is that the Government and the country are still suffering from the serious mistakes that the Government made by entering the exchange rate mechanism at too high a parity. They did that because they used purchasing power parity theory rather than fundamental equilibrium exchange rate theory. The time has come for the Government to move to the narrow band and at the same time devalue to DM2·60 to the pound. If they were prepared to do that, they could not only have a rate of exchange which was sustainable in the longer term but reduce interest rates by 2 to 3 per cent. immediately.
While on the subject of Europe, hon. Members should reflect that, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor carefully avoided any reference to European monetary union or the creation of a single currency. I was not surprised, because 10 days ago I was in Germany and those who know about these things were telling me that the die is now firmly cast and the British Government have made it clear that they will join in European monetary union and agree to the creation of a single currency. I hope that some members of the Way Forward group and the Bruges group will comment on that. Indeed, I hope that the Minister, who is squinting away and perhaps does not know about these things, or whichever of his colleagues replies, will comment on it.
The poll tax has been described as the flagship of the Conservative party. When the flagship of passenger liners —the Titanic—sank, it did so because it hit an iceberg, most of which could not be seen. But when the flagship of the Tory party sank, it did so, not as a result of something
648
that could not be foreseen but because of the damage caused by the mutiny of both the passengers and the crew, leading to the captain being thrown overboard.
Some people in this country do not want to see the poll tax go. In Finchley, Chingford, and Tewkesbury, Members of Parliament hold hands with their constituents in church and pray for the continuance of the poll tax, but my constituents in Hackney do not like the blasphemies of the way-out people of Finchley, Chingford or Tewkesbury. Nor do they like the heresy of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has decided to replace one tax with three—a property tax, a poll tax, and a poll tax surcharge operated through VAT. Surely to God there should be a maxim in politics that where one tax will do, why have three? The one tax that we want is Labour's alternative. If I had to—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh. I am told that they are stealing our clothes, but I suspect that they may even come up with proposals similar to those of Labour by the autumn.
To sum up the Budget, we now have poll tax disarray, local government disarray, industrial disarray, employment disarray and macro-economic disarray. But we have an election coming shortly. When Labour wins that election, it will once again, as our document says, make us world class and take us into the third millenium with heads held high. Then we can rejoice.
6.3 pm
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on an imaginative and in some respects surprising Budget. The Treasury Select Committee looks forward to taking evidence from the Governor of the Bank of England and Treasury officials tomorrow and from the Chancellor himself on Wednesday. I cannot anticipate what we shall eventually report, but we can endorse his action in not inhibiting the automatic stabilisers because we explicitly mentioned the importance of that in our report on the autumn statement. The level of public sector borrowing requirement that he projects is entirely appropriate against the background of recession that we face. That will assist in the recovery. I believe that at the same time we shall see a falling rate of inflation and possibly a corresponding fall in interest rates. That will also lead to renewed economic growth.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the centrepiece of the Budget, which was the switch in taxation away from local taxation to central Government taxation. I welcome that very much. None of us can envy a Leader of the Opposition who has to reply to a Chancellor's Budget at short notice, especially, as on this occasion and when selective employment tax was introduced, the more radical measures appear in the last few sentences of the Budget statement. Nevertheless, one might have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have comprehended sufficiently the switch from one tax to another not to describe it as regressive. I found that extraordinary, because there is relief on VAT at the bottom end of the income scale, not least for food, fuel, transport and so on.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that we should not switch from fewer taxes to more taxes. When I had the somewhat unenviable task of steering the VAT legislation through all its stages in the House, we got rid of two taxes and

649
introduced one We got rid of the dreaded selective employment tax and purchase tax and introduced VAT in a way that was not regressive.
In parenthesis, zero rating is an essential part of the structure of VAT. I understand that the negotiations on the zero rating of VAT within the EC will come to a head around May. I warn my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be intolerable if we were compelled to give up zero rating. I hope that, if necessary, the Government will use the veto to avoid that. Zero rating is a fundamental aspect of our tax and our VAT has a much better structure than that of any other country in the EC. Zero rating must be maintained.
Putting the burden of taxation on to VAT will reduce the impact on those on lowest incomes. At the same time it is proposed to abolish the community charge which, except for those at the bottom end of the scale, who still pay nothing, is undoubtedly regressive. Therefore, for the Leader of the Opposition to say that the switch was regressive was extraordinary.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Did I understand the right hon. Member to say that those at the bottom end of the scale did not pay any poll tax?
Mr. Higgins: It depends on exactly how the adjustments are worked for refunds and so on. If that were not so, the argument of the Leader of the Opposition would be even less valid. In any event, the crucial point is that the changeover is not regressive. It is an advantage for those at the lower end of the income scale.
Some years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and I, when he was at the Department of the Environment and I was at the Treasury, introduced a Green Paper described as "The Future Shape of Local Government Finance." A draft was presented to us by our officials which was so diabolically bad that I rang my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley and said that we could not issue it. He agreed and we re-wrote the whole thing. I re-read it at lunchtime today and I must say that it is a remarkably good Green Paper.
It was clear from it that the rating system was open to substantial objections. It was said that people paid taxes in sorrow and the rates in anger. There was much to be said for that. We went through the alternatives in the Green Paper. We considered local income tax, local sales tax or value added tax, local employment and payroll taxes, motor fuel duty, super rates, surcharges on the rates, site value rating and so on. It was absolutely clear that there was no satisfactory or ideal alternative to the rating system.
In some respects, the community charge was an improvement on the rates. Many of us on the Conservative Benches have advanced the arguments in favour of it during the past two or three years. I came to the conclusion after the publication of the Green Paper that the only satisfactory answer was to transfer the entire cost of local government to the central Exchequer. I continue to hold that view, for several reasons. I shall give the arguments in favour of such a switch. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor went a long way in his Budget towards switching from local to central taxation, but he needs to go still further.
650
First, there is a substantial saving in collection costs —even more so under the community charge than under the rates—which means a substantial saving in resources. Another aspect of that argument is that there will be a substantial increase in unemployment among local government officials. One might view that with relative equanimity because it will be only a temporary phenomenon.
Secondly, the change could be carried out in a short period of time, not the time scale mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley who envisages a change from the community charge in 1993–94. Switching the whole cost to the central Exhequer and abolishing the community charge could be carried out in a short time, as the £140 rebate has shown.
Thirdly, it would have a significant impact, depending on the way in which the money was raised for the central Exchequer, on the retail prices index. That would help wage settlements, which is an important factor. Fourthly, it would give effective control over the totality of public expenditure which, from the point of view of economic management, has been a problem for many years under successive Governments.
I shall now deal with the question of how the money would be spent. I suggest that there should be a block grant so that each local authority would then have to make the difficult decision on what to spend the money and what its priorities should be with regard to expenditure. I leave open the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) about what functions it should cover.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose——
Mr. Higgins: I should like to finish these points as I am putting forward the arguments in relation to transferring the entire cost.
The counter-arguments include that of accountability, but we must recognise that that has been seriously undermined by capping. In cases where accountability and overspending have been serious, central Government have intervened so that in practice the accountability argument has been significantly weakened.
However, we must recognise that the switch will mean an increase in other forms of central Government taxation, about which I wish to make two points. First, the wording of the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 21 March was overly subtle—I put it no stronger than that. It said:
"For the coming year locally raised finance will fund 22 per cent. of local government expenditure, compared to 34 per cent. this year. And these figures are before the substantial benefits of rebates and the community charge reduction scheme."
It should read:
"But these figures are before the substantial benefits of rebates and the community charge reduction scheme."
In that light, the amount being financed by local government taxation is down to 11 per cent. One reaches the conclusion that at some stage, given the cost of collection and all the other factors that I have mentioned, the game simply is not worth the candle. That is the important issue.
In a paragraph in his statement entitled "Finance" my right hon. Friend argued:
"A local tax base is essential if there is to be any meaning to the concept of local government."

651
I feel bound to say that I have some doubts about that and I always have. The allocation of resources is every bit as important a democratic function as the determination of the total. At any rate, the current position confirms my view that the statement I have just quoted is not true. In Wandsworth no local taxation is being raised and in a number of other local authorities, the cost of collection is greater than the revenue which may be raised. The argument that a complete switch would mean the end of local democracy does not apply.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett rose——
Mr. Higgins: It does not apply to Wandsworth and other districts.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has made a particularly interesting point. He mentioned the generally reported view that in Wandsworth no one will have o pay anything. If he is correct about the inclusion in those figures of the existing rebate system, the only people to pay something will be those at the bottom of the heap—those who are so well off that they benefit from full rebates. That would be a true irony.
Mr. Higgins: The hon. Lady should look at the true figures in the Red Book. They do, indeed, reflect the true position. The figure is 11 per cent. or, as the Chancellor said, £7½billion.
Mr. Lawson: £7¼ billion.
Mr. Higgins: Seven and a quarter billion pounds—that is the magnitude of which we are talking. I believe that it leaves unanswered the way in which that money might be distributed among a wholy range of taxes that the Government have at their disposal, but the arguments must be considered very seriously.
Mr. Budgen: If a local authority believes that its grant is inadequate to take account of its special needs, how will it have an opportunity to increase its income? However attractive the scheme, it considerably diminishes the rights of local authorities.
Mr. Higgins: I do not deny that. It makes a significant difference.
Mr. Lawson: A lot of dodges would have to be eliminated, such as sale and lease-back schemes, but it would still be possible under this scheme—which, as my right hon. Friend is suggesting, is similar to my conclusion as a result of the shift in the Budget—for local authorities to be able to levy genuine charges and, of course, be able to levy rents on council houses.
Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend, who has great experience of these matters, makes a good point. Undoubtedly, the scope for local authorities to follow this or that expenditure plan would be severely curtailed. I do not deny that. I know only too well the difficulties of getting a grant allocation system which can be regarded as fair and which takes into account differing needs across the country. We are already facing that problem.
The overwhelming amount of revenue for local authorities now comes either from central Government or from the business rate. One only has to deduct 11 per cent. from 100 per cent. to realise the extent to which that is already the case. I welcome the suggestion of further consultation. Although I welcome the change outlined in
652
the Budget, we are rapidly approaching the conclusion —which I reached many years ago—that a complete switch is probably the answer to the organisation of local government finance.
Clearly, the switch must be related at some stage to the structure of local government. Further consultations are taking place about whether there should be unitary authorities. In some parts of the country the conflict may be significant, especially if differing parties are in power at county and local level. In other parts of the country—such as in West Sussex, which is the most prudent county —where there is an efficient authority, the current arrangement with local authorities works perfectly well.
I make it clear that I oppose the idea that this issue should be decided by means of a referendum. That is inconsistent with the practice of the House, and the decision should naturally fall to the House. The points that I have made this afternoon deserve serious consideration.
6.18 pm
Mr. James Wallace: First, I should like to pick up on some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). His argument is remarkable coming from a Conservative. He is looking forward to the day when all local government finance is centralised, in the case of England in Whitehall, and for Scotland in St. Andrew's house. What he said about the element of local democracy in distributing the grant given by Government and how it should be divided among services presupposes that the grant will be determined by someone in Whitehall taking a decision about the component parts and analysing the needs of each locality. That represents a denial of local democracy and a frightening degree of centralization—especially coming from a Conservative Member.
I spent the weekend in the Shetland part of my constituency. The House will recall that, in his Budget statement, the Chancellor, referring to his native Shetland, said:
"The charge in Shetland will fall to under £1."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 181.]
That was following on from his community charge relief proposals. Given the right hon. Gentleman's great benevolence to his native parts, one might have thought that by the time I got to Shetland this weekend, people would have started putting aside the savings that they will make on the community charge to raise a monument to their native son.
Although there is genuine and natural pride that a son of Shetland has advanced to such high office in the land, I cannot honestly say that the right hon. Gentleman's measure was greeted with great enthusiasm. This week, the local paper—The Shetland Times—carries the headline,
"Town hall in chaos as Lamont cuts poll tax".
According to that newspaper, the acting chief executive of Shetland islands council
"found it difficult to determine the logic behind the Chancellor's decision."
He said:
"'At £750,000 it still costs the same to collect. The cost of collection is around £600,000. So whilst it may … have seemed reasonable to spend £600,000 to collect £3·2 million, it starts to get ridiculous when the total income in £750,000.'"
That underlines the great anomalies that will be found in many parts of the country, where vast sums will be spent to collect relatively small amounts.

653
It is also right to put on record the fact that, although the Chancellor referred to a poll tax of under £1—£2 in Orkney, the other part of my constituency—he conveniently ignored the water charge, which, in Scotland, is collected with the community charge. That will lead to a charge of £45 in Shetland and £55 in Orkney.
It has been drawn to my attention that, if the Chancellor had not announced the change, a fully rebated poll tax in Orkney would have been £28 plus £53 water charge—in other words, a total of £81. Now the total will be £55 for everyone—except people whose homes are not connected to mains water, who will no doubt be billed for £2. That means that the poorest will benefit from the measure to the tune of £26, while the best-off will benefit to the tune of £140. But rich and poor alike will have to buy their goods in the same place and face the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT on top of the additional petrol duty incurred in getting there.
In my constituency, as in many other rural areas, the cost of living is already very high. The rural Scotland prices survey published last summer by McKay consultants in Inverness showed that, taking into account food, housing, transport, services and other goods, the cost of living in Lerwick was some 7 per cent. higher than in Aberdeen, which, as I am sure the House will recognise, is not a particularly cheap place anyway. In a rural village in Shetland, the cost of living was 14·1 per cent. higher. Moreover, in remote parts of Shetland, transport costs were found to be 38·5 per cent. higher than in Aberdeen. The 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT and the increased petrol duty will have a considerable impact on those places.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that there is an environmental argument for increasing duty on petrol, but if we are to take an environmental approach, it must allow for some discretion and for a distinction to be made between casual driving in a city and unnecessary driving in places where public transport is available, and essential driving in rural areas. That distinction has not been made; nor did the Chancellor take the opportunity to show some imagination about vehicle excise duty, which could have been varied to make it more economical to drive cars that consume less petrol. The Chancellor may seem to have shown great benevolence, but in fact people will have to pay considerably higher costs.
The Chancellor did little in terms of investing in the transport infrastructure. Freight charges have recently increased substantially in my constituency. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said, £60 million-worth of taxpayers' money—the Government always like to remind us that it is our money, not theirs —is to be spent to write off the administrative costs incurred in destroying poll tax bills that have already been printed and in sending out notices cancelling bills already delivered—such as the bill delivered to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in Westminster. The northern isles need only about £1 milion to make their freight transport costs reasonable this year but we have been told that the money is not available. Yet two months later, the Government can find £60 million to dig themselves out of a hole of their own making.
654
The Scotch whisky industry is important both in my constituency and in Scotland as a whole. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise the industry's contribution to our economy and, not least, to our foreign earnings.
Mrs. Gorman: Oh, yes.
Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) will appreciate the contribution of the industry in terms not only of domestic consumption but of foreign earnings. If one accepts that there should be duty on products, one must accept the indexation of duty; but in spite of strong representations, an opportunity was missed in the Budget to alter the bias that discriminates against Scotch whisky vis-a-vis other alcoholic beverages and to introduce a maturation allowance. I accept that the main purpose of stock relief was never to benefit the Scotch whisky industry, but it was beneficial none the less, because the product has to mature over many years. The ending of stock relief damaged the industry's finances, and the introduction of a maturation allowance would seem to be a suitable way of doing something about that.
I want to refer to two other matters. On the first, some positive steps were taken in the Budget. On the second, little or nothing was done. The positive steps were in support for small businesses, and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge what has been done. A number of the steps taken have already been mentioned—particularly by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). One of the most important developments is that the Chancellor has shown greater sensitivity to the needs of small businesses and a greater understanding of what small businesses are all about than his predecessors.
I well recall, following the Budget in which the 100 per cent. capital allowance was abandoned, drawing to Treasury Ministers' attention the impact that that would have on crofters, farmers and fishermen in my constituency. I was told that what they had lost because of that change, they would gain through the reduction in corporation tax. There was a complete failure to recognise the fact that self-employed people did not pay corporation tax.
There was a basic misunderstanding of what small business was about. I had the impression that the Government thought that small businesses were businesses with as many as 200 employees. In fact, we were talking about businesses employing as few as four or five people. In the present Budget, the Chancellor has shown a greater sensitivity to businesses in that category.
The sizeable increase in the VAT registration threshold, the relaxation of the bad debt provision and the help to cash flow through deferred PAYE and national insurance contributions are all welcome. Nevertheless, all the benefits given to business in the Budget—the changes in corporation tax and the other measures that I have mentioned—amount to less than the additional £1·6 billion which is to go to local authorities from the non-domestic rate.
That figure is in the Red Book, at table 6.7. When I asked the Secretary of State about that, he replied that businesses were now free from the uncertainty of having to deal with "irrational Labour councillors". Now the whole country is having to deal with a Conservative Government who have increased uniform business rates in England and Wales by 10·9 per cent. with effect from 1 April—next

655
week—at a time when the underlying rate of inflation is considerably less. If the Government had had any confidence in their anti-inflationary strategy, they would have known back in November that the rate of inflation would be considerably less than that.
One cannot consider the taxation of business just in terms of what the Chancellor announces on Budget day; one must consider general taxation policy. The local taxation of business is now in the Government's hands; if one considers that together with national taxation, it is clear that business will be taxed more heavily in the forthcoming financial year.
We have often suggested ways in which the Government could improve the uniform business rate through an extension of the transitional relief arrangements and by ensuring that that relief does not terminate if one moves premises. It almost defies rational thought that the Government can discourage a growing business from expanding into bigger premises while deterring a business in difficulty from contracting into smaller premises. The Government have, however, managed to do just that.
The financial position of small businesses will be eased by the reduction in interest rates. On Wednesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed stated how our party would ensure that interest rates not only came down, but were kept down through movement into the narrower band of the exchange rate mechanism and greater independence for the central bank.
We should not,however, lose sight of the fact that many businesses have already gone to the wall. In the past 12 months, a record number of companies have gone into liquidation. They are no longer around to benefit from the lower interest rates. Those company collapses, together with the growing number of redundancies referred to by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) mean that the current level of unemployment is 2 million and rising. Despite that, however, the Chancellor made little reference to unemployment in his Budget statement and, today, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not mention unemployment once.
Unemployment is not just another statistic. I am sure that we all recognise that there is a human dimension to it and that families suffer anxiety because of joblessness or the threat of it. It is regrettable that the Government. have failed to address that.
My party has outlined measures that would reduce interest rates and help in the short term. In the longer term, however, we must recognise that improvements in education and training are vital. If we do not recognise that, we shall once again have important skill shortages at the height of a boom.
There was considerable banter between the Front Bench spokesmen on the validity of each side's statistics. I do not believe that either spokesmen would dare to deny the fact that, compared with our competitors in Europe, Japan and the United States, Britain is a poorly trained country, and in comparison with our competitors, there are fewer people in Britain with worthwhile skills. Despite that shortfall and rising unemployment, the training budget has been cut. I welcomed the modest sum for training that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, but it fades into insignificance compared to the cut of more than £250 million for the training budget.
It is worth while considering the aims and guarantees of the employment training programme. Those unemployed
656
for six to 12 months among the 18-to-24 age group will receive help and that is important. Likewise, those who have been unemployed for more than two years in the 18-to-59 age group will receive help. But what about those who have been unemployed for between 13 and 24 months? What about those women who want to return to the work force? We have always been told that those women represent an important resource, but employment training will do nothing for them in the next 12 months. The Budget will do nothing to enhance child care arrangements, which would give women an opportunity to return to work.
Although the Government may claim that this is a Budget for business—I recognise that some proposals are a step in the right direction—I regret that the overall taxation of business will be heavier than last year. I also regret that there is nothing in the Budget that gives any sign of hope to the unemployed.
6.33 pm
Mr. Robert Hayward: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was slightly disingenuous, as I am sure he knows. He referred to the £60 million cost of the alteration to the community charge. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about that, but he went on to say that Orkney and Shetland needed only £1 million for its transport infrastructure. If one extrapolates that sum on a per capita basis across the country, however, the hon. Gentleman is talking of an overall expenditure of about £1 billion: I should certainly want my constituents to be given equal consideration.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also referred to uncertainty; I too am concerned that the autumn statement, the Budget and general economic assessments, including adjustments to interest rates and the like, are based upon current economic statistics. The set of statistics published today differs greatly from last month's trade figures, because an extra £500 million has been allowed for invisibles. That adjustment has been made as a result of the revisions recently announced for the last two quarters of 1990. It does not make for sound economic policy when we have so many inaccurate economic statistics that are revised so regularly.
When the Prime Minister was Chancellor, in evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he said:
"We have looked at some statistical changes. I am now considering what else we can do, though I have not yet reached conclusions, to improve the general statistical base."
He said that he had sought the advice of the director of the Central Statistical Office and that he awaited a paper from him
"as to what we might do to improve the general quantity and quality, particularly the quality, of economic statistics".
Following the then Chancellor's announcement in May, the CSO issued a report in December, the final paragraph of which stated:
"The programme of work we now have in hand, particularly the measures announced by the Chancellor, should enable us to make further improvements."
However, the report went on:
"The figures may therefore be subject to larger than normal revisions, although the largest changes are likely to be in the capital account."
I am not sure whether those two statements are natural sequiturs, and even in December it was clear that there was much work to be done.

657
On Tuesday the Chancellor said that one of the lessons that he had learnt from years of grappling with economic statistics was that it was
"difficult to be certain about the past, let alone the future."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 165.]
If that is so, it makes it almost impossible for a Chancellor to make any sensible judgments about a set of circumstances on which he is trying to come to a conclusion relating to what taxes should be raised and what interest rates should be allocated.
I press the Treasury to come to a rapid decision on the ways in which economic statistics could be more carefully considered, given the great inaccuracy of many of them. We had an example of that just 11 days ago when, according to the Financial Times, Britain's current account deficit for last year was
"a fifth less than originally estimated".
On the basis of such information, we may well keep interest rates too high for too long, or too low for too long. The same error that may overstate a trade imbalance may underestimate it. It is important to do something about those statistics.
"The Lex Column" of the same edition of the Financial Times said that the revision of the current account deficit "serves as a reminder of the deplorable quality of a statistical series which has mesmirised the markets on and off for several years."
That underlines the fact that it is not just the Treasury that makes judgments that may turn out to be inaccurate but the financial markets that contribute so much to the country.
In terms of the revisions made last week, page 4 of the CSO report referred blandly to
"Errors and omissions in the fourth quarter, representing unidentified net inflows over the current and capital accounts, were 2·1 billion".
In itself, £2·1 billion is a substantial sum of money. That report continued:
"Errors and omissions in 1990 were £3·4 billion".
The CSO casually added in brackets
"(£15·2 billion in 1989)".
We cannot carry on with the Treasury or the City making judgments on the basis of figures that are as inaccurate as those cited in the CSO report appear to be. "Economic Trends" is published annually. However, the last time that the visible trade balance was published was in 1984, but in 1990, that figure was revised, six years after the event, by £587 million. They revised the invisible trade balance six years after the event by £466 million. That makes any attempt to guide the economy virtually impossible.
I have commented on the trade figures, but are other figures any better? Every month, the Department of Employment publishes the underlying increase in average earnings. It is currently given as 9·5 per cent. and the figure has hardly fluctuated in the past three or four years—it is always somewhere between 9 per cent. and 10·5 per cent.
I draw the attention of the House to a subsidiary set of figures within that index—construction earnings. Any hon. Member who talks to anyone in the construction industry will know that the industry is in a deeply depressed state and that thousands of workers in the construction industry have been laid off. Those who can get jobs are accepting pay rates which they would never have accepted during the building boom two years ago.
658
According to the Employment Gazette, construction earnings have gone up by just under 10 per cent. in the past 12 months. What hon. Member can believe that figure if he has talked to construction workers in his constituency?
An article in the Financial Times dealing with CSO statistics stated:
"The Central Statistical Office said wages and salaries per unit of output rose at an annual rate of 10·7 per cent. in January compared with 11·9 per cent. in December.
That encouraging development on inflation comes in the wake of last week's unexpectedly bad producer-price data and ahead of the release of the retail prices index on Friday."
That quote made two points. First, one set of figures published at the same time as the Employment Gazette's figures—which reveal virtually no change—showed a marked decrease in wage costs. It also referred to some producer price figures which most people do not believe.
When the community charge was introduced, the Government spent £1·3 billion on a transitional relief scheme, but it had no effect on the retail prices index, which makes no allowance for any rebate that an individual may receive. If people are not paying for something such as the community charge, it is ludicrous that no allowance should be made for that in the RPI. Everyone knows that enormous discounts are offered on air travel and holidays. Does the RPI take account of those discounts? The answer is no. It is ludicrous to have another set of statistics on which economic decisions are made which are so grossly distorted.
Talking of grossly distorted figures, I should like to pick up my earlier intervention about the Opposition's Budget calculations. When I challenged the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), he referred me to the comments last Wednesday by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about how the Labour party's Budget would be costed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury demolished the Labour party's calculations in great detail. Since then, a series of Opposition spokesmen have come to the Dispatch Box, not one of whom has challenged my right hon. and learned Friend's figures.
Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I propose to demolish those figures comprehensively in my reply.
Mr. Hayward: I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. I shall listen to her with interest.
Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman has spent the last 10 minutes telling us that he has demolished the figures on which the Labour party based its economic calculations. If one takes cognisance of the hon. Gentleman's comments, how can one expect any hon. Member to put any weight on the Government's statistics?
Mr. Hayward: The hon. Gentleman has merged two points incorrectly: one was the series of indices on which I was commenting, and the other was the series of costings of Labour proposals. I await with interest the comments of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), and I shall certainly be in my place when she speaks.
I should like to pick up the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and others in suggesting abolition of certain charges. In the long run, I should like to see removal of two other aspects of the unnecessary masses of paperwork. That would benefit the country. I was disappointed that the Budget did

659
not do away with the road fund licence, although I was pleased that it was frozen. I hope that it will soon be abolished. I should also like the television licence fee to be done away with.
6.45 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: Before the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) started on his party political point, I very much agreed with his comments about statistics. As he knows, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has done quite a lot of work on that point, trying to improve the Government's statistics. Part of the problem has been the way in which the economy has changed. With an open economy, it is difficult to collect statistics in the way that they were collected 10 or 15 years ago. There is another problem—in the early 1980s, we cut the resources for our statistical department. We should restore that funding. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have mentioned the problem.
This is a highly political Budget. As many hon. Members have said, by far the most important part of the 70-minute speech came in the last four minutes—the cuts in the poll tax and the increase in VAT to pay for them, or what my constituents call the "sting in the tail".
I wish to refer to the Government's efforts to extricate themselves from the poll tax fiasco, but first I shall comment on the Red Book. It is an excellent custom that the Red Book is published when the Chancellor makes his statement. This year there is a marked contrast between the Budget speech and the Red Book. In the Budget speech, there was an upbeat forecast of economic activity and a lot of talk about the recession being partly behind us, but one need only turn to table 3.1 of the Red Book—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) pointed out—to reveal the devastating figures: the 2 per cent. drop in output, the 5 per cent. drop in manufacturing output and the almost 10 per cent. drop in fixed investment for the coming year. Astonishingly, the decreases in manufacturing output and in investment were not mentioned by the Chancellor although, as even he had to admit, unemployment will continue to rise throughout 1991 and probably into 1992.
We are experiencing a severe recession which affects all parts of the economy and all regions. We do not have a small downturn. Output has been falling for not just two quarters but at least four quarters, and it could well fall in a fifth. By any standard, this is a big recession.
The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee predicted that the economy would be in recession. When the present Prime Minister was Chancellor and introduced his autumn statement in November, he talked about a period of "weak activity.',! When the Chancellor came to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service in, I think, December he spoke about the recession being "shallow and short-lived".
Why did the Government get it so wrong? First, there is no evidence that the Gulf war made matters substantially different. The Chief Secretary admitted as much to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service when he told it about the economic consequences of the Gulf war. Therefore, that cannot be used as an alibi. The Chancellor tries to imply that we are suffering because of a world recession, but that is not so. There is a slowdown in the United States, but it is expected to be short-lived and the Chancellor's expectations of a recovery
660
in the British economy are partly predicated on a recovery in the American economy. He cannot pray that in aid as the reason why our economy is in such a state.
If the Chancellor had looked at page 23 of the Red Book, he would have seen that the Japanese and German economies will grow by 3 per cent. this year and that the economies of France and Italy are growing by 1·5 per cent. Ours is definitely the odd economy out. The recession cannot be said to be the natural effect of the economic cycle. Some Members have already suggested that, and no doubt we shall hear it during the election campaign. A slowdown after an upswing might be part of an economic cycle, but the problem in the United Kingdom is quite different, because it is a four quarters drop in output. That is not a slowdown but a severe and sharp recession.
The reasons for this state of affairs are simple. This is a home-grown recession which arose from the overexpansion of the economy in 1987–88. Before Conservative Members say that the Opposition wanted the economy to expand at that time, perhaps I could quote something that I said, odious though that may seem. In early 1988 I warned the Government about over-expanding the economy and said that they should not cut taxes, which they proceeded to do. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will know that in its Budget report of 1988 the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service warned the Government that they were over-expanding the economy. We were right to issue that warning.
When the economy got out of hand, Government ideology or dogma led them to believe that they could rely on interest rates alone and that there was no other way. They could not increase taxes, because they had promised to reduce them and to go on reducing them. The problem about relying on high interest rates to slow down the economy is that they are slow and rather perverse and in the end have a massive effect. First, they had an impact on the housing market, on the small business sector and on investment. The effect eventually spread to the high street and the consumer, and in the second half of 1990 the economy fell off a cliff. It is unwise to rely on interest rates alone.
Conservative Members may say that all other economies are using high interest rates, but they are not. They use all the weapons at their disposal in a way that the Government have not. Our economy is in massive recession, because, for a long time after over-expanding the economy, the Government relied on a single weapon.
We are in a massive recession and must find a way out of it. The Government say that three things will happen: first, that destocking will come to an end; secondly, that there will be a decline in inflation; and, thirdly, that the American economy will expand and things will get better some time in the second half of the year. So far, their forecasting has not been good and until they have been proved right I prefer to rely on the CBI and the banks, including the National Westminster bank. They expect some shallow recovery, to use the Chancellor's words, but do not expect it to happen quickly and certainly not until the end of 1991, perhaps in the third or fourth quarter.
I looked to the Budget for something to help recovery and assist investment, but I am afraid that, despite some useful minor measures, it contains no meaningful help for business. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who, unlike some of his hon. Friends, knows something about business, said that sotto voce to the

661
Government. In yesterday's Sunday Telegraph Mr. Gavin Davis, who is one of our advisers, said that the Government have followed a rather confused strategy.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The hon. Gentleman is a covert Tory.
Mr. Radice: I occasionally read the Sunday Torygraph.
Mr. Davis said that there is a bit of a muddle about immediate help to firms with cash problems and boosting the long-term rate of return on successful investment. Insufficient resources do little for either. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, the amount that the Budget gives to industry is dwarfed by the £2·2 billion that will have to be paid out in the uniform business rate and which is three times more than the corporation tax assistance.
The CBI rightly argued for a new incentive for manufacturing, but the Budget contains no such incentive. The CBI and the Labour party asked for major help for training, but the Budget contains no such help. There is no new help for employment, although one would have expected such help because even the Chancellor admits that unemployment will rise. There is no new help for the infrastructure. The Government are relying on small and slow-acting help for business and less overtly on the increase in the public sector borrowing requirement, which partly reflects allowing the automatic stabilisers to work during a recession. I welcome that. Finally, the Government rely on a wing and a prayer and put their trust in the recovery of the American economy, but that is too little and too late.
In reality, the Budget has nothing to do with any of those things. It is designed to get the Government out of the poll tax mess and nobody pretends otherwise. Speeches by Conservative Members have not been about the real economy or what is happening to it, but about how to get out of the poll tax mess. The Budget was the first half of the effort which, in theory, was completed by the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment two days later. As everybody knows, that did not quite do the trick.
The Budget represents a major U-turn, because it advocates the transfer of local government to central Government fundings. That reverses many years of cuts in central Government subsidy, a policy that was opposed by the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Worthing argues that there should be no local taxation and that all should be financed by national taxation.
Mrs. Gorman: Hear, hear.
Mr. Radice: The hon. Lady says, "Hear, hear," but if she agrees with that, what is the point of having local government? Why not run the whole show from Whitehall, which is the argument advanced by some Conservative Members? If there is to be local government there must be some sort of local government taxation, as is the case in every other country in Europe. No other European country would dare suggest that everything should be financed centrally, because it is understood that that is a recipe for running everything from the centre. That might please the invisible people in the Box, but it should not please Members of Parliament, who should want something better and to take a broader view of democracy.
662
The increase in value added tax will also have an impact on inflation. When VAT was increased from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. in 1979, 4 per cent. was added to the retail prices index. This year's increase of 2·5 per cent.—from 15 per cent. to 17·5 per cent.—will add 1–2 per cent. to the RPI, although the Government point out that, if one takes into account the poll tax reduction, the RPI will fall.
The Government should start to look again, as they did all last year, at the underlying rate of inflation. When RPI was high last year, the Government said that mortgages and the poll tax should not be taken into account. However, Samuel Brittan points out in an interesting article in the Financial Times today that the underlying rate of inflation is not falling rapidly but has increased—and it is not predicted that it will fall much. Samuel Brittan is probably right when he says:
"Don't believe the coming plunge in the inflation rate."
Perhaps hon. Members should bear that in mind.
The increase in VAT is the tip of the poll tax iceberg. That tax has helped to undermine the Government's public finances, which have been affected not only by recession. More than £10 billion was spent trying to persuade voters to love the poll tax, but unfortunately—or fortunately—that effort was a complete failure. The Government's attempts to extricate themselves from the poll tax have done them immense political damage, and will continue to do so.
It is a measure of the mess that the Government have made that the only large-scale item in the Budget is the £4·5 billion devoted to the switch from local to central taxation. I wish that those resources had been devoted instead to manufacturing investment, training, and the infrastructure. The fact that at a time of recession, when manufacturing output is contracting and investment is falling, the Government are devoting such massive resources to getting out of a mess of their own making speaks volumes about their priorities. This is not a Budget for business—it is a Budget to save the Government's skin. I predict that it will fail in that intention.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Between now and 9 o'clock, right hon. and hon. Members should limit their speeches to 10 minutes.
7.3 pm
Sir William Clark: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on introducing what is mainly a neutral Budget—and I, like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, am particularly pleased with the help that he has given to small businesses. I refer in particular to the reduction in corporation tax, the carrying back of losses for three years and the raising of the VAT threshold, which will take 150,000 businesses out of the orbit of VAT. I am delighted also that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will review VAT penalties, because in many cases they are draconian and should never have been introduced in the form that they were.
The new treatment of bad debts will also be welcomed by small businesses, which frequently suffer from cash flow problems. They may be profitable, but they find it difficult to get in their money. The time is fast approaching when it should be mandatory for debts that remain outstanding after the agreed credit period has expired to be subject to interest. After all, if one has an account with a large store such as Harrods, interest is automatically added if one

663
does not pay one's bill promptly. The imposition of interest would be a salutary lesson to companies that owe money to small businesses—as well as to Government Departments and local authorities, which are often extremely bad payers, waiting until the last minute before settling their accounts.
As to capital allowances, the provision for a 25 per cent. offset on a reducing basis means that a company will have to wait eight or nine years before it recoups its money. If one went for a straight 25 per cent. instead, the money would come back to the company within four years.
There have been four reductions in interest rates over the past few months, from 15 per cent. to 12·5 per cent., and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right to exercise caution. If sterling is too low, it is essential to increase the base rate—drastically if need be—to boost its value. On the other side of the coin, if one is trying to produce a fall in interest rates, it is as well to test the water—which my right hon. Friend successfully did. Sterling remains strong against the dollar and the deutschmark.
One feature of the Budget that I regret is the pettifogging nonsense of assessing the value of a mobile telephone at £200—to produce a charge on the user of £50, if he pays tax at the standard rate. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor appreciates the importance of the mobile telephone as a business tool.
I am a director of a company that has representatives on the road who use mobile telephones—but that is not their choice. It is the employer who wants to be able to contact his staff—particularly in service industries, such as washing machine and central heating repairs. Mobile telephones allow employers easily to switch an engineer, for example, from one place to another. It is nonsense to tax the employee, when mobile telephones are really in the interests of employers.
If a mobile phone is used only for business, it is not taxable, but if it is used for only one private call, the tax falls due. Who is to decide the veracity of the representative who says, "I don't use the phone for private purposes"? Who is to monitor its usage? Will the employer have to scrutinise the monthly accounts to determine whether each and every call was made for business purposes? That would be bureaucratic and administrative nonsense.
I am certain that ordinary members of the staff in my office occasionally use the telephone there to make private calls, but they are not surcharged. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor would be well advised to remove that extra burden of a mobile phone tax on what are often one-man bands. We should not even have to move an amendment against that measure. As for mobile telephones in restaurants, if one goes to a decent restaurant, such as the restaurants that I normally go to, they are banned anyway. It is up to the restaurant owner to ban mobile telephones. I repeat that I hope my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will think and cancel the measure.
I accept that after this year child benefit will be indexed. However, consideration should be given to taxing child benefit, particularly as, from 6 April this year, a husband and wife will be assessed separately and consequently wives who have no income apart from child benefit will not have to pay tax. However, it is ludicrous to give tax-free child benefit to rich people who do not need it. My right hon. Friend should look again at that.
I welcome the Government's consistency on the community charge. I remind hon. Members that in his first
664
or second Budget my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir. G. Howe) undertook a complete switch from direct to indirect taxation and that became Tory philosophy. He did that on the premise that it is better to tax spending than earnings. That is analogous to what has happened this year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has put the emphasis on indirect taxation. The necessities of life are zero-rated for VAT. Heating, lighting, public transport and rent are all zero-rated, so the necessities of life are not affected by the increase in VAT. In that sense, VAT is, to a certain extent, a voluntary tax. That is the argument that we used in the 1980s and it holds today.
As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to be congratulated on this neutral Budget. He has introduced many changes which I have not had time to discuss in the 10 minutes available to me—for instance, the help that he has given to charities. The Budget is very good, particularly as my right hon. Friend has been restrained this year and did not have much manoeuvrability, but he has stuck to the Government's philosophy. The prudent reductions in interest rates will continue and, as we have all said, as inflation comes down interest rates fall accordingly as night follows day. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue on the course that he has set himself.
7.12 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: Most Budgets are by their very nature short-term affairs, but this Budget takes the prize for short-termism. Indeed, it is little more than an attempt to construct a somewhat flimsy raft to which senior Ministers could cling as they frantically attempt to chart a rather meandering and zig-zag course between the Scylla of the recession and the Charybdis of the poll tax, both of which are monsters of their own creation, and it is a raft held together by nothing other than a collective ministerial fear of losing the general election and a cynical contempt for the good sense of the British electorate.
The other day, the chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten)—a member of the Cabinet, although he does not have much of a Cabinet job—was reported to have said that the Tory party had won the economic argument in the 1980s. I had always thought that the right hon. Member for Bath was one of the more intelligent members of the Tory party, but to make a statement like that in view of the Government's economic record must mean either that Tory central office has already spongified his brain or that he did not believe what he was saying.
In 1979 the Tories came to power proclaiming what they saw as three fundamental economic aims—to defeat inflation; to transform the supply side of the economy, thereby increasing the efficient supply of goods and services; and to establish, as they saw it, sound public finances. Certainly inflation has not been defeated; it has hardly been dented. As the Red Book shows, over the 12 years between 1979 and 1991 the inflation rate in the United Kingdom, except for a period of two and a half years, has been consistently higher than the average rate for all the countries in the European exchange rate mechanism. It is higher here than in France or Germany. Last Thursday, the right hon. Member for Bath was reported as having said that inflation would now fall like a stone; he said that—poor fellow—just a few hours before the latest RPI figures were announced, showing a fall of

665
0·01 per cent. in the retail prices index, and the underlying rate of inflation had actually gone up. Last week was not a good week for the chairman of the Tory party.
The hope now is that inflation, as measured by the RPI, will fall to something like 4 per cent. by the end of this calendar year—that is, by the end of December 1991. That may happen, but I have my doubts, as do professional commentators such as Sam Brittan and others. But even if it falls to 4 per cent. by the end of the year, the fall will owe more to the quirkiness of the RPI than to any real fall in the underlying rate of inflation. The Treasury's own Red Book forcecasts for the financial year to April 1992 an average underlying rate of inflation as measured by the GDP deflator—as good a measurement as any—an average underlying rate of inflation of 7 per cent., and in one of the worst recessions that Britain has faced since the end of the second world war.
The second aim of the Tory party in 1979 was to transform the supply side of the economy. The reality has been a disastrous failure. Between 1979 and 1991 the average annual rate of growth of the British economy was a miserable 1·8 per cent.—the worst record in western Europe and a worse record than that of the ideologically despised 1970s. Despite the reduction in the top rate of income tax to 40 per cent., the amelioration of capital taxes such as inheritance tax and capital gains tax, and despite deregulation and privatisation, all that the Shi'ite fundamentalists of the radical right have to show for the 1980s is high inflation and a disastrously low rate of growth.
In 1979 we had a surplus on our foreign trade in manufactured goods. In 1989, after 10 years of Tory supply side economics, that suplus had become a massive deficit of £17 billion. Last year it was still £11 billion, and the forecast in the Red Book for the coming year is for a deficit of £6 billion. As the Treasury candidly points out on page 33 of the Red Book, however, that fall in the deficit to £6 billion in manufacturing goods is the result of lower domestic demand and has nothing to do with the transformation of the supply side of the economy. If the recession recedes, as it might, and if interest rates start to come down and demand starts to increase, the deficit in our manufacturing trade will go up from £6 billion. I believe that it will go up to levels which will become unsustainable.
Finally, we come to the public finances. Once upon a time, we are told, a terrible dragon roamed the land, devouring the crops and terrorising the people, and it was called the public sector borrowing requirement or PSBR. As the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) hinted, it was slain in 1984 or 1985—or perhaps it was 1986—much to the jubilation of members of the Institute of Economic Affairs and others. But the people, apparently were indifferent, and the crops were still destroyed. The dragon was changed by the nice PSDR—the public sector debt repayment—and the radical right slept soundly in their beds, but now they are beginning to wake up, as we heard from the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), and to form groups. And they are beginning to get very worried because the dragon is coming back—the PSBR is with us again. It may be said that it is only £8 billion for this year, which is nothing really.
666
One is reminded of the argument about the balance of payments that we heard from the right hon. Member for Blaby—that it does not matter, and even if it did, it would be all right if it could be funded. If privatisation proceeds for this year were taken out, the £8 billion would become £12 billion. In any case, I do not believe the figure of £8 billion, and I do not think that the Chancellor or anyone else believes it. I do not know about the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Perhaps he should go into the Chancellor's room one night and look through the secret drawers in his big desk, where the worst-case estimates—perhaps event the middle-case estimates—for the PSBR lie.
Even on the basis of the present public expenditure figures, the general view in the City is that the figure will be about £12 billion. I agree with that view. Even the Red Book points out that there is a margin of error of about £6 billion. But if the public expenditure totals are eroded, as they may very well be, the figure may go above £12 billion. In the following year it will be far higher because, if I may mix my metaphors, one cannot turn around the great tanker of the PSBR in one year. As the balanced Budget fades away, the PSBR will increase.
The old wheel has come full circle. Inflation has not been defeated, the supply side has not been transformed, and the public finances are in deficit. On its economic record alone—never mind its aims and, indeed, its achievements—the Tory party does not deserve to be re-elected, and after the antics of last week it will not be re-elected.
7.23 pm
Sir Hal Miller: The speeches from the Opposition Benches—in this respect, outstandingly introduced by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—have demonstrated intellectual arrogance that is absolutely breathtaking and delight in the difficulties of this country that is deeply depressing. Opposition Members have once again demonstrated dramatically that they have learnt nothing and have forgotten nothing. If the country really is in the difficulties that the Opposition attempt to portray, it is certain that the British people will not trust Labour to bring it out of those difficulties. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) would try to take us back into debt.
When the present Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—was in government, his was the one voice of righteousness that I admired, but he has been longingly harking back to the purchase tax as a regulator of businesses. The right hon. Gentleman welcomed fixed exhange rates, but only for an interval until a Labour Government could devalue once again.
I welcome the general thrust of my right hon. Friend's Budget. In particular, I welcome the move from direct taxes to indirect taxes. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), I believe that that will provide a more equitable and sensible basis for taxation. Because of lack of time, I shall not go down the road of local government finance, but I have to say that I agree very much with the conclusion of those who say that central Government must do and pay for what it wants at

667
the local level, while local government must raise the money that it wants to spend. That is the way to achieve proper accountability.
The fact that the Labour party has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing is illustrated in the motor industry. I am glad that in recent weeks my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have paid tribute to that industry for the investment that it has undertaken. That investment will result in the doubling of this country's production capacity by 1994. My right hon. Friends paid tribute to the industry also for its increased skill levels, for imbalance quality, and for achieving a significant reduction in the imbalance of trade in manufactured goods. Despite the difficulties, to which the Labour party continually draws attention, it is significant that the motor industry has maintained production by increasing exports.
Mr. Radice: Nissan?
Sir Hal Miller: Those are British jobs. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who comes from the north-east, should object to inward investment, which has provided jobs and quality and has resulted in exports from the area.
It was interesting to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry say that he did not believe in different tax regimes for different industries. In that case, why do we have the special car tax—a tax unique to the motor industry and exacerbated by the increase in VAT? Value added tax is grossed up on the special car tax, making it far more than 17·5 per cent., and resulting in one of the highest rates of taxation on motor vehicles in the Common Market. In view of the tributes that have been paid to the motor industry, I wonder how that can be justified. This industry is the goose that has been laying the golden eggs. If the Government persist in selecting it for increased taxation, they may succeed in killing the goose.
As for taxation on company cars, I must say that there is no justification, in terms of the environment or of equity, for increasing the scale charges above the rate of inflation. The rate proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is double the rate of inflation. In conversations that I have had with the Treasury over the past four years, it has been established that the scale charges represent the arm's-length cost of providing a car, as measured against contract hire rates. In many firms, the company car is a tool of the trade. The employee will now be taxed at a higher rate than the self-employed person under schedule D. Nor is the proposal environmentally satisfactory. Newer cars are cleaner and lead to an improvement in the environment.
My right hon. Friend could have done more to improve the environment. He could have given teeth to the statement of principle in the White Paper issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment by introducing a differential in favour of diesel fuel and of vehicles powered by diesel engines. That might have been done in the scale charges, by the special car tax or by the vehicle excise duty. It should certainly have been done by introducing a differential in the hydrocarbon tax on diesel fuel, which was previously introduced for unleaded fuel.
Nor is there any reason in equity why employment of workers in respect of company cars be penalised by the national insurance contribution provisions for the
668
provision of fuel. I am not aware that that happens in the provision of tools to any other worker or with the provision of free coal for miners. Why is the motor industry being singled out once again as the milch cow of taxation to support the rest of the Government's expenditure plans?
The motor industry has been singled out for increased taxation at a time when it is contributing signally to the reduction of the trade imbalance in manufactured goods. It is demonstrating increased investment, sustained output and increases in skills and quality. These are all the objectives that the Government are trying to achieve, and the motor industry is achieving them. It is doing so despite the Opposition's attacks. Why has it been singled out as I have described? I look forward with interest to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
7.31 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I do not understand how the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) can attack Opposition Members, who have defended the motor industry when it was in need of defence. We have advocated investment in the industry. It is especially difficult to understand how such an attack could have come from someone who was in favour of Jaguar being hived off as a route to its being a world success. Jaguar is now part of a multinational company that is having to plough in a great deal of money to sustain it. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not learnt from the bitter experiences of our motor industry under the Government. Indeed, Conservative Members have learnt nothing.
Sir Hal Miller: The industry is a success.
Mr. Hoyle: If it represents success, I should not like to see failure. The industry is experiencing serious difficulties, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. It is doing so because of the difficulties of the market. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Budget will do nothing except add to the industry's difficulties.
We listened this afternoon to another lacklustre performance from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who opened the debate. One wonders for how much longer he will remain in his present position.
Mr. Ian McCartney: The right hon. Gentleman is unemployable.
Mr. Hoyle: It would be better if he were made unemployed immediately. It will not be long before unemployment comes to him. He is now outside the main stream of his party and the policies that it is following. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about his knowledge and the knowledge of his departmental team, of industry. He would not know a manufacturing plant if he fell over one. He talked about decisions being taken by production directors and marketing managers. When did he last talk to production directors and marketing managers? There are many industrialists and executives who would like to be able to talk to the Secretary of State.
The Budget will only tinker with the problems that face the nation. It will do nothing for the ills that have befallen industry. It will do nothing for investment, output, the balance of payments and jobs. When the Secretary of State was boasting about increased investment, I wondered where he had been. Had he been dreaming about such

669
investment? There has been no net increase in investment since 1980; indeed, there has been a shortfall in investment since 1979. Even the Government's forecasts show that there will be another 10 per cent. fall in investment. That is the way to disaster, not success.
Output has been falling. It reached its low point in April 1990 and it has fallen every month since then. Where is the success story to be found in output?
Last year, the balance of payments was £13 billion in deficit. Despite all the suffering this year from high interest rates, record levels of bankruptcy, rising unemployment and joining the exchange rate mechanism—we joined it at the wrong figure, which makes life difficult for British industry and export markets—the balance of payments is still running at a deficit of £12 billion. The Economic Secretary shakes his head, but the deficit will not improve. Indeed, it will become worse. That is a fact.
Training should be the Government's flagship. Instead of that, 50 per cent. of workers in British industry have never received any training. A third of them have no qualifications. Few firms are planning to introduce any training. The Government rely solely on the training and enterprise councils. They intend to move training from the public to the private sector. In February, an article in the Manchester Evening News, which is not well known as a Labour party newspaper, said this:
"Whether direction from British industry, which has one of the worst training records in the West, will bring new impetus to training is open to doubt."
That is an understatement. We can be certain that TECs will be no substitute for the previous approach to training. That form of training has been the backbone of the success of the German and Japanese economies.
The Budget contains no provisions that will create more jobs. Unemployment will continue to rise. Shortly after the Budget statement, and very soon after 5,000 jobs were lost at British Shipbuilders at Barrow, 4,700 jobs were lost in the aerospace industry. That loss was announced on Thursday. It seems that there is no end to the recession. In the north-west, one in three manufacturing jobs has been destroyed since the Government came to office.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove talked about the success of the motor industry, but the motor car division of Rolls-Royce in Crewe is in serious trouble. The division of DAF that produces trucks at Leyland is in serious trouble. The shipbuilding division at Cammell Laird is also in trouble. I have already mentioned the trouble at Barrow. Under this Government, the textile industry has been in perpetual trouble. If something is not done rapidly for the textile industry, we shall not have one.
The Government have produced no strategy to aid the companies that are engaged in producing defence equipment. There are more redundancies to come, but the Government have introduced no policy to enable the companies to create civilian jobs. As a result, we shall lose design teams and skilled engineers. That will bring misery to the families of those concerned and adversely affect the nation's economy.
We cannot expect any help from the Department of Trade and Industry. What are the Secretary of State and his Ministers? I suppose that the answer is the horsemen of the apocalypse. They are destroying British industry. That is not surprising because the ministerial team of the Department believes totally in free market forces. Those
670
Ministers do not belong to the mainstream of the Tory party. I believe that they are all members of the No Turning Back group. No doubt they have already submitted their applications to the Conservative Way Forward group. I wonder how much longer the Secretary of State and his Ministers will stay in office. The danger is that they fiddle while industry is destroyed. British industry has no future as long as the Tory Government remain in office.
7.49 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As suggested by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), I have been in my constituency this weekend talking to the people and finding out what they think about the Budget and the other changes that were proposed last week. I promised that, given the opportunity, I would not tell the House my views on those issues but would report back to the Treasury spokesmen about what the people in Billericay and Thurrock think, and which of the topics that were raised last week they dislike most.
Their comments filled me with trepidation because I thought that, as a Back Bencher, my speech would lose me brownie points. However, having heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and one or two others, state their views on the community charge and its future, I am encouraged to add to that the opinion of most of the people to whom I spoke in Billericay.
My constituents feel that, if we are to have a different system, the Government should change it completely to central taxation. They are fed up to the back teeth with the high-spending Labour councils of Basildon and Thurrock, which keep adding to my constituents' costs in exchange for no real benefits at all. They think that, if central taxation takes over the small proportion still collected locally, central Government will be able to exercise some control over local government spending, which is what is required. Therefore, I am pleased to add my support to the view that has already been expressed several times this afternoon. It also means that I need not waste too much of my precious 10 minutes repeating that view.
My constituents were pleased about the measures for small businesses. Small business is big business in Billericay. It is a testimony to the success of the Government's economic policies in the past 10 years that, in parts of my constituency, jobs still chase people. New enterprises are opening, work is increasing and people are moving into the district simply because there are jobs and houses are still being built. Many new estates are going up and properties are reasonably priced, so people are attracted to the area. In Billericay, one does not have the gloomy view of the economy that is sometimes expressed in the House.
My constituents were, however, exercised by some of the small details in the Budget, particularly the daft idea of taxing portable telephones. They do not regard portable telephones as a luxury but as a tool of the trade which, although irritating to people in posh restaurants, are now a necessity. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will reconsider taxing portable telephones. If we are to tax things that irritate us, perhaps we should tax walkmen, karaoke machines in pubs and one-armed

671
bandits. Personally, I find men with facial hair irritating—to say nothing of social workers, who irritate me enormously—so perhaps we should tax them too.
Mr. Maples: Those are no doubt annoying things, but the difference between them and mobile phones, which we propose to tax, is that they are not provided by employers.
Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend. However, employers pay the tax on cars for their employees, which is only £100 a year. The tax on mobile phones is likely to be twice as much. I should not like to be without my little car phone, which is important to help me keep in touch.
My constituents were pleased about the measures to relieve small businesses of many VAT problems. VAT has always been a major bugbear for small businesses. When I was chairman of the Alliance of Small Firms, the Government's report "Burdens of Business" said that VAT was the main problem. I always felt that the Keith committee, which added enormously to the penalty, was a positive disgrace. I am glad that the penalties for late payment are being relaxed, although they will have to be relaxed a great deal more before my constituents are pleased. Nevertheless, the Government have taken some steps in the right direction
Women members of my constituency had interesting views on the measures relating to child care. In addition to going to my constituency at the weekend, I also gave speeches to women audiences in Spalding and Cambridge. They were disappointed that the Budget did not do more to help working women. The Budget discussion today is about work and the success of our economy. One of the great successes of the Conservative Government is that they have not only changed but modernised the economy. We have moved away from the old, heavy industrial occupations to light industry, service industries and information technology, all of which are highly attractive to and make great demands on the labour of women. It is a growth area for which women, with their high level of dextrous manual skills and their ability to handle half a dozen problems at the same time, are very much in demand.
Half the work force now consists of women, but women have a dual responsibility—they are responsible for their families as well as their jobs. They are good at juggling problems, but they have to pay for help in the home while they are out at work. Whether they look after children or elderly relatives. the cost of help is now much higher than it was. Women were hoping that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would develop the theme in the last Budget and allow tax deduction on the cost of providing nursery provision at the workplace. The majority of working women do not have small children of nursery age, but children of school age. One working woman in two has a child at school and has to cope with the problem of what to do with the children first thing in the morning, what to do if they cannot get home when school closes in the evening, and what to do in the school holidays. They often have to pay to resolve those problems. Many women work part time and, once they have been taxed, the cost of care gobbles up so much of their earnings that they are hardly worth while.
Those women work not to buy lipstick and tights but to supplement the family budget, to help pay the mortgage, and to help keep elderly relatives. They look to the Chancellor in the next Budget—I am getting in my
672
fourpenn'orth now—to assist those women, and I strongly recommend such a change. Today the Labour party threatened us with the idea of a Ministry for women, should Labour ever be elected. Such a Ministry would be the kiss of death for women.
To see whether a Ministry has ever done us any good, we have only to consider existing Ministries. We have a Ministry of education and large numbers of illiterate and innumerate children; we have a Ministry of housing and people sleeping on the streets; we have a Ministry of Agriculture and the farmers are fed up to the back teeth with it; we have a Ministry of Transport, but trains do not run on time and tubes are packed.
All the evidence points to the fact that a Ministry is not the way to proceed. The only people who would be pleased at the Labour party suggestion are misogynists. That does not mean that women's votes are not extremely important to us, and we should include measures in our financial strategy that will appeal to those people—not just because they are women, but because they form a significant part of our work force and play a dual role.
Overall, the Budget has been well received in my constituency. Short of reducing the tax base rate to 10 per cent., which I know is coming in the not too distant future, I am sure that the feeling in my constituency is that the Government are continuing to run a strong, healthy economy and that, in Billericay, things have not only got better throughout the period of the Conservative Government, but continue to do so.
I promised my constituents that I would come back to give that message to the Treasury spokesmen today. We are not the gloom and doom organisation that people would believe us to be if they listened to what Labour Members have to say about our economy and our country, which they are always rubbishing.
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The Chair is grateful to hon. Members for observing the 10-minute limit. As a number of hon. Members who were hoping to speak are not now in the Chamber, it is possible for me to relax the limit. However, that does not mean that we should have very long speeches.
7.52 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) is not in the Chamber, but I believe that there is still an hon. Member from the west midlands who has a car constituency. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said that Tories in the west midlands have failed to protect the car industry. The Budget was disastrous for the car industry and the west midlands.
Although cars are not made in Carlisle, we have a large tyre factory and a seat belt factory, both of which are foreign-owned—one American, the other Italian. We are grateful to those countries. We are also grateful that the Japanese have opened a car factory in the north-east and are to open another one in Derbyshire. Ironically, the Japanese have decided to do so in two good Labour districts in Derbyshire and the north-east, not in Essex. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said, success in the car industry will come when Rover opens a car factory in Japan. I want British industry

673
to be the best in the world, but the problem is that the Tories are content for it to be third-rate, which is what the Budget will make it.
It is only six days ago that the Chancellor made his Budget statement, but it is easy to forget what he said, not because of the way he said it, but because of its content——
Mr. Hoyle: It was also the way he said it.
Mr. Martlew: Yes, but I was trying to be nice.
The Budget speech was irrelevant until the last four minutes out of 70. The rest of it will have been forgotten and put in the dustbin. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman decided to increase VAT to 17·5 per cent. as a means to get rid of the poll tax has ensured that the Budget will be a footnote in history. That is what the Budget was about; it was not about helping industry or women, or improving training standards: it was all about trying to fix the poll tax.
Conservative Members left the Chamber as happy as sandboys last Tuesday. They were whistling and jumping, and on the telephone to the papers telling them how great the Budget was. I did not realise that they were the same people when they came through Central Lobby today. They were as miserable as sin; they must have been back to their constituencies and seen the Daily Express. The Budget was about fixing the poll tax, but the Chancellor blew it; the people of this country cannot be bought that easily. They are not fooled; they saw the reversal of policies that have been going since 1979—discrediting the rates by pulling away what used to be called the rate support grant. In my constituency in the late 1970s, that grant was nearly 70 per cent. of total spend, but recently, until the Budget change, it was only 40 per cent. The Conservative Government pulled away that grant and gave it to people in income tax cuts. One Conservative Budget contained a correlation between the 2p taken off income tax and the amount taken from the rate support grant.
Up and down the country, in Labour and Conservative authorities, people saw services deteriorating, cuts being made and the rates going up. In this Chamber, Conservative Members have made some disgraceful comments about local councillors—one would not think that they were members of the same party. They have not had a good word for them. I have spent 18 years in local government and, believe me, we run the county council better than the Government run the country—they are a shambles, and should resign. We have had a "quick fix" Budget, which was all about trying to fix the poll tax—and it did not work.
We have heard people talk about a Budget for business—what nonsense. The Chancellor decided to take 1 per cent. off corporation tax. The Government have done a grand job of reducing the tax bills of companies. Some of those bills have been reduced by 50 per cent. or even 90 per cent. in the past year. Some companies do not pay any tax. That is not due to fiscal policies, but because of how the Government have run the economy. The recession is reducing the tax bills of companies up and down Britain because they have not made profits due to the way the Government run the economy.
674
I do not believe that those business men who have gone bankrupt will have thought a great deal about the Budget, which will have been academic for them. People who lost their jobs during the last recession under this Government were conned into the enterprise culture by smart advertising by the Department of Trade and Industry, but then interest rates suddenly went up, the Government abandoned them and they went bankrupt.
Such business men not only lost the business, and often the status that goes with it, but many of them lost their houses. As I mentioned in a previous speech, in the local paper I see births, deaths and bankruptcies. The paper lists a former builder who used to live in a nice district of my constituency, who has been rehoused by the local authority. That is the measure of what the Government's recession is doing.
However, the real blow to business did not come in the Budget, which did not really matter. Business men were looking for a substantial cut in interest rates. What did the Government do? As they had another performance to give on Thursday, they held back on the reduction in interest rates until Friday, when they took them down half a per cent., which had already been discounted. That will not bring down the mortgage rate or save the bankruptcies. That is an absolute disgrace, the Government know it, and this weekend local business men told them that it was a disgrace.
I do not believe that the only thing that they jumped up and down about in Billericay was mobile telephones. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) must have talked to strange people if that was the only problem they had with the Budget. That was not what I was hearing from my local business people in Carlisle, who were asking, "When will the penal interest rates come down? When will the Government stop playing cat and mouse with people's jobs?" That is what they are doing; they have brought down interest rates by half a per cent. and will probably bring them down by another half a per cent. before the local elections, just as they brought them down when we entered the ERM. They did so for political reasons that have nothing to do with the economy, and that is a disgrace. [Laughter.]
I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will stop laughing when I start talking about unemployment. It is not funny, and the sooner he is unemployed, the better for the country. There are 2 million unemployed now, and Government statistics, drawn up by independent experts, show that the number is heading for 3 million next year. The Government have not even introduced any decent training schemes.
I visited a local training scheme on Friday in a company that had come out of the public sector—where it worked for the county council—and was now in the private sector. It is being severely hit by the recession. Employment training is dead in the water. We never appreciated the scheme, because it was compulsory, with only a £10 supplement for those on it. The Government have not raised that £10 in two years, but the present inflation rate means that it must be raised. As I said, employment training is dead in the water. The Government have abandoned it—it is another wasted scheme. Unfortunately, many people will suffer.
The Government's cynical logic is that, if we are to have 3 million unemployed, there will be no jobs anyhow, so we should not waste money on training. The Government should have taken the opportunity to provide real training

675
for real skills. The least we asked for was the reintroduction of a community project to give some hope to some people in the short term until the recession is over. They have been abandoned by the Government in an effort to fix the poll tax.
The Tory Government have abandoned everything. They abandoned their former leader and the poll tax. I now hear rumours that they are not too happy with their present leader; but we are very happy with him.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We backed the "No Turning Back" group.
Mr. Martlew: It is not the "No Turning Back" group; it is the "Don't Know Which Way to Turn" group. Why do we not have emergency measures to reduce unemployment? The Government promised to build a hospital in my constituency in 1979. The plans were drawn up, and a bypass could have gone around the outskirts of Carlisle and done some major good. However, the Government are not prepared to spend money to achieve a substantial reduction in unemployment.
We all know that the first part of the economy to recover is the construction sector. Hon. Members have heard the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) talk about unemployment in the construction industry. A commitment to build a better infrastructure and more national health service hospitals would be beneficial. I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You are doing very well, Eric.
Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for asking me to continue. I should not want to get in his way. I know that he has the same problem in his constituency.
In Cumbria, for example, we have problems with Barrow and Vickers. That town exists because 14,000 people were employed in the shipyards. It was obvious that there would be a decline in Barrow when the Trident programme came to an end. The Government did nothing. They did not improve the infrastructure. I discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) yesterday. He said that they had been waiting for a bypass in Dalton since 1936.
The problem with attracting industry to Barrow and Furness is that communications are difficult. We must improve the infrastructure. The work force in Barrow are second to none—they have built some fine submarines. However, there has been no commitment to spend public money, because the Government do not believe in spending public money. Believe me, the private sector will not build a decent road into Barrow and Furness.
We in Cumbria also have problems with Sellafield. Construction of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant is near completion. Thousands of people in the construction industry will become unemployed because construction of that plant is nearing completion. Becoming unemployed in the middle of the worst recession that the Tories have created will be a major problem for those people. We need public investment and public commitment. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, the hon.. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will not solve their problems.
What did the Budget do for people in Barrow and for those on THORP who are to be made redundant? They
676
did nothing at all; in fact, they made matters worse. Unless there is a Labour Government, and I am convinced that there will be a Labour Government——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: One of the key issues that have been raised by our constituents is interest rates. In my office, we have been doing some interesting research on these matters, which shows that, if general elections are called when interest rates are high, as happened in 1974 and 1979, the Government lose. The Conservative Government lost in 1974, when interest rates were nearly 13 per cent. The Labour Government lost in 1979, when interest rates were nearly 13 per cent. However, when they fall, as they fell in 1983 and 1987 and were in a trough, the Government of the day won. It is significant that, immediately after those general elections, interest rates soared. Many lessons are to be drawn from that, and one of them may be a sign of when the next general election might be called.
Mr. Martlew: I accept that. Obviously, my hon. Friend has done much deep thinking. It is a pity that Ministers are not capable of such deep thought. [Interruption.] I take a more political view than my hon. Friend. I have looked at the opinion polls, and I have noticed that the June election date has disappeared. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Workington will have an opportunity to speak later.
I am convinced that we shall have a June election, but it will be in 1992 and the Conservatives will lose. I was convinced that the Government would lose the election when I heard a senior Conservative Member tell a Lobby correspondent that the Government will fight the next general election on their record. If they do, the Labour party will win by 300 seats.
8.6 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his bold and ingenious Budget and, in particular, on the dramatic reduction in the community charge that he has been able to achieve. I have never had any difficulty defending the principle of the community charge—[Interruption.] I said the principle of the community charge, which is that most adults, as opposed to the minority of ratepayers, are asked to make a contribution to the cost of local council services. Very few people oppose that principle. There are certainly no grounds for apologising for seeking to introduce the principle into local government finance. As my right hon. Friend acknowledged in his Budget statement, the main problem was that the community charge was far too high and far higher than we were led to believe during the general election campaign in 1987.
I was one of the 100-odd Conservative Members who advocated the removal of the cost of education to halve the community charge. In so doing, we accepted that it was bound to mean a delay in implementing our long-standing commitment to reduce income tax still further to 20p in the pound. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has paid for the reduction of the community charge out of VAT, implementation of that commitment can now take place sooner rather than later, and I congratulate him on that.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend also on the fact that inflation is also to fall faster as a result of shifting the main burden of the community charge on to VAT. However, I

677
appreciate, as several Opposition Members have said, that the underlying rate of inflation will fall more slowly. Hence I welcome recent press reports that the retail prices index is to be reviewed and perhaps reformed. I look forward to receiving confirmation of that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor replies to the debate. I hope that that will result in an index calculated in line with those in the rest of the European Community. It is clearly unfair for any party in government in this country to be criticised for inflation rates that appear higher than the inflation rates of our European competitors simply because our inflation rates include factors which theirs ignore.
Because VAT has been increased in the Budget, most businesses must decide whether to pass on the rise in the form of higher prices or to absorb the rise in order to encourage the good will of their customers. For tourism in particular, on which so many jobs, livelihoods and businesses depend in my constituency, it is not quite as easy as that. For example, tour and holiday operators will have to reissue invoices and confirmations to their clients who have already booked holidays. That will undoubtedly be a costly exercise for an industry that is already facing a difficult time. In addition, I have been told that the industry's code of conduct recommended by the Association of British Travel Agents discourages those businesses from passing on such an increase on holidays here in the United Kingdom—in anticipation, I understand, of the single European market in 1992.
Similar circumstances apply to hotels and guest houses which have quoted tariffs for this year, and perhaps even next year, upon which advance bookings have been made. Few of them will want to break their contracts on the prices that they have already quoted. They will have no choice but to absorb the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT unless, of course, the Treasury accepts the price originally agreed including VAT at 15 per cent. in the quarterly VAT returns of those companies. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues will be receiving representations from the industry on that point.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman said that, if people had already bought their tickets, the tour operator would have to reinvoice them.
Mr. Atkinson: I did not say that. I referred to people who had already booked holidays and paid a deposit. I was referring to the cost of catering and accommodation.
One announcement in my right hon. Friend's Budget which has been warmly welcomed by small businesses in my constituency, particularly in tourism, in the hard-hit building industry and elsewhere, was of the increase in the VAT threshold to £35,000. That will relieve a great many of those businesses from VAT and the burden of its administration.
I have consistently stressed the futility of imposing that burden on smaller businesses, particularly when the cost of collection is more than the amount which is collected from those businesses. That cannot be right. I appreciate that that burden is imposed on us by the Community through the sixth directive on VAT. I have always understood that successive Treasury Ministers have tried to negotiate what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has now achieved, but they failed while he succeeded. I was delighted at my right hon. Friend's announcement in that regard.
678
I wish to press for further progress and urge my right hon. Friend to consider a much higher threshold of £100,000 turnover. If he can achieve that, he will be the toast of millions of small businesses throughout the Community, because he will relieve them of the burden of VAT.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was under considerable restraint this year with little to give away. He was seeking a broadly neutral Budget. However, I was particularly disappointed that he responded only very marginally to representations made to him for VAT relief on charitable activities supported by voluntary fund raising.
I have a particular case in mind concerning a hospital project in the Wessex region. Thanks to her own initiative and enterprise, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), Mrs. Mahrou Brown, who tragically lost her son through cancer, has, with her colleagues, raised £865,000 for her Pian Brown child cancer fund for a new children's cancer ward and child benefit unit at Southampton general hospital. However, because from last April health authorities ceased to be eligible for refunds on VAT paid on contractors' contracts, an additional £100,000 must now be raised to pay for that VAT. That cannot be right.
Dame Jill Knight: I assure my hon. Friend that the pain of that problem is not confined to Bournemouth. The Convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in my constituency cares for a large number of elderly people on a residential basis. The nuns work selflessly without pay to look after those people. After an enormous amount of effort, they recently raised funds for necessary alterations, but they have told me that they must now find another £50,000. That is a disaster for them. Will my hon. Friend press his point to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues?
Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend the Minister has heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said. No doubt he will pass on her comments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that he can take account of our representations when he replies. I hope that next year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be able to respond more positively to the representations made to him this year by the charities' tax relief group even to the extent of negotiating with the European Commission if that were appropriate for VAT relief on charities.
When I and some of my local colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), met the Dorset chamber of trade and industry recently to discuss the effects of the recession, we were told that interest rates, inflation and commercial debts represented the principal problems facing its members, together with the uniform business rate and the community charge for those who live over shops.
In his Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor responded positively to each of those problems and I am grateful to him for his courage and imagination. The effect, I believe, will be to bring forward that so-called golden scenario of a 5 per cent. or lower inflation rate and a 10 per cent. or lower interest rate which, it is frequently

679
suggested, is essential for a Conservative election victory and which the previous Labour Government did not achieve.
8.18 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall not have to obey the 10-minute rule to respect injuctions to be brief. I intend to make only three points: the first about the poll tax battle, the second about the general shape of the Budget and the third on a specific point about privatisation proceeds.
With regard to the £140 "giveaway" planned this week, I do not mind if there is chaos surrounding the Tories' retreat from the poll tax. I would much rather have chaos surrounding a retreat from the poll tax than have the chaos that would inevitably result from its continuation. Nor do I mind the fact that the Tory party is indulging in a quick fix over the poll tax. The Conservatives have certainly chosen the wrong quick fix. It would be infinitely preferable to shift the short-term burden on to income tax, which would have been much fairer and progressive, than to have it shifted on to VAT. Nevertheless, although regressive, VAT is fairer than the poll tax.
I urge the Government even at this late stage to consider a suitable amendment to the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill and to make the £140 rebate the minimum discount on the poll tax for each person this year. To do that, rather than deduct the sum from the total poll tax bill and then divide it by whatever rebate percentage to which the individual is entitled, would remove at a stroke the iniquitous 20 per cent. rule which hounds the poor, the unemployed, the disabled and students, all of whom have no capacity to earn, in an attempt to make them pay the iniquitous poll tax. Even at this late stage, with the Government performing not so much a U-turn as a zig-zag that varies from spokesperson to spokesperson and from Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Secretary of State for the Environment, I urge members of the Treasury Bench at least to consider an amendment which would at last introduce some sense of parity and justice for the poor who have suffered most from the poll tax.
I say to the few Labour Members present that there is no doubt in my mind, and I think that there is no serious doubt among the Scottish people, that, if the tax had been meekly accepted, particularly in Scotland which was used as the guinea pig and testing ground for it, we would not be witnessing the complete humiliation of the Conservative party which will extend in the next few weeks and months.
I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who said:
"Now that the poll tax law has been seen to be an ass, can the Secretary of State find it within himself to congratulate the people of Scotland, who showed more wisdom than the politicians? Some of them argued that the only way to get rid of the poll tax was to have a general election, and that nothing could be done until there was a general election. Those Scots who marched, petitioned and protested, and some of whom withheld their tax in an act of civil disobedience, are the people who have destroyed the poll tax mark 1, as has been announced this evening."—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 474.]
The Labour party would do well to heed those words with considerable care. In the light of the events of the past two years the explanation offered by the hon. Member for Hillhead and myself has undoubtedly proved to be better
680
than the advice given by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). They argued that people should stump up and pay up. We said, "Stand up and fight." It is that persistence which has destroyed the iniquitous poll tax.
Much of the controversy which has surrounded the long retreat from the poll tax has tended to overshadow the fact that this is a deflationary Budget. The Conservative party, having effectively surrendered monetary policy to the Bundesbank, is pursuing a passive approach to fiscal policy. That passive approach is probably preferable to the action of the Chancellor's predecessor but two who, in 1981, committed the ultimate mistake of deflating in the teeth of a severe recession. It is better to have no approach than to pursue the exactly opposite remedy. It would be much better and, certainly, would pull us out of the recession more quickly if, instead of relying on the automatic stabilisers on taxation and fiscal policy, the Government tried to lift the economy out of the recession which they themselves have engendered.
It is bad enough for those who live, often not through choice, in the formerly overheated economy of the south-east of England—the area at which the current economic policy has been solely directed—to take the consequences of the Government's mistakes in 1987 and 1988 in the form of the penal interest rate policies of the past two years. It adds substantial insult to considerable injury for the people of Scotland to have to suffer the medicine of high interest rates without ever having had the economic disease in the first place.
I have found it extraordinary over the past year to be told by successive Secretaries of State for Scotland that we should somehow be glad that the high interest rate policy is not biting on the Scottish economy as severely as it is hurting the people of the south-east of England—as though we should have some perverse satisfaction that suffering is being applied elsewhere. The main point is that the economic policy being pursued has never been appropriate for the Scottish economy.
Moreover, to judge from the figures, rather than the Government's fantasy, the Scottish economy is not weathering the recession. During the past five years, the Scottish figures for industrial production to the latest quarter are up 10·7 per cent. compared with 11·2 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. Even more significantly, when one deducts the substantial surge in activity in North sea oil and gas, the increase in Scotland is a full eight points less than the overall United Kingdom average. For an economy which was never overheated in the first place, it has been intolerable to have to suffer the monetary squeeze of the past two years and now to endure a merely passive fiscal policy which has no relevance whatever to economic conditions in Scotland.
When we consider the severe localised economic problems in Scotland, such as the future of Rosyth naval base and the substantial problems of the steel and fishing industries caused by the Government's policy or lack of policy towards them, which immediately affect 60,000 jobs, we have no reason whatever to be satisfied even with the Government's modest forecast of economic recovery which they hope might come at some stage over the next year. If the forecasts of economic recovery are as accurate as those of the recession, which was not predicted in the first place, it would not be entirely surprising if the economic recovery failed to materialise.

681
It used to be said of the imbalance in economic policy between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom that compensation for this inappropriate macro-economic policy was made through regional policy. For the past 12 years, the Government have destroyed regional policy, and not just in the United Kingdom. They have done their level best to destroy or impede any development in regional policy throughout the European Community. Now we have a regional policy in reverse, as was shown comprehensively by the Scottish Television programme, "Scotching the Myth", broadcast suitable enough on St. Andrew's night in Scotland. It detailed point by point the enormous subsidies that pour into the south-east corner of the United Kingdom—the billions that pour into docklands, the hundreds of millions on civil service weightings and the enormous transport subsidies.
In his four months as Secretary of State for Transport, the present incumbent has spent 10 times what he managed to spend in four years as Secretary of State for Scotland—to mention nothing of the more than £1,000 million of additional relief in house mortgage subsidy which, once again, flows into the south-east corner. The additional relief on house mortgage subsidy to the south-east of England is greater than the regional policy budget for the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom put together. Such is the imbalance when the Tory party looks after its voters in the south of the United Kingdom.
Finally, I turn to yet another scandal which is about to be unleashed upon the Scottish people. Tomorrow, amid considerable fanfare, the Government intend to introduce the flotation of the Scottish electricity companies. That involves a substantial sum—no less than £1·5 billion of the £5·5 billion of privatisation proceeds estimated in the Budget.
I have information that the Scottish Office and the two financial advisers overseeing the flotation, the merchant banks Barclays de Zoete Wedd and British Linen, have agreed, as an official estimate, that the maximum take-up of shares for individual Scottish investors will be 25 per cent. That means that, at the very time of flotation, what has been heralded as an attempt to revive the Scottish private sector will result immediately in two of the largest companies in Scotland falling into the hands of those furth of Scotland. The privatised Scottish electricity companies will be in external ownership from the very point of flotation.
We have had some rare battles in Scotland during the past 10 years, on, for example, the Royal Bank of Scotland, when we were successful, and on other issues such as the Guinness-Distillers affair, when, unfortunately, the campaign to prevent a takeover was not successful; but this must be the first time that we shall have had a takeover by external interests on the very day of the privatisation.
I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is an expert on such matters or whether he has any familiarity with them or with the future of the hydro-electric company and Scottish Power, but perhaps either he or the Chancellor will confirm or deny the official estimates of the Scottish Office and the two merchant banks that are advising on the privatisation and say whether it is true that no more than 25 per cent. of the
682
shares are meant to fall into the hands of individual Scottish investors. No doubt the institutional holdings will quickly reduce that percentage even further.
I understand from The Daily Telegraph, which must be an impeccable source on these matters——
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I can tell the hon. Gentleman straight that we should be delighted if a very much larger percentage of the equity of those companies went into the hands of Scottish individuals, and I am confident that it will.
Mr. Salmond: I am glad to hear it, but the Minister carefully avoided answering my question—whether from lack of knowledge or out of habit, I do not know. My question was, is it or is it not the official estimate—the working estimate—of the Scottish Office that no more than 25 per cent. of the shares will remain in Scottish hands? It is a simple question, and I hope that it will be answered this evening.
Incidentally, perhaps the Minister could explain why so much of the advertising of that privatisation has been on TVS and London Weekend television. Are the Government looking to sell as many shares as possible in the south of England?
I was going to say that The Daily Telegraph, that impeccable source, has suggested that there will be a substantial "spin-off" from the privatisation for the Conservatives' fortunes in Scotland. I must advise those Conservative Members who are present that, once the people of Scotland understand that the control and ownership of those companies will be removed from the Scottish people and taken furth of Scotland, there will not be a spin-off from the privatisations; there will be a substantial fallout for the already much diminished fortunes of the Scottish Conservative party.
Perhaps the only excuse for the Budget is that the Chancellor was so preoccupied with trying to fix the poll tax that he forgot entirely about the substantive economic problems facing the country. This is a standstill Budget, which is bad enough for an economy that is deep into recession, as is happening in the United Kingdom as a whole, but it is totally irrelevant for the Scottish economy which needs a substantial economic injection to pull it out of a recession engendered by economic policies designed to counter an inflationary disease in the south-east of England, which Scotland did not even experience in the first place.
8.33 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his excellent neutral Budget which is ideal for the times in which we live. I believe that he got the Budget judgment just about right. I particularly support his cautious but none the less relentless downward pressure on interest rates, giving due deference to the foreign exchange markets and to the way in which that will be interpreted there. At the same time, he has given confidence to business and to those markets themselves. The proof of the pudding with regard to this policy is that on each of the past two or three occasions when he has taken a 0·5 per cent. move downwards, the pound has strengthened against the deutschmark. That proves that his policy is giving confidence to the markets. Having spoken recently to some midlands industrialists, I know

683
that he is giving them confidence too. His policy shows that the Government mean business. The policy is working, and I urge him to continue in that line.
I shall be brief, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, and as he and I share one particular concern, I shall pass over it briefly because my hon. Friend wishes to say more about it. I refer to the fact that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), I am a little concerned about the Budget's effect on the motor industry, which is of critical importance to the west midlands. The industry is suffering at present, not merely from the effects of the recession, but also from the way in which we have chosen to raise taxation. I hope that something will be said about the motor industry in the reply to this debate for the benefit of those hon. Members who have raised that subject, but I shall say no more about that because my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield will develop that point further.
I very much welcome the help for small businesses that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which shows a genuine sensitivity to their needs. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who is no longer in his place, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to continue their efforts to press our European partners for a meaningful threshold for VAT for small businesses. I totally concur that the figure should now be about £100,000.
The present level is ridiculous. It places a huge burden of responsibility on small businesses and, in most cases, is not worth collecting. It also places undue pressure on small businesses, especially in the difficult times that they are experiencing at present. Raising the VAT threshold would make a major difference to such companies and to our ability to develop and sustain our small businesses so that they become bigger and more profitable businesses for our enterprise economy of the future.
I come now to savings. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and most of the Labour Front Bench have dwelt on the question of training. The hon. Gentleman said that the key to the success of the German and Japanese economies was their training. The Germans may well have an excellent training system—mostly financed from private industry rather than from direct Government sources or taxation—but having worked intimately with a well-known Japanese firm for three years, I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the principal success of the Japanese, German and Swiss economies lies in the fact that they are savings-based economies and not spending economies. In trying to grasp that fundamental point, it is a pity that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did not have room for manoeuvre to continue the work begun by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor in developing tax incentives and fiscal advantages to switch to a savings economy.
I am also concerned about the fiscal stance. Mention has been made of the need to spend a little more during a recession. The merit of the Government's policy over the past five or six years has been sound money, and I congratulate them on that. To have produced a balanced Budget and a Budget surplus from which debt repayment can be made was a masterly achievement, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) deserves considerable accolades for having achieved that.
684
Like others of my hon. Friends, however, I am concerned that we now seem to be moving into a Budget deficit. I would not normally be over-concerned about the size of a trade deficit while there was a balancing or countervailing Budget surplus, but I am concerned that we may be moving towards an envisaged public sector borrowing requirement and a Budget deficit at a time when the trade balance is still heftily in the red. We have seen a little improvement this month, but nevertheless it will remain heftily in the red. A trade deficit can be balanced by a Budget surplus, but to have both a trade deficit and a Budget deficit worries me a little. I say no more than that.
I wish to say a few words about increasing VAT. I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his move to raise VAT by 2·5 per cent., thereby reducing the burden of local taxes. I entirely support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), when they suggested that after the continuous review or consultation period, as we are now calling it, we should extend the movement to central taxation and raise a significant portion, if not all of the money for local government services through VAT collected by central Government.
Where I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, for example, is on the margin. I do not believe that it would be a good idea to change the margin from zero to, say, 5 per cent. It would make much more sense to raise the overall level to a level similar to that levied in some of our principal competitor countries in the European Community, perhaps to an overall rate of 20 per cent. or thereabouts.
A move to increase VAT is extremely sensible, in that it taxes spending rather than earning. If we once again adopt the idea that we tax spending and reduce taxation on saving, we shall make the balance more akin to the successful economies of the world, especially Japan and Germany. Furthermore, I disagree with those who say that VAT is regressive. Zero rating benefits those on the bottom rung of the ladder and those who buy fancy toys, cars, televisions and expensive items pay far more. VAT is a fair way to raise money for local government. I wish that the Government would complete the move and raise all local government finance by that method.
My right hon. Friend's Budget is an excellent Budget for the times. I hope that he will consider ways of extending certain moves that I have already mentioned. I recommend the Budget to the House.
8.42 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: What a destructive and wasteful Government we have serving this nation. Some of the things that have been poured out from the Government are absolutely disgusting. All they are trying to do is to save their skins. That is what it is all about. If they think that the people out there, the electorate, do not know what is going on, they have another think coming. People know what is going on, and they know that the Budget is a con trick.
I remember when we had the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the Dispatch Box for the first time to answer questions. I happened to have question 9 on that day. I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he had had an easy time in the Treasury. When he came along as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry I told him that

685
he had some work to do. He had to get industry out of the rut and the mess that it was in, which had been created by his own Government. He had to sort out the balance of payments problem. The Government are not going to do that. The balance of payments problem will get worse.
Mr. Julian Brazier: We shall miss you, Frank.
Mr. Haynes: I shall miss the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), too. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) will also be on his way after the next election—there is no need to worry about that lad.
I told the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that if he did not sort out the problems he would have to buy a concrete suit and jump in the river just outside here. The Secretary of State has definitely failed the nation. I do not think that he knows what the job is about. He is wasting time in Parliament.
The hon. Membe for Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) said that the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) should be given an accolade. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I remember when he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He took us into the mess that we are in now. But when it got so bad, he ducked out of the job. He did not want it any longer. He blamed the problems on a little blip. Some blip that was! And what a mess we are in now.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer can sit there—I have one or two things to say about him too. [Interruption.] It is no good him ducking out of the Chamber behind the Speaker's Chair. He has ducked out of his responsibilities by nipping out of the Chamber.
In the Budget and at the Dispatch Box, we have heard it all before. Time has gone on and the Government have failed the nation time and again. I get the message loud and clear in my constituency about what people feel about what is in the Budget and how the ordinary working folk will be treated. I get around my constituency and talk to people in the pubs, clubs and elderly peoples' groups—[Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but the smile will be taken off his face at the next election. The people out there have had enough. They tell me clearly in my constituency what they think about the Budget.
It is shameful that, since 1979, the Government have put more taxes on people than any other Government. It is shameful, shocking and wicked. The Government could not care less about the people at the lower end. They are looking after their own kind, as they do year after year whenever they get into office. The electorate are waking up because of what has happened in the Budget and on the poll tax. It is a real fiddle to knock off £140. Back home, people will still have the poll tax. The Government have not got rid of the poll tax yet, although they say they will.
God forbid that the Conservatives should win the election—I do not believe that they will. We shall win the next election and get rid of the poll tax, because we have said we will. We shall put something fairer in its place. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Hon. Members can bawl and shout from their seats as much as they like, but they are going to sit there and listen. They will listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when she replies to the debate. They will be told a thing or two, as they were told when my hon. Friend the Member for
686
Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) opened the debate. They were given a lesson on how a Government should help industry with a view to investment so that industry can make the profits necessary in the interests of the workers, instead of laying them off, as this lot do. The Conservatives do it all the time. They did it back in the 1930s. I am old enough to remember. I was 65 three weeks ago. I am old enough to know what happened previously and before the war. I know, and the people in my age group know, how the Conservative party treats people when it gets into office.
At long last the people are waking up to what is going on. The hon. Member for Northfield can take the grin off his face because he will be looking for a job elsewhere after the next election and he knows it. I have listened to some of the things that he has said since he has been in the House. There is no doubt that the does not know how ordinary folk go on. He has his head in the clouds like many more in the Conservative party.
We have had it all before and, while the Conservatives are in office, we shall get it again. They talk about a 4 per cent. inflation rate. They have promised it all before, but they have never achieved it. Up it went, and the workers paid out of their pockets to dig the Tories out of a hole, but people are now seeing through that con trick.
I remember the Secretary of State for the Environment when he sat on this side of the House—pre-1979—just before he waved that Mace around the Chamber. He said that under a Labour Administration, there was far too much central control. So what is happening now? The Government are introducing more and more central control which is hitting local authorities and the way they implement their policies. Ordinary folk are getting a real bashing because of the 2·5 per cent. on value added tax to pay for the £140 poll tax reduction. Many people in my constituency get relief on the poll tax, but no one will get relief on the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT. Everyone has to pay that, so the increase hits people on lower incomes. The hon. Member for Canterbury may well yawn—he will have plenty of time for yawning after the next election. I want to see a Labour Member for Canterbury. We shall be in Government so there will be some fair rations then.
The Government talk about what they have done for the people. They have certainly done something for some people. [interruption.] The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) should shut up while I am on my feet. I am surprised that you have not stopped him yacking, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I always listen to other hon. Members, so the hon. Gentleman should listen to me. I was rather surprised that, when Brigg town came to play Sutton town in my constituency last Saturday, the hon. Gentleman did not turn up to support his own club. I mentioned it to all the management, so he has lost their votes.
Where has all the money gone? The Government have sold off nearly all public industry. With the proceeds, they could have helped people who are really in need, but they have had to put 2·5 per cent. on VAT to pay for the £140 poll tax reduction. That is a shocking state of affairs but, slowly and surely, the electorate are learning.
The Government have failed miserably with their training programme. When Labour is in office, there will be a proper training programme so that we have skilled workers with jobs at the end of their course. At the moment, people go on some training scheme for a couple

687
of years because the Government assure them that there will be a job at the end of it, but there are already 2 million unemployed and there will soon be 3 million.
On Saturday night, I spoke to some people from the Confederation of British Industry at a reception during a concert. There was a break of about 20 minutes for a drink. I drank orange juice because I had my car. The people from the CBI said that the Government had failed industry, and indeed they have. They are trying to duck their responsibility by using a con trick on the nation.
David Puttnam and Richard Attenborough went to see the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to try to get help for the film industry. She guaranteed them £5 million over about three years. The Conservative party sacked its leader and also the £5 million—the film industry has not seen a penny of it, although the industry is an important exporter. We train the finest actors in the world—there is no doubt about that. They used to make films in this country before the Conservatives came to power in 1979. Since then, the industry has gone down.
The right hon. Member for Finchley recognised that we should pick it up, and she guaranteed the industry £5 million. She set up a commit tee with a view to putting the matter right, but under their new leader and with new Secretaries of State the Government have failed the industry. I am interested in that industry and always have been, like many other hon. Members. We want it to be successful. The Minister is not listening—he is yacking to the Chief Whip—but I want him to listen because I want the Government to do something about that industry, as the right hon. Member for Finchley promised before she was sacked. I want the Minister to tell the Chancellor, who has nipped out of the Chamber, that an appeal has been made on behalf of the film industry.
The Government have been a complete failure for the nation. I am pleased that the Chancellor has now come back. He knows that what I have said is true. The sooner we get rid of this Government, the better.
8.56 pm
Mr. Roger King: It is always a privilege to hear a speech by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I observed that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made good his escape at the start of the hon. Gentleman's peroration. I have to say that he did not miss very much. I enjoy the hon. Gentleman's neanderthal approach to socialism—he will be sadly missed when he leaves the House at the next election. Those of us who will be back will have to look on the Opposition's serried ranks of grey socialism which, so far during this debate, have failed to come up with any policies to help our economy develop.
I consider the Budget to be rather like a wine that has matured over the weekend as the salient points have been digested. They seem all the better for examination.
We are moving through difficult economic times, for a catalogue of reasons which go back many years before the Conservative Goverment came to power in 1979. Business people in the west midlands in particular want economic stability. They are fed up with brief periods of raging economic growth being followed by periods of recession. If they are to be sure of sustained, programmed growth, businesses—certainly those in the west midlands, and, I
688
believe, those in the rest of the country—need a period of controlled interest rate reduction, fair exchange rates and general financial stability.
I was particularly struck by certain items in the Budget. One was the important but largely unsung incentive provided by profit-related pay, which I hope will be welcomed throughout the country. When the economy picks up, we do not want roaring demand for wages which will not be paid for either by productivity agreements or by the profitability of the business or service concerned. The scheme should be popular not only with businesses but with trade unions, whose objective is to further their members' interests.
The sale of stocks and shares in high street shops is, I think, an excellent way of carrying the torch of capitalism even further than has been managed by our privatisation programme. Lingerie was once sold behind screens in department stores, away from the public gaze—certainly out of the sight of men. Over the past few years, however, there has been a transformation of retailing practice. It is now possible to purchase lingerie from Knickerbox on the concourse at Epsom station. I look forward to the time when there is a Stockbox alongside Knickerbox. The more shares are brought into the public marketplace—the high streets, for instance—the more people will embrace the aims of capitalism, and appreciate the importance of taking a fair share in the value of British industry.
I am sorry that I was not here for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), because I believe that he mentioned the car industry—as did the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). That industry is especially important to the west midlands, and I hope to say something about it myself.
We have heard a good deal today about the problems of local government finance, about the obvious move towards more central funding, and about a local levy to replace the poll tax. Some hon. Members have spoken of the desirability of transferring all local funding to central Government. There is, of course, some merit in such a system—the money would be raised through income tax, VAT or both—but the cost to the taxpayer would preclude any reduction in income tax in the foreseeable future.
Attractive though that panacea may be, I fear that it would lead us into the quagmire of central funding for all local authority services. I am reminded of the problems that we encounter in seeking a fair and equitable system of funding for the National Health Service. Whenever operations are cancelled or wards are closed, for whatever reason—irrespective of the way in which the local administration conducts its affairs—the finger is always pointed at the Government. They are invariably accused of having underfunded the service, although they can prove that they have financed it more than adequately. When money is short, the Government get the brickbats.
Representing as I do such a great city as Birmingham, I would not like to be faced with a constant procession of people telling me that education, housing and social services are inadequately funded because central Government have not got the formula right. Unless we can devise a block grant formula that is wholly fair—a task that has defied Governments for generations—central funding will not be an acceptable alternative. We need a mixture of the two types of funding.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has increased the levy on personal use of company cars. I remind my right hon. Friend that the company car forms the basis of the

689
British motor industry's production requirement: the bedrock of the annual sale of 600,000 has attracted such overseas manufacturers as Toyota, Nissan and Honda to this country, and provided a springboard for entry into the world market. The motor industry is on course to export half a million cars this year; that is an outstanding achievement, on which a substantial home market has been built. If we jeopardise that home market by persuading the company car fleet owner to ask his employees to buy their own cars, there is a danger that they will buy foreign cars. I think that my right hon. Friend may have gone a bit too far.
Having expressed that reservation, however, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent Budget.
9.3 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) summed up the Budget last week when she said that it would be remembered as the "poll tax Budget".
Midland Montagu, in its analysis of the Budget, said:
"The budget has been dictated by the over-riding need to cut poll tax bills for the coming year".
I agree with my hon; Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) that the Chancellor's speech was almost as striking for what he did not say as for what he did. With forecasts that show the economy to be in an appalling state, but with little indication of how the Government plan to deal with that, I was surprised to see the Chancellor's speech referred to as "bold" and "courageous". He was not courageous enough to mention the two worst indicators found in the Red Book—the fall of 5 per cent. in output and the fall of 10 per cent. in fixed investment. The latter figure is particularly striking when we recall that the fall in economywide fixed investment is the biggest year-on-year fall in such investment since the great depression of 1931 to 1932.
It is no wonder that S. G. Warburg says in its response to the Budget:
"Not only does the gloomy period come first, but the longer term optimism is rather suspect"
The Chancellor, however, had the courage to mention rising unemployment. Unfortunately, that was all he did—mention it. He spoke sternly about inflation, although whether it was courage or foolhardiness that he showed by gambling with inflation is another matter. The Chancellor, through the increase in VAT and the increase in prescription charges announced a few days before the Budget, has inflicted yet another inflation own goal. That is just what the Government did all last year, and it has brought us to our present pass.
I know that the increase in VAT will not show in the same way in the headline figures or the retail prices index, but it will show up in prices. That gamble on VAT is a poll tax surcharge, imposed in an attempt to save the Government's neck. The Financial Times called it
"a tax to save the Conservatives from the just consequences of their own folly."
I notice that it was The Times which said that this was the nearest any British Government had come to handing out fivers on the street corner. On the basis of the cut in the poll tax figures, the Financial Times predicted that next year we shall see luncheon vouchers handed out in return
690
for voting Conservative at the next election—[Interruption.] That is not my joke, but that of the Financial Times.
Better forecasts for inflation were made in the Red Book and in the Chancellor's speech, although the gross domestic product deflator, in common with the most recent inflation figures, suggest that there are still problems. We have been given better forecasts for the balance of payments, but we believe that that is the least that we should expect from a flattened economy. Kleinwort Benson has said in its commentary:
"The Treasury's forecast that inflation falls further"
in the subsequent year
"to 3·75 per cent. is too optimistic … there are too many special items … that worked to reduce the rate of the UK RPI in 1991, and are unlikely to be repeated in 1992"
We have all along predicted that there will. be improvements in inflation and other indicators because of the way in which the economy has been flattened, but what about the longer-term perspective? Once again, the Budget shows that there is none. The Government seem to be looking not one day further than the day of the next general election.
The predictions of falling interest rates, inflation and balance of payments—at least for a period—is what we used to call the window of opportunity in which the Government were hoping to hold the election. We should now re-identify that anticipated period as the eye of the hurricane. It has long been predicted that there would be some deterioration in the economy when the squeeze was lifted. But what is now crystal clear, just as we feared, is that the Government plan not to learn from the past mistakes but to repeat them—at least partly for electoral reasons.
The signal that the Government gave in 1988—I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in his place, because it was his signal—fostered the credit boom and added to the tax cuts all those words about the economic miracle and our problems being at an end. One mistake that the Government are now threatening to repeat is giving the same signal.
Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Lady quote the statement to which she referred?
Mrs. Beckett: Does the former Chancellor disown the phrase "economic miracle'?
Mr. Lawson: Yes, I do. Will the hon. Lady quote the statement to which she referred?
Mrs. Beckett: I apologise if I have done the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. I recall the phrase being used. I recall it being used by the present Prime Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman is shifting the blame from himself on to the Prime Minister, that is fine by me.
Mr. Lawson: The hon. Lady will find that I quoted a number of other people who had referred to an "economic miracle".
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting the record straight with such commendable accurancy. I am afraid that I do not recall his strong denials, his dissociation from those words of his suggestion that there might be anything flawed in those remarks.
There is no doubt that the Government are giving a similar signal today. When we went into the exchange rate mechanism, the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister,

691
talked about the adjustment that we would have to make and the sacrifices that would be required. As we feared, the present Chancellor is trying to tell the electorate that those hard times and sacrifices are already behind them. The Government are saying that there is no alternative to their proposals, that no one could run the economy better than them—an example of hubris which no doubt will shortly be followed by nemesis.
Why are the Government facing these problems? The Chancellor said—this is probably just one explanation which he wants to give—that recession in a market economy was "inescapable''. That is a new line in Tory propaganda. Will the right hon. Gentleman put that in the election manifesto? I do not remember it being in the 1987 manifesto. The other usual suspect is, to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), that "little mistake" in 1987 to which the Government admit—interest rates cuts. I notice that increasingly, when the Government mention that "little mistake", it seems that even that was our fault, not theirs.
What other slings and arrows have beset the Government? Under what harsh strokes of fate have they reeled? What terrible ill luck has beset them?
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I should like to continue.
Apart from the Government's mistakes and misjudgments, I can see only one piece of ill luck. The tragedy for this country is that the Government have had £100 billion of income from the North sea, money that they used to keep the electorate sweet while they made the economy the test bed for theories which even they have now abandoned. The oil provided a cushion which allowed them to win three elections in a manner that convinced them that they were invincible. Because they were so sure that they could not lose, no matter what they did, they dared not only to run risks with the economy but to introduce the poll tax—an awful warning of the dangers of a fourth term.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give Way?
Mrs. Beckett: I should like to get a little further on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The same arrogance as the Government displayed then leads them to become increasingly erratic in their own defence. All this week, they have triumphantly announced that they have shot people's foxes and stolen Labour's clothes—I think that they have a little machine in central office that turns out those lines.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who sadly is not with us this evening, got his lines correct, but evidently he came in on the wrong cue. He was reported this week as saying that inflation was falling "like a stone". If a 0·1 per cent. decrease in the headline rate of inflation is "falling like a stone", what is a 0·1 per cent. increase in the underlying rate of inflation? Is that rising, like the Government's blood pressure? We know what the tight hon. Gentleman probably meant to say—under a Government who claim such sweeping success, it is investment, output and employment that are falling "like a stone".
We had the ill-timed recitation about the Government having stolen the Labour party's clothes. I detect some inconsistency. Until about two or three weeks ago the Government were complaining that the Labour party had
692
no policies. As recently as the autumn statement debate, the Chancellor said of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith):
"The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no policy."—[Official Report, 13 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 866]
That accusation having failed to serve, the Government decided to steal the policies which they had recently detected. Tragically for the country, they have not stolen our policies. There is nothing in the Budget to assist long-term investment in training, but it contains cuts in
real terms of over £200 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) quoted the chairman of a group of TECs who gave evidence to his Select Committee on Employment. He said that the TECs had had an overall reduction in their funding and that it has resulted in a major problem. He referred to a draconian average 45 per cent. cut in real terms in their budgets and he called on the Chancellor to reinstate the training and enterprise budgets at last year's level—a call which has gone unheeded.
There was little in the Budget to promote investment in manufacturing, although what was there was welcome. If the CBI's prediction of a 16 per cent. fall in manufacturing investment proves correct, manufacturing fixed investment, including lease assets in the coming year, will be below the level that the Government inherited in 1979. Before the Budget, a House of Lords Select Committee said:
"The Government no longer has any view of the strategic importance to the nation of certain industries, or indeed of any industries at all. All the evidence shows that the present lack of Government commitment, support and assistance is deeply damaging to industry and to our national interest."
The Government's response was to cut the rate of corporation tax. On 7 March the Financial Times said that the cut in the corporation tax rate
"would merely deliver windfall gains to those companies that manage to survive the recession."
In its response to the Budget, the Engineering Employers Federation said that cutting interest rates would have done far more and that what the Chancellor did
"was not an adequate response to the problems of the UK industry and does not address the problems of UK industry and doesn't address the problems of companies not having enough cash to invest for the future."
In its commentary on the Budget, Phillips and Drew observed that the Chancellor's measures
"amount to no more than a teaspoon with which to hold back the recessionary tide."
Those are the measures so highly, praised by Conservative Members.
The other measure to which the Government gave too little was child benefit. I draw a distinction between our proposals for the Budget and the general shape of our public expenditure proposals. We have clearly said that we have clear and specific commitments to pensions. We will increase the pension for a single person by £5 and for a married couple by £8. We have also said that we will restore child benefit to the level that it would be if it have been index-linked since 1987. We have said that we wish to make other proposals, but that they would be made as resources allowed, and that we would give priority to education and training and investment in manufacturing industry. As the election drew nearer and we had a better idea of what we were likely to inherit, we would be more specific about some of our proposals.
Mr. George Walden: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I want to put this on the record, but if I have time I shall give way later.
Mr. Walden: I should like to get on to the record.
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Science made clear earlier in the debate, we have committed ourselves to a steady increase in education spending as a proportion of our gross domestic product. That will be done as resources allow, but at present we are not in a position to put a timescale on it. That is more of a commitment than anything that we have heard from the Conservative party. All that we have heard is that education is dear to the Prime Minister's heart, and one cannot get much less specific than that.
The Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for Social Security get very excited about this, so for their benefit I shall set the record straight. The main proposals made in what has been described as our shadow Budget were meant for the present Chancellor, for the latest Budget, in this year of expenditure. We made that plain from the beginning. I know that the right hon. Gentleman sent someone from Central Office to our press conference, so that person will be able to tell him precisely what was said there—at least someone from Central Office attended it. Who sent him is not my problem.
Those proposals included changes relating to training and revenue. Not hypothecated, of course—perish the thought. On revenue, we presented an illustrative package. I will be open with the House, and admit that it was designed for one purpose only, which it achieved. That package was designed to show clearly that the Chancellor had the capacity and room for manoeuvre to make programme changes of the kind, and on the scale, that we proposed without having to increase the basic rate of income tax.
In a rational world, it should not be necessary to bother making such distinctions, but in this irrational world, in the House, and confronted by an increasingly desperate Government, it is impossible to advance any proposal of any kind that the Government have not themselves advocated without some idiot saying that it will mean an increase in the basic rate of income tax of lop or 20p—as the Financial Secretary claimed the other day. Our central contention has been proved beyond doubt because the Chancellor himself raised sums similar to those that we proposed, although mostly from a different range of sources.
I turn to the specific criticisms that have been made of the figures we gave. The Chief Secretary sought to imply—although, as always with the Government, it is necessary to read the small print—that our figures were in some way incorrect. To be blunt, that is untrue.
I refer to the figure for child benefit and to the Chief Secretary's speech at Southport last weekend. He said:
"John Smith said that the increase could cost £775 million. And so it would if no changes were made to income support levels."
But we did not propose any changes to income support levels. That proposal related to the Government's Budget and concentrated on the minimum that we thought that they should provide. We were confident that the Government would not both reverse the cuts in the value
694
of child benefit and increase the level of income support payments. We were right, because they were not prepared to do so—[Interruption.] The Government fed their increase through to income support—Conservative Members should listen before they try to nit-pick about accuracy. They acted in accordance with our predictions, so we called on them to make a commitment that we thought was important.
There was another reason why the Government did not feed through their increase to income support. The Government froze child benefit from 1987, when the Prime Minister said it would be paid "as now". They gave a £1 increase for the eldest child in April, but that was not added to income support. The Government intend to claw back maintenance payments from the fathers of single parent families, and they will not be fed through to income support. We were perfectly right to expect the Government to be consistent in that respect.
In Southport, the Chief Secretary said that the Government were proposing on this occasion to feed that increase through. Good. It is about time. It is practically the first time in living memory that they have done so. However, not all the money raised from freezing the married couple's allowance is being fed through to income support or child benefit. In the same way, in the past, the Government froze child benefit and claimed that they were giving money to low-income families—but they did not give it all to them.
There is another reason why we prefer the full increase in child benefit to the Government's proposals. Some 25 per cent. of those entitled to income support do not claim it. Half the families entitled to family credit do not claim it. The only way of ensuring that the increase in child benefit goes to the 98 per cent. of families who claim it is to implement the balance of the increase there.
The Chief Secretary spoke of our costing as "a piece of incompetence" when it is correct and mentioned an error of £300 million. It is not our error; it is the Chief Secretary's distortion—a distortion that comes precious near to deceit.
In the case of offshore trusts, until we see the Government's proposals in the Finance Bill we shall not know whether what the Chief Secretary said about that was more accurate than what he said about child benefit. I do not know how many hon. Members saw the story in The Observer yesterday written by a group of tax planners who say that the Chancellor
"proposes to leave intact many of the tax advantages of trusts established offshore prior to … March 1991."
Of course that was not our proposal.
That brings me to the £619 million that the Chancellor could raise from personal pensions. One would never think from all the fuss that the Government are to stop paying for them in a year or two. That particular payment and that source are analagous to the money that the Chancellor will raise from 1992 from national insurance contributions on company cars. There is absolutely no doubt that the cessation of the 2 per cent. incentive, as the Government prefer to call it, will mean extra revenue for the next Government on the scale that we identified. There is no doubt either that the Chancellor could bring that payment forward. Just as they did over child benefit, the Government profess shock that we dare to suggest that they might engage in any element of retrospection, and

695
implied that there had been some breach of contract. In Southport, the Chief Secretary called it a disgraceful suggestion.
Why do we think that the Government would engage in retrospection? Let us look at the Government's record; let us look at the cost. The cost of the benefit was predicted at £60 million a year when it was first proposed, and it now costs more than £600 million. When single payments reached £400 million, the Secretary of State told the House that the expenditure was out of control and single payments were abolished. Incidentally, the biggest losers were the families on income support about whom we were seeing so many crocodile tears a few moments ago. It is not the case that those getting the 2 per cent. extra rebate are in some way paying more arid therefore being deprived of something to which they are contributing. It is the rest of us, all the other national insurance contributors, who are paying for that rebate. The people who signed up initially were promised a rebate for five years, and the Government backdated it to 1987, so by next April those people will have had their full five years' worth of promised rebates.
That brings me to my third point. The Secretary of State, in cahoots with the Prime Minister, has a long track record of removing benefits for which people have paid, despite the fact that their contributions have increased under this Government while the benefits have been removed. The current Secretary of State and the Prime Minister removed from the disabled the right to receive invalidity allowance, as well as earnings-related pensions for which they had paid. They stopped people 'with industrial injuries getting any benefit if they were assessed at less than 14 per cent. They brought in the changes to the reduced earnings allowances., depriving some people of £20 a week, and halved the help to mothers on income support through maternity grants. Their record is littered with examples of retrospective taxation.
Let me now turn to the breach of contract. The occupational pension scheme for the police and the fire service calls for those in the ranks to retire from those occupations at 55 in the public interest. When they do so, most of them take other jobs and have a duty to pay their national insurance contribution. That duty remains, but their right to draw unemployment benefit should the need arise was in effect extinguished by the Government in 1989. So they still have to pay contributions, but they do not get any benefit. What was that about breach of contract?
Let me return to the Government's charge and summarise. The figures that we gave were correct and it is indicative of the Government's desperation that they go to such lengths to seek to discredit us.
This week, there has been a lot of talk about shot foxes. All that I can say is, "Bang." Incidentally, the Government make a great deal of fuss about personal pensions—about the extent to which this 2 per cent. rebate is intended to encourage people; about how wrong it is not to offer choice; about how there should be extra encouragement—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen carefully.
I understand from the Fees Office that the choice that Conservatives urge so earnestly on their constituents has been exercised by precisely one Member of this House. I wonder who it is who urges this choice on his constituents and is himself the only Member of the House who is foolish enough to take it out? Is it the hon. Member for Sutton Coldield (Sir N. Fowler), the once begetter of this plan? Is it the Chancellor? Is it the Prime Minister? Is it the
696
Secretary of State for Social Security? It appears that those people have more sense than to take out the benefits that they urge on their constituents. This gamble is for other people, but not for themselves.
Finally, I turn to the Government's fiscal rectitude and their policy stance. It is not our policies, but theirs, that have a gaping hole. We say that one cannot have income tax cuts and increased investment; the Government say that one can. We say that it is an uphill struggle to become competitive within the exchange rate mechanism; the Government say that the struggle is nearly over. We are willing to tell the British people the truth; the Government are not. The Red Book continues to promise income tax cuts; Ministers promise increased investment. Today's Financial Times says:
"Labour is frank about its intention to increase taxation, and the Liberal Democrats".
Of the Conservatives, the newspaper says:
"You cannot promise better services, raise value added tax to fund local spending, forecast a series of Budget deficits for three years ahead, maintain sterling within the exchange rate mechanism and, at the same time, swear that you will cut the standard rate of income tax to 20p. It does not add up, and the public will perceive that it does not."
As in the case of the poll tax, the Government are seeking to be all things to all people. They tell those who like the poll tax that they are keeping it; they tell those who do not like it that they are abolishing it. They tell those who want income tax cuts that they can have them; they tell those who want increased investment that they can have that instead. Confusion reigns. There is a phrase that many people use when they describe confusion. They say that someone does not know whether he is coming or going. The Government are going—and the sooner the better.
9.32 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): This Budget brought about the biggest switch in taxation for more than a decade. Not surprisingly, that has dominated a very large part of the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that the heart of the debate ought to be the economic prospects of the country for the next year. The economy has been in recession since about the middle of last year [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The very moment I became Chancellor I admitted that businesses—particularly many small businesses—were having a difficult time. However, as I predicted at this time last year, the pain has brought gains. Inflation has been falling. It is now down by two percentage points from its peak last autumn, and is set to fall to about 4 per cent. by the end of this year.
Equally dramatic has been the very considerable improvement in the current account. It was noticeable that no Opposition Member chose to mention today's current account figures. Normally the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is on the box every hour, almost every minute, telling us about the trade figures.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lamont: I will give way in a moment.
On this occasion, the silence of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was very noticeable. Today's announcement of a £200 million deficit was obviously welcome. I have always said that the figures on the current account ought to be treated with some caution and

697
scepticism. That is not the position that has been adopted by the Opposition; they attach importance to every month's figures.
Of course, the trend in the current account has been clear for some time. The deficit in the latest three months was less than one fifth of the deficit in the third quarter of 1989. Part of the improvement has come from so-called invisible trade—but there has also been a remarkable turn-round in manufacturing trade. Again, manufacturing trade usually concerns Labour Members, but we did not hear very much about it today. The deficit in manufactures has fallen to £1·2 billion in the latest three months. That is less than 1 per cent. of gross domestic product, and the lowest since 1985. Despite the slow growth in demand abroad—we are not the only country facing a slow-down in growth of demand—many industries have expanded their exports. There has been a dramatic rise in car exports in Britain. Indeed, exports have increased by about 45 per cent. in a year.
Mr. Morgan: If we have a trade deficit of about £2 billion a month during a period of boom, and during a period of recession we have a deficit of about £500 million, at what stage in the trade cycle shall we ever have a trade surplus under this Government? That is what puzzles Opposition Members.
Mr. Lamont: As I have said on many occasions, and as my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said, the sort of deficit that we are running—about 1 per cent. of GDP—is one that is common to many countries. Only two or three countries have a surplus. There are many countries in deficit, and every surplus has an offsetting deficit. We can easily cope with a deficit of 1 per cent. of GDP.
It is clear that the inflationary pressures and excess demand that appeared in 1988 have been reversed. As they have disappeared and as inflation has come down, so we have been able to reduce interest rates. I know that many Opposition Members and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends want to see further reductions in interest rates, but I shall not take any lectures from Opposition Members about such reductions. We all know that their view is that, whatever the position of the economy, whatever the level of the interest rates and whatever the policy should be, they will be in favour of reducing interest rates from whatever level they may have reached. That is always their policy.
I make no apology for being cautious in policy. Inflation is coming down and the prospect is good. We cannot take risks, however, either with the exchange rate or with inflation at home. Too often in the past we have assumed that we have won the battle against inflation. The very moment that we have let up has been the moment that inflation has been rekindled. The way in which we can retain the confidence of the market is essential to any recovery, and that is why we have been able to reduce interest rates again by 0·5 per cent. in the past week.
I make no apology, either, for continuing the sound approach to Government finances, and especially that of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that it was wholly right and proper that at this stage of the cycle the Government should run a deficit, and the fact
698
that the Government were doing so was no departure from previous policy. He said that, provided the Government aimed, as we do, to balance the Budget over the cycle, that was entirely in keeping with his policies and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir. G. Howe).
We shall see a return to deficit as a result of the recession. I know of no one who would seriously argue that we should try to hold the Budget to balance at this stage of the cycle. I repeat that we shall aim to balance it over the whole cycle. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby that it is vital that we continue to keep a tight control on public spending. That is at the heart of the Government's economic policy.
Opposition Members have had a lot of fun at the expense of the economic forecasts. I do not begrudge them that, although I believe that it is wrong to attribute to economic forecasts any spurious scientific accuracy. The forecast that I published last week is, in many respects, more cautious about growth than the consensus of outside forecasts. I am not in the business of publishing forecasts that are more optimistic than I think is the case, as that leads us nowhere. It is better to put the facts before Parliament and the country.
As a result of the fall in output that we have already had, output is below the average for 1990. Therefore, the fall of 2 per cent. that I forecast for 1991 does not mean that output will continue to fall for long. There is every reason to expect that growth will start again towards the middle of the year. I cannot be certain about that, but there are a number of persuasive and compelling reasons why it is likely to be so, and I put them to the pseudo-realists in the Opposition who argue that the outlook is more gloomy.
First, the start of the recession was followed quickly by the Gulf war, which had a tremendous dampening influence on confidence and on particular industries. That has ended and is beginning to affect the economy. Secondly, we have been through a period of exceptional weakness in the dollar, which has made life difficult for some export companies. That, too, has changed markedly in the recent past. Thirdly, nobody seriously disputes our forecast that the fall in inflation will continue and there is widespread agreement that RPI inflation will be down to about 4 per cent. by the end of the year. The other side of that fall in inflation will be a rise in real incomes.
Lastly, as usual in a recession, industry has cut back its stocks. We expect that to slow down and contribute to growth as more of the demand for goods is met directly out of production. That view is widely shared. Again, I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby for confirming that he felt that the recession would not be so bad as the one in 1980–81 and would be relatively shallow and short-lived.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) that a Government who cannot choose are no longer fit to rule?
Mr. Lamont: The Government have chosen. Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend, although it is rather sad that he did not put the remark in the original French in which it was made. The Government have made their position on the issue crystal clear.

699
It was against the prospect that I have outlined that I decided that the centrepiece of the Budget should be a package of measures to help businesses to weather the recession and encourage them to invest for the longer term. In total, the Budget will add some £0·75 billion to businesses' cash flow, and that benefit will continue in future years.
In designing that package, I listened carefully to lion. Members and my hon. Friends, and to the representations made by business men. Although the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that the package is no good for industry or commerce, they did not say what the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce or the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses said. All those organisation, without qualification or reservation, welcomed the Budget as a Budget for business.
The hon. Member for Derby, South quoted extensively from the Financial Times but not from the two editorials which said that it had been a first-class Budget. She simply quoted odd remarks from articles that she found on page 31 of the newspaper.
It is all too easy, when discussing a Budget for business, to concentrate on the multinational companies, the household names. That is something that the Labour party tends to do, but there are millions of small businesses employing perhaps only two or three people. Those are the businesses that I tried to help with my measures. One such measure, which has been welcomed in the debate by many hon. Members, was to reduce the waiting period for VAT relief on bad debts to one year and raising the VAT threshold by 40 per cent.—the largest increase ever in real terms, so that up to 150,000 more businesses could be taken out of the VAT net.
Mr. John Battle rose——
Mr. Lamont: I shall not give way just now.
I also proposed measures which mean that the very smallest businesses have more time to pay their PAYE payments to the Inland Revenue, which will relieve about 700,000 employers of an administrative burden.
I did two things for the larger companies. First, for what we tend to call the small company but which is, in reality, medium sized, I upped the lower and upper profit limits for the second year running of the small companies' corporation tax, which will help many medium-sized businesses.
Lastly—this has been asked for by some of the business organisations—I not only cut by two percentage points the rate of corporation tax, giving us one of the lowest in the world, but reduced it retrospectively. That means it will help companies immediately in a year when their needs are greatest and they have the greatest difficulty with cash flow. I note that Opposition Members have said on previous occasions that they do not agree with cutting corporation tax and want investment allowances and capital allowances. The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby got rid of capital allowances, and since he did that, corporation tax has been reduced by 20 percentage points.
We can only bring back significant capital allowances if we raise the rate of corporation tax again. If Opposition Members want to bring back capital allowances, they
700
should tell us, and those in industry who want to know, what rate of company taxation they have in mind. If the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East wants to intervene now to tell the House and the country what the rate of corporation tax would be, I will gladly give way to him. He makes no reply. Perhaps the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will give me the reply.
Mr. Battle: Will the Chancellor explain why the measures that he is proclaiming in the House are not getting through to industry on the ground? That is so much so that one of the medium-sized firms in Leeds today—GKN, a well-established company—is making 200 people redundant because it says that the recession is biting hard. How will the Chancellor's measures prevent that firm from laying off people, allow it to renew its investment and ensure that it gets orders?
Mr. Lamont: The measures will get through and help British business. That has been recognised by the Confederation of British Industry, chambers of commerce, the Institute of Directors and every business organisation in the country.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East made a dour speech. It seems that he is more ready to publicise bad news than to celebrate good news. Normally, he digs out about five press releases a day for each month's trade figures, but this month, when we have good trade figures, incomprehensibly he did not get to the Dispatch Box to tell us about them. I cannot recall seeing a single press release from the hon. Gentleman welcoming some of the events that have happened in recent months. There has been no press release welcoming the fact that inflation has fallen by almost two percentage points since October or that the United Kingdom's inflation differential with the European Community has very much narrowed in recent months. We have had no press release from him celebrating and accepting the fact that our share of world trade in manufactures rose both in 1989 and 1990.
As usual, we had from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East a cornucopia of obscure statistics from around the world. If Nicaragua increases its exports, the hon. Gentleman is quick to note it. When he finds that there are hundreds of thousands of students in institutions of higher education in Korea, he tells us all about it. He does not tell us what loans or grants they have or what the pupil-teacher ratio is in Korea. He does not tell us about the good news and the good things that are happening in this country. That was epitomised at the point at which I challenged the hon. Gentleman this afternoon—the response of the shadow Chancellor to my Budget broadcast when the Labour party put on a broadcast purporting to make international comparisons in training between this country and other EEC.countries.
The comparison and tables in that broadcast were based on a study from the EEC, but they had no common definition of training, no common definition of skilled or unskilled, and were therefore utterly worthless. That comparison purported to show that Greece had higher standards of training than the United Kingdom, and Germany as well. That is the comparison that Opposition Members were prepared to put before millions of people in this country. What do they think that that does for foreign investment in this country? Is that a good advertisement

701
for this country? Opposition Members should be ashamed of themselves and apologise to the British people for insulting the labour force of this country.
The Budget is very much the logical extension of the policies that have been carried out. A large part of the debate has concentrated on the switch between the community charge and VAT. The reduction in the community charge has been very widely welcomed and people understand that it has to be financed. In assessing the cost of the switch from local to central taxation, we have planned for an increase in grant to local authorities of £5·6 billion, offset by savings on benefits and relief of £1·3 billion, and that will permit some improvements in the community charge reduction scheme. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will give fuller details of the changes later this evening.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Exactly how much of the VAT increase will go to the poll tax reduction? Of the £4·5 billion that has been mentioned, is it not possible that about £2 billion could be clawed back through reduced benefits and reduced payments under the community charge reduction schemes? Will the Chancellor give the exact figures now?
Mr. Lamont: It is wrong to hypothecate one tax. [Interruption.] Of course it is. Before Opposition Members burst out laughing, they should hear what I am about to say. The increase in VAT by itself in this first year does not pay for the total reduction. That is why other taxes will have to go up as well. Next year the reduction is covered by the increase in VAT.
Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the Chancellor will be relieved when I drag him away from his debacle with the poll tax and ask him the question that was put earlier this evening. Is it the case that the official Scottish Office estimate of the take-up of privatisation proceeds of the Scottish electricity companies is no more than 25 per cent., meaning that 75 per cent. of those companies as at the flotation procedure will immediately be owned externally?
Mr. Lamont: I want lots of Scots to apply for the shares and the privatisation to be a great success. The hon. Gentleman can put his question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is always careful not to commit himself if he can avoid it. He rarely ventures beyond the slogan to give us a specific policy. However, this year he ventured into print with a set of proposals and revealed to everybody why he normally sticks to evasion. The longer the debate has gone on, the less we have heard from the Opposition Benches about Labour's proposals.
Labour's Shadow Budget, as revealed by the Shadow Chief Secretary, was a complete and utter fiasco. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security showed only too clearly on the first day of this debate, the sums set out by the Labour party simply do not begin to add up. The Shadow Chief Secretary did not appear to have the remotest idea what her proposals would involve.
Labour propose to restore child benefit so as to give help to low income households, but the Opposition's
702
costings assumed that the increases in child benefit would be fully offset against income support so that the poorest families would gain nothing at all.
Mrs. Beckett rose——
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Member for Derby, South made that clear earlier. I will give way to her in a moment. The Opposition's position is not a good basis for criticising our proposals as inadequate and mean, because at least they gave some priority to the poorest families in the country.
Mrs. Beckett: Our proposals were costed at £775 million and the Chancellor's proposals at about £200 million. We are therefore right to call his proposals inadequate. I demonstrated with absolute clarity that our figures were 100 per cent. correct——
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major)indicated dissent.
Mrs. Beckett: It is no good the Prime Minister shaking his head—he was not here and he does not know what he is talking about.
The figures that we gave for the increase in child benefit, not fed through to income support, the policy that we urged on the Government, were correct. [Interruption.]The figures came from parliamentary answers, so if they are not correct, that is the Government's problem. The figures that we gave for personal pensions were also completely correct, and so was the justification. The Chancellor can find no holes in our policies or our figures.
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Lady claims that the figures were right. Perhaps they were, but the truth is that she put forward a rotten policy.
We also heard about the savings from the tightening up on offshore trusts. Opposition Members simply plucked the figure of £1 billion out of the air to finance whatever expenditure they thought needed to be made. The best advice of the Inland Revenue is that our measures for countering tax avoidance and evasion in offshore trusts will save about £100 million, and our proposals go much further than Labour's proposals for the Finance Bill.
We then heard the sad and sorry story in which the hon. Member for Derby, South explained the ending of the 2 per cent. personal pension incentive payment. The hon. Lady twisted and turned and gave her explanation this way and that. I give her full marks for trying to justify her point, but she was making it crystal clear that Labour intends to interfere with the contracts that 4 million people have taken out for personal pensions. The Labour party is dashing the hopes, expectations and contracts of millions of people. That is typical of Labour's approach.
Labour always underestimates what it costs to deliver its commitments, and Labour Members over-estimate what they can raise by increasing taxes. That is why, when they were in power, they found that even when they had to increase taxes, and even when they had pushed borrowing to a ruinous level, they still had to rat on their spending promises. That is why Labour will not be in power for a long time to come.
One point in the debate interested me. There has been much debate about local government finance. Does the House know what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook, (Mr. Hattersley) said the other day? He said that he was against a local income tax because income tax had a disincentive effect. That is what the Labour party thinks about a local income tax. If that is its view on a local

703
income tax, why is it not also its view on a national income tax? Why does the Labour party remain the party of high taxation?
This is a bold Budget, a Budget for business, a reforming Budget and a Budget which responds to the serious concerns about the levels of the community charge. It is a Budget dedicated to the long-term health of the British economy. It is the Budget of a Government dedicated to the prosperity of our people. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Stuart Bell: That must have been the worst speech ever——
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 336, Noes 226.

Division No. 100]

[10 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Cash, William

Aitken, Jonathan

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Alexander, Richard

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Allason, Rupert

Chope, Christopher

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Amess, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Amos, Alan

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Arbuthnot, James

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Colvin, Michael

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Conway, Derek

Ashby, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Aspinwall, Jack

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Atkins, Robert

Cope, Rt Hon John

Atkinson, David

Cormack, Patrick

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Couchman, James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Cran, James

Baldry, Tony

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Batiste, Spencer

Day, Stephen

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Devlin, Tim

Bellingham, Henry

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bendall, Vivian

Dicks, Terry

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Benyon, W.

Dover, Den

Bevan, David Gilroy

Dunn, Bob

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Durant, Sir Anthony

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Dykes, Hugh

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Eggar, Tim

Body, Sir Richard

Emery, Sir Peter

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Evennett, David

Boswell, Tim

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

Fallon, Michael

Bowis, John

Favell, Tony

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Fishburn, John Dudley

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fookes, Dame Janet

Brazier, Julian

Forman, Nigel

Bright, Graham

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Forth, Eric

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Fox, Sir Marcus

Buck, Sir Antony

Franks, Cecil

Budgen, Nicholas

Freeman, Roger

Burns, Simon

French, Douglas

Burt, Alistair

Fry, Peter

Butler, Chris

Gale, Roger

Butterfill, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gill, Christopher

Carrington, Matthew

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Carttiss, Michael

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Cartwright, John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

704

Goodlad, Alastair

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Gorst, John

Maclean, David

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gregory, Conal

Madel, David

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Major, Rt Hon John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Malins, Humfrey

Grist, Ian

Mans, Keith

Ground, Patrick

Maples, John

Hague, William

Marland, Paul

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Marlow, Tony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Hanley, Jeremy

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hannam, John

Mates, Michael

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Maude, Hon Francis

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Harris, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hawkins, Christopher

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hayes, Jerry

Miller, Sir Hal

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Mills, lain

Hayward, Robert

Miscampbell, Norman

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Mitchell, Sir David

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Moate, Roger

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hill, James

Morrison, Sir Charles

Hind, Kenneth

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Moss, Malcolm

Holt, Richard

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hordern, Sir Peter

Mudd, David

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Neale, Sir Gerrard

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

Nelson, Anthony

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Nicholls, Patrick

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Norris, Steve

Hunter, Andrew

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Oppenheim, Phillip

Irvine, Michael

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Irving, Sir Charles

Page, Richard

Jack, Michael

Paice, James

Jackson, Robert

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Janman, Tim

Patnick, Irvine

Jessel, Toby

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Patten. Rt Hon John

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Pawsey, James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Key, Robert

Portillo, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Powell, William (Corby)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Price, Sir David

Kirkhope, Timothy

Raffan, Keith

Knapman, Roger

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Redwood, John

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Knowles, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Knox, David

Riddick, Graham

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Latham, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Lawrence, Ivan

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Rost, Peter

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lightbown, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

705

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Trippier, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Trotter, Neville

Shersby, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Sims, Roger

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Viggers, Peter

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Speed, Keith

Walden, George

Speller, Tony

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Waller, Gary

Squire, Robin

Walters, Sir Dennis

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Ward, John

Steen, Anthony

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stern, Michael

Warren, Kenneth

Stevens, Lewis

Watts, John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wells, Bowen

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wheeler, Sir John

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Whitney, Ray

Stokes, Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Summerson, Hugo

Wiggin, Jerry

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wilkinson, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wilshire, David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Winterton, Nicholas

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Wood, Timothy

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Thorne, Neil

Yeo, Tim

Thornton, Malcolm

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thurnham, Peter

Younger, Rt Hon George

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tracey, Richard

Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. John Mark Taylor.

Tredinnick, David

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Cohen, Harry

Allen, Graham

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Alton, David

Corbett, Robin

Anderson, Donald

Corbyn, Jeremy

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Crowther, Stan

Armstrong, Hilary

Cryer, Bob

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Cummings, John

Ashton, Joe

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cunningham, Dr John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Dalyell, Tarn

Barron, Kevin

Darling, Alistair

Battle, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Beckett, Margaret

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Beith, A. J.

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

Bell, Stuart

Dewar, Donald

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dixon, Don

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Doran, Frank

Benton, Joseph

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bermingham, Gerald

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Blair, Tony

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Blunkett, David

Eadie, Alexander

Boateng, Paul

Eastham, Ken

Boyes, Roland

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bradley, Keith

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Fatchett, Derek

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Faulds, Andrew

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Fearn, Ronald

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Buckley, George J.

Fisher, Mark

Caborn, Richard

Flannery, Martin

Callaghan, Jim

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Foster, Derek

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foulkes, George

Canavan, Dennis

Fraser, John

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Fyfe, Maria

Carr, Michael

Galloway, George

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Clay, Bob

George, Bruce

Clelland, David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

706

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morgan, Rhodri

Gordon, Mildred

Morley, Elliot

Gould, Bryan

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Graham, Thomas

Mowlam, Marjorie

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mullin, Chris

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Murphy, Paul

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Nellist, Dave

Grocott, Bruce

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hardy, Peter

O'Brien, William

Harman, Ms Harriet

O'Hara, Edward

Haynes, Frank

O'Neill, Martin

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Paisley, Rev Ian

Henderson, Doug

Patchett, Terry

Hinchliffe, David

Pendry, Tom

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Pike, Peter L.

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Prescott, John

Home Robertson, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Hood, Jimmy

Quin, Ms Joyce

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Radice, Giles

Howells, Geraint

Randall, Stuart

Hoyle, Doug

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Reid, Dr John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Richardson, Jo

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Robertson, George

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Illsley, Eric

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Ingram, Adam

Rogers, Allan

Janner, Greville

Rooker, Jeff

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Rooney, Terence

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ruddock, Joan

Kennedy, Charles

Salmond, Alex

Kilfedder, James

Sedgemore, Brian

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Sheerman, Barry

Kirkwood, Archy

Sheldon. Rt Hon Robert

Lambie, David

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Leadbitter, Ted

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Leighton, Ron

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Lewis, Terry

Snape, Peter

Livingstone, Ken

Soley, Clive

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Spearing, Nigel

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Loyden, Eddie

Steinberg, Gerry

McAllion, John

Stott, Roger

McCartney, Ian

Strang, Gavin

Macdonald, Calum A.

Straw, Jack

McFall, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McGrady, Eddie

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Turner, Dennis

McKelvey, William

Vaz, Keith

McLeish, Henry

Wallace, James

Maclennan, Robert

Walley, Joan

McMaster, Gordon

Wareing, Robert N.

McNamara, Kevin

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

McWilliam, John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Madden, Max

Wigley, Dafydd

Marion, Mrs Alice

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Marek, Dr John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Wilson, Brian

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Winnick, David

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Martlew, Eric

Worthington, Tony

Maxton, John

Wray, Jimmy

Meacher, Michael

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Meale, Alan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Tellers for the Noes:

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Ray Powell.

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 50 ( Ways and Means motions), to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the further motions.
Resolved,
That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

(a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

(b) for refunding any amount of tax, otherwise than by virtue of goods or services supplied to one person being treated for the purposes of section 14(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 as supplied to another person;

(c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

(d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.

2. SPIRITS
Resolved,
That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 19th March 1991, the rate of duty specified in section 5 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be increased from £17·35 per litre of alcohol in the spirits to £18·96 per litre of alcohol in the spirits.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

Description of wine or made-wine

Rates of duty per hectolitre

£

Wine or made-wine of a strength not exceeding 2 per cent.

12·06

Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 2 per cent, but not exceeding 3 per cent.

20·09

Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 3 percent, but not exceeding 4 per cent.

28·12

Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 4 per cent, but not exceeding 5 per cent.

36·17

Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 5 per cent, but not exceeding 5–5 per cent.

44·20

Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 5–5 per cent, but not exceeding 15 per cent, and not being sparkling

120·54

Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength exceeding 5–5 per cent, but not exceeding 15 per cent.

199·04

Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 15 per cent, but not exceeding 18 per cent.

207·89

Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 18 per cent, but not exceeding 22 per cent.

239·80

Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 22 per cent.

239·80

plus £18·96 for every 1 per cent, or part of 1 per cent, in excess of 22 per cent.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

6. CIDER
Resolved,
That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 19th March 1991, the rate of duty specified in section 62(1) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be increased from £18·66 per hectolitre to £20·40 per hectolitre.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

3. BEER (RATE OF DUTY)
Resolved,
That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 19th March 1991, the rate of duty specified in section 36 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be increased from £0·97 per hectolitre for every degree by which the original gravity of beer exceeds 1000 degrees to £1·06 per hectolitre for every such degree.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

4. BEER (GENERAL)
Resolved,
That provision may be made in relation to the excise duty on beer.

5. WINE AND MADE-WINE
Resolved,
That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 19th March 1991, the rates of duty under sections 54 and 55 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be as follows—

7. TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Resolved,
That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 19th March 1991, for the Table in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 there shall be substituted—

"TABLE

1. Cigarettes

An amount equal to 21 per cent, of the retail price plus £40·15 per thousand cigarettes.

2. Cigars

£61·72 per kilogram.

3. Hand-rolling tobacco

£65·12 per kilogram.

4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco

£28·69 per kilogram."

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

8. HYDROCARBON OIL
Motion made, and Question put,
That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 19th March 1991—

(1) The rates of duty specified in section 6(1) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 shall be increased—

(a) in the case of light oil, from £0·2248 a litre to £0·2585 a litre; and

(b) in the case of heavy oil, from £0·1902 a litre to £0·2187 a litre.

(2) The rates of rebate of duty specified in section 11(1) of that Act shall be increased—

(a) in the case of fuel oil, from £0·0083 a litre to £0·0091 a litre; and

(b) in the case of gas oil, from £0·0118 a litre to £0·0129 a litre.

(3) The rate of rebate of duty specified in section 13A(1) of that Act (unleaded petrol) shall be increased from £0·0299 a litre to £0·0344 a litre.

(4) The rate of rebate of duty specified in section 14(1) of that Act (light oil for use as furnace oil) shall be increased from £0·0083 a litre to £0·0091 a litre.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 38.

Division No. 101]

[10.16 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Buck, Sir Antony

Aitken, Jonathan

Budgen, Nicholas

Alexander, Richard

Burns, Simon

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Burt, Alistair

Allason, Rupert

Butler, Chris

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Butterfill, John

Amess, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Amos, Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arbuthnot, James

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carttiss, Michael

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Cartwright, John

Ashby, David

Cash, William

Aspinwall, Jack

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Atkins, Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Atkinson, David

Chapman, Sydney

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Chope, Christopher

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Baldry, Tony

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Batiste, Spencer

Colvin, Michael

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Conway, Derek

Bellingham, Henry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bendall, Vivian

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Benyon, W.

Cormack, Patrick

Bevan, David Gilroy

Couchman, James

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cran, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Body, Sir Richard

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Day, Stephen

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Devlin, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Dicks, Terry

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bowis, John

Dunn, Bob

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Durant, Sir Anthony

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Eggar, Tim

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Emery, Sir Peter

Brazier, Julian

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Bright, Graham

Evennett, David

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Fallon, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Favell, Tony

710

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Knowles, Michael

Fishburn, John Dudley

Knox, David

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Forman, Nigel

Latham, Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lawrence, Ivan

Forth, Eric

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Franks, Cecil

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Freeman, Roger

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

French, Douglas

Lightbown, David

Fry, Peter

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Gale, Roger

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Gardiner, Sir George

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Gill, Christopher

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Goodlad, Alastair

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Maclean, David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gorst, John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Madel, David

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Major, Rt Hon John

Gregory, Conal

Malins, Humfrey

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Mans, Keith

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Maples, John

Grist, Ian

Marland, Paul

Ground, Patrick

Marlow, Tony

Hague, William

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mates, Michael

Hanley, Jeremy

Maude, Hon Francis

Hannam, John

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Harris, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Haselhurst, Alan

Miller, Sir Hal

Hawkins, Christopher

Mills, lain

Hayes, Jerry

Miscampbell, Norman

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hayward, Robert

Mitchell, Sir David

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Moate, Roger

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hill, James

Moss, Malcolm

Hind, Kenneth

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Holt, Richard

Nelson, Anthony

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

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

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Nicholls, Patrick

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Norris, Steve

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hunter, Andrew

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Irvine, Michael

Page, Richard

Jack, Michael

Paice, James

Jackson, Robert

Patnick, Irvine

Janman, Tim

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Jessel, Toby

Patten, Rt Hon John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Pawsey, James

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Portillo, Michael

Key, Robert

Powell, William (Corby)

Kilfedder, James

Price, Sir David

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Raffan, Keith

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Kirkhope, Timothy

Redwood, John

Knapman, Roger

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rhodes James, Robert

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Riddick, Graham

711

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thorne, Neil

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Thornton, Malcolm

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rost, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Tracey, Richard

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Tredinnick, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Trippier, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Trotter, Neville

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Viggers, Peter

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Walden, George

Shersby, Michael

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Sims, Roger

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Waller, Gary

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Ward, John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Speed, Keith

Warren, Kenneth

Speller, Tony

Watts, John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wheeler, Sir John

Squire, Robin

Widdecombe, Ann

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wiggin, Jerry

Steen, Anthony

Wilkinson, John

Stern, Michael

Wilshire, David

Stevens, Lewis

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Winterton, Nicholas

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wolfson, Mark

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Wood, Timothy

Stokes, Sir John

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Summerson, Hugo

Yeo, Tim

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Tellers for the Ayes:

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

NOES

Alton, David

McGrady, Eddie

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Maclennan, Robert

Beith, A. J.

Maginnis, Ken

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Carr, Michael

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Cohen, Harry

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Cryer, Bob

Skinner, Dennis

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Fearn, Ronald

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Home Robertson, John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Howells, Geraint

Trimble, David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Kennedy, Charles

Wallace, James

Kirkwood, Archy

Wigley, Dafydd

Lambie, David

Lamond, James

Tellers for the Noes:

Lewis, Terry

Mr. Alex Salmond and Mr. Andrew Welsh

Livsey, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

9. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (RATES)
Resolved,
That—

(1) The Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1, in Part I, in paragraph 3, there shall be inserted at the end—
"'weight unladen' shall be construed in accordance with section 190(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988."

(3) In Schedule 1, for the Table set out in Part II there shall be substituted—

"Description of vehicle

Rate of duty £

1. Bicycles of which the cylinder capacity of the engine does not exceed 150 cubic centimetres

15·00

2. Bicycles of which the cylinder capacity of the engine exceeds 150 cubic centimetres but does not exceed 250 cubic centimetres

30·00

3. Bicycles not included above

50·00

4. Tricycles

50·00"

(4) In Schedule 3, in the Table set out in Part II—

(a) In the entry relating to special machines, for "16·00" there shall be substituted "30·00"; and

(b) in the entry relating to recovery vehicles, for "50·00" there shall be substituted "75·00".

(5) Paragraphs (1) to (4) above shall apply in relation to licences taken out after 19th March 1991.
(6) This Resolution shall apply in relation to the Vehicles (Excise) Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 as it applies in relation to the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971, but with the substitution for "section 190(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988", in paragraph (2), of "Article 2(3) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981".
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

10. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (EXEMPTIONS: I)
Resolved,
That—

(1) As from 20th March 1991, section 4 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 shall have effect subject to the following amendments—

(a) in subsection (1)(ka), the words "(other than mowing machines)" shall be omitted; and

(b) in subsection (2), after the definition of "veterinary ambulance" there shall be inserted—"`weight unladen' shall be construed in accordance with section 190(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988."

(2) Paragraph (1) above shall apply in relation to the Vehicles (Excise) Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 as it applies in relation to the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 but with the substitution for "section 190(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988" of "Article 2(3) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981."

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

11. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (EXEMPTIONS: 2)
Resolved,
That—
(1) As from 1st June 1991, section 4 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 shall have effect with the insertion of the following definition before the definition of "ambulance" in subsection
(2)—
"'fire engine' means a vehicle—

(a) constructed or adapted for use for the purpose of fire fighting, salvage or both, and

(b) used solely for the purposes of a fire brigade (whether or not one maintained under the Fire Services Act 1947)."

(2) Paragraph (1) above shall apply in relation to the Vehicles (Excise) Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 as it applies in relation to the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 but with the substitution for "the Fire Services Act 1947" of "the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984".
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

12. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (EXEMPTIONS: 3)
Resolved,
That provision may be made repealing section 7(4) of each of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 and the Vehicles (Excise) Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.

13. GAMING LICENCE DUTY
Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 14 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981.

14. VALUE ADDED TAX (RATE)
Motion made, and Question put,
That, as from 1st April 1991, section 9(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 shall have effect with the substitution for "15 per cent." of "17·50 per cent.".
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 59

Division No. 102]

[10.30 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Aitken, Jonathan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Alexander, Richard

Carrington, Matthew

Alison, Rt Mon Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Allason, Rupert

Cartwright, John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Cash, William

Amess, David

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Amos, Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Arbuthnot, James

Chapman, Sydney

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Chope, Christopher

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Ashby, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Aspinwall, Jack

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Atkins, Robert

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Atkinson, David

Colvin, Michael

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Conway, Derek

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Baldry, Tony

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Cormack, Patrick

Batiste, Spencer

Couchman, James

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cran, James

Bellingham, Henry

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bendall, Vivian

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Benyon, W.

Day, Stephen

Bevan, David Gilroy

Devlin, Tim

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Dover, Den

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Dunn, Bob

Body, Sir Richard

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Eggar, Tim

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Emery, Sir Peter

Boswell, Tim

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

Evennett, David

Bowis, John

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Fallon, Michael

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Favell, Tony

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Brazier, Julian

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bright, Graham

Fookes, Dame Janet

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Forth, Eric

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Buck, Sir Antony

Fox, Sir Marcus

Budgen, Nicholas

Franks, Cecil

Burns, Simon

Freeman, Roger

Burt, Alistair

French, Douglas

Butler, Chris

Fry, Peter

Butterfill, John

Gale, Roger

714

Gardiner, Sir George

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Gill, Christopher

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Maclean, David

Goodhart, Sir Philip

McLoughlin, Patrick

Goodlad, Alastair

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Madel, David

Gorst, John

Major, Rt Hon John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Malins, Humfrey

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mans, Keith

Green way, John (Ryedale)

Maples, John

Gregory, Conal

Marland, Paul

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Marlow, Tony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Grist, Ian

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Ground, Patrick

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hague, William

Mates, Michael

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Maude, Hon Francis

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hanley, Jeremy

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hannam, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Miller, Sir Hal

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Mills, lain

Harris, David

Miscampbell, Norman

Haselhurst, Alan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hawkins, Christopher

Mitchell, Sir David

Hayes, Jerry

Moate, Roger

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hayward, Robert

Moore, Rt Hon John

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Morrison, Sir Charles

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Moss, Malcolm

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Hill, James

Nelson, Anthony

Hind, Kenneth

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Holt, Richard

Nicholls, Patrick

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Norris, Steve

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Hunter, Andrew

Paice, James

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Patnick, Irvine

Irvine, Michael

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Jack, Michael

Patten, Rt Hon John

Jackson, Robert

Pawsey, James

Janman, Tim

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jessel, Toby

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Portillo, Michael

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Powell, William (Corby)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Price, Sir David

Key, Robert

Raffan, Keith

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Redwood, John

Kirkhope, Timothy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Knapman, Roger

Rhodes James, Robert

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Riddick, Graham

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knowles, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Knox, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Latham, Michael

Rost, Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lee, John (Pendle)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lightbown, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Shersby, Michael

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Sims, Roger

715

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Trotter, Neville

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Speller, Tony

Viggers, Peter

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Squire, Robin

Walden, George

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Steen, Anthony

Waller, Gary

Stern, Michael

Ward, John

Stevens, Lewis

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Warren, Kenneth

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Watts, John

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Wells, Bowen

Stokes, Sir John

Wheeler, Sir John

Summerson, Hugo

Widdecombe, Ann

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wilkinson, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wilshire, David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Temple-Morris, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Wolfson, Mark

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wood, Timothy

Thorne, Neil

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Thornton, Malcolm

Yeo, Tim

Thurnham, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tracey, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tredinnick, David

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

Trippier, David

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Maclennan, Robert

Alton, David

Madden, Max

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Maginnis, Ken

Beith, A. J.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Meale, Alan

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Canavan, Dennis

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Carr, Michael

Nellist, Dave

Cohen, Harry

Paisley, Rev Ian

Corbyn, Jeremy

Primarolo, Dawn

Cryer, Bob

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

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

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Salmond, Alex

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Skinner, Dennis

Fearn, Ronald

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Spearing, Nigel

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Graham, Thomas

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Home Robertson, John

Trimble, David

Howells, Geraint

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Wallace, James

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Kennedy, Charles

Wigley, Dafydd

Kilfedder, James

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Lambie, David

Winnick, David

Lamond, James

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Lewis, Terry

Livsey, Richard

Tellers for the Noes

McAllion, John

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Alex Carlile.

McGrady, Eddie

McKelvey, William

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put and agreed to.

15. VALUE ADDED TAX (PENALTY FOR SERIOUS MISDECLARATION)
Resolved,
That—
(1) In section 14(1) of the Finance Act 1985, for "30 per cent." there shall be substituted "20 per cent.".
(2) Subject to paragraph (3) below, this Resolution shall apply where a penalty is assessed on or after 20th March 1991 in relation to a prescribed accounting period beginning on or after 1st April 1990.
(3) This Resolution shall not apply in the case of a supplementary assessment if the original assessment was made before 20th March 1991.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

16. CAR TAX (REMISSION)
Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 7 of the Car Tax Act 1983.

17. DUTIES OF EXCISE (REGISTERED EXCISE DEALERS AND SHIPPERS)
Resolved,
That provision may be made in relation to new classes or descriptions of revenue trader (to be known as registered excise dealers and shippers).

18. INCOME TAX (CHARGE AND RATES FOR 1991–92)
Resolved,
That—

(1) Income tax shall be charged for the year 1991–92, and—

(a) the basic rate shall be 25 per cent.,

(b) the basic rate limit shall be £23,700, and

(c) the higher rate shall be 40 per cent.

(2) In accordance with paragraph (1)(b) above, section 1(4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall not apply for the year 1991–92.

(3) This Resolution shall not require any change to he made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes act 1988 before 18th May 1991.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

19. INCOME TAX (MARRIED COUPLE'S ALLOWANCE)
Resolved.
That—

(1) Section 257C(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, so far as relating to section 257A(1) of that Act, shall not apply for the year 1991–92.

(2) Section 257A(1) of that Act shall apply for the year 1991–92 as if the amount specified in it were "£1,720".

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

20. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (LIMIT FOR 1991–92)
Resolved,
That, for the year 1991–92, the qualifying maximum defined in section 367(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be £30,000.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

21. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (INCOME TAX AT THE HIGHER RATE)
Resolved,
That—
(1) At the end of section 353 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Acts 1988 there shall be added—
"(4) In computing for the purposes of excess liability the total income of a person for any year of assessment,

717
no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any amount of interest which falls to be deducted or set off under subsection (1) above by virtue of section 355(1)(a), 356(1) or 365.
(5) In subsection (4) above, "excess liability" means the excess of liability to income tax over what it would be if all income tax were charged at the basic rate, to the exclusion of any higher rate."
(2) In section 369 of that Act, in subsection (3), after the
words "in computing his total income" there shall be inserted the words "(otherwise than for the purposes of excessliability)"; and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(3A) In computing for the purposes of excess liability the total income of a person for any year of assessment, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any amount of relevant loan interest to which this section applies.
(3B) In this section "excess liability" means the excess of liability to income tax over what it would be if all income tax were charged at the basic rate, to the exclusion of any higher rate."
(3) The amendment made by paragraph (1) above shall not apply in relation to interest which falls to be deducted or set off under section 353(1) of that Act by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of section 354 of that Act in any case where—

(a) the loan on which the interest is payable is the loan referred to in that paragraph as "the first-mentioned loan"; and

(b) the loan referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection as "the other loan" was made before 6th April 1991.

(4) the amendments made by paragraph (2) above shall not apply in relation to an amount of interest which is relevant loan interest (within the meaning of section 369 of that Act) by virtue of section 371 of that Act in any case where—

(a) the loan on which the interest is payable is the loan referred to in subsection (1) of that section as "the first loan"; and

(b) the loan which is, for the purposes of that subsection, "the other loan" was made before 6th April 1991.

(5) Where the loan mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (3) above or, as the case may be, of paragraph (4) above was made on or after 6th April 1991, it shall be treated for the purposes of the paragraph in question as made before that date if it is proved by written evidence—

PART I

TABLES OF FLAT RATE CASH EQUIVALENTS

TABLE A

Cars with an original market value up to £19,250 and having a cylinder capacity

Cylinder capacity of car in cubic centimetres

Age of car at end of relevant year of assessment

Under 4 years £2,050

4 years or more £1,400

1400 or less … … … … … … … … …

£2,050

£1,400

More than 1400 but not more than 2000 … … …

£2,650

£1,800

More than 2000 … … … … … … … …

£4,250

£2,850

TABLE B

Cars with an original market value up to £19,250 and not having a cylinder capacity

Original market value of car

Age of car at end of relevant year of assessment

Under 4 years £2,050

4 years or more £1,400

Less than £6,000 … … … … … … … …

£2,050

£1,400

£6,000 or more but less than £8,500 … … … …

£2,650

£1,800

£8,500 or more but not more than £19,250 … … …

£4,250

£2,850

(a) that the loan was made in pursuance of an offer made before that date and that the offer either was in writing or was evidenced by a note or memorandum made by the lender before that date, and
(b) that the loan was used to defray money applied in pursuance of a binding contract entered into before that date
(6) Paragraphs (1) to (5) above shall have effect in relation to payments of interest made on or after 6th of April 1991 (whenever falling due).
(7) This Resolution shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 before 18th May 1991.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

22. CORPORATION TAX (CHARGE AND RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1991)
Resolved,
That corporation tax shall be charged for the financial year 1991 at the rate of 33 per cent.

23. CORPORATION TAX (SMALL COMPANIES: 1991)
Resolved,
That for the financial year 1991—

(a) the small companies' rate shall be 25 per cent., and

(b) the fraction mentioned in section 13(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be one fiftieth.

24. BENEFITS IN KIND (CARS)
Resolved,
That—
(1) For the year 1991–92, Schedule 6 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall have effect with the substitution for Part I of the following—

TABLE C

Cars with an original market value of more than £19,250

Original market value of car

Age of car at end of relevant year of assessment

Under 4 years

4 years or more

More than £19,250 but not more than £29,000

£5,500

£3,700

More than £29,000 … … … … … … … …

£8,900

£5,900

(2) This Resolution shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 before 18th May 1991.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

25. BENEFITS IN KIND (MOBILE TELEPHONES)
Resolved,
That charges to income tax may be imposed in respect of mobile telephones made available for use by reason of a person's employment.

26. BENEFITS IN KIND (BENEFICIAL LOAN ARRANGEMENTS)
Resolved,
That charges to income tax may be imposed in respect of loans made by reason of a person's employment.

27. CAPITAL GAINS (REBASING)
Resolved,
That provision may be made amending Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1988.

28. CAPITAL GAINS TAX (APPLICABLE RATES)
Resolved,
That provision may be made restricting the deductions that may be allowed in determining the rate of capital gains tax applicable to capital gains.

29. PROFIT-RELATED PAY
Resolved,
That, in relation to profit-related pay paid by reference to profit periods beginning on or after 1st April 1991, section 171(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall have effect with the substitution of "The whole" for "One half.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

30. PROFIT SHARING SCHEMES (MAXIMUM SHARE APPROPRIATION)
Resolved,
That section 187(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall have effect for the year 1991–92 as if in the definition of "relevant amount" for "not less than £2,000 and not more than £6,000" there were substituted "not less than £3,000 and not more than £8,000".
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

31. RETIREMENT BENEFITS SCHEMES
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about retirement benefits schemes.

32. SETTLEMENTS
Resolved,
That charges to capital gains tax and corporation tax (including charges by reference to past gains) may be imposed by provisions about settlements.

33. SECURITIES
Resolved,
That charges to income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax may be imposed by provisions relating to securities.

34. OIL FIELD ABANDONMENT COSTS (PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX AND CORPORATION TAX)
Resolved,
That provision may be made about—

(a) the effect, for the purposes of petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax, of payments by the guarantor under contracts of guarantee relating to the liabilities of participators in an oil field for certain costs incurred in or related to the closing down of the field or any part of it; and

(b) the division of certain expenditure between participators in an oil field where one or more of them defaults on his liabilities in respect of that expenditure; and

(c) the treatment for the purposes of petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax of certain reimbursements of expenditure received by one participator from another; and

(d) the apportionment of certain expenditure referable to an asset which is a qualifying asset for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1983.

35. OIL LICENCES
Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 64(6)(c) of the Finance Act 1988.

36. BUILDING SOCIETIES
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about building societies.

37. NORMAL COMMERCIAL LOANS
Resolved,
That provision may be made in relation to normal commercial loans.

38. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES
Resolved,
That provision may be made with respect to capital allowances for chargeable periods or their basis periods ending on or after 6th April 1990.

39. RELIEF FROM TAX (INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES)
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) which may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.

PROCEDURE RESOLUTIONS

  PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)
  Resolved,
  That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision with respect to trading funds.

  PROCEDURE (TRADING FUNDS)
  Resolved,
  That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provisions, taking effect in a future year, about vocational training expenses.

  FINANCE BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums payable by virtue of any provision of that Act requiring the Secretary of State to pay a sum by way of rebate of vehicles excise duty where a goods vehicle for which a vehicle licence is in force is transported by rail in the United Kingdom in the course of the transport of goods between member States by means of combined transport.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Newton, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. SecretaryLilley, Mr. David Mellor, Mrs. Gillian Shepherd, Mr. John Maples and Mr. Francis Maude do prepare and bring it in.

  FINANCE BILL
  Mr. Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance: And the same was read the First time; and to be ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

Point of Order
10.45 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regard this as a fundamental and serious point of order. Is it a breach of the procedures of the House for the Minister for Roads and Traffic to circulate a letter to the member of European Standing Committee A—as he has—saying that he will not place before the House an amendment passed unanimously by that Committee on 13 March?
To my knowledge, this is the first time in the 900-year history of Parliament that a Minister has declined to report to the House of Commons a decision arrived at unanimously by a Committee, and has done so through what appears to be a misinterpretation of a new rule, Standing Order No. 102, approved by the House of Commons on 22 January this year.
Our 13-member Committee unanimously passed a very minor amendment saying that, in our view, an EEC proposal was contrary to article 75 of the treaty of Rome, because it included road safety within the competence of the Community. We felt that there was no doubt about the matter: the Select Committee spelled out—stated quite sincerely—that the Minister had asserted that, while Community competence was undisputed on vehicle standards, it did not extend to pure safety measures that had little or no relevance to the Community's primary objectives.
It has always been the practice of the House that, if a Committee comes to a decision, it reports it to the House of Commons, which can then either accept or reject it. Surely it is a complete breach of the house's procedures for the House not to be told what the Committee did. We have just set up these Committees, allegedly, to give proper scrutiny to EEC legislation. Our Committee sat for two and a half hours, considering the issue carefully and came to a conclusion. Surely it makes nonsense of democracy, and our procedures, for the House not to be told what we have agreed.
If this were some spurious point advanced by one or two members it would be understandable; but, after two and a half hours of debate, Conservative, Labour, Ulster Unionist and other Members all agreed. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. This has never happened before in the history of Parliament. Surely we can prevent what appears to be an abuse of a new rule.
If we want to change the position, we can put down an amendment to the Government motion, but if we do that there can be no debate, and no explanation to the House of why we reached our decision. All that will be possible is a vote at the end of business. This is a breach of democracy and a breach of privilege. Something must be done, or we may as well shut up shop.
Mr. Speaker: I have received a copy of the letter to which the hon. Member has referred. I refer hon. Members to Standing Order No. 102(9), under which the Government are free to table a motion in connection with any European Community document. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has pointed out, hon. Members are free to table any amendment to such a motion. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman give that course of action very serious consideration.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Member who leads for the Opposition on European Standing Committee A, I have to express grave concern about the situation to which the hon. Member for Southend East (Mr. Taylor) has drawn attention. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Committee debated an amendment at length, and ultimately agreed it unanimously. The Minister for Roads and Traffic at least had the courtesy to send us a copy of his letter to the Chairman of the Committee; otherwise, we should not have known that the motion agreed to by the Committee had been changed. To spot the change, we should have had to scrutinise the Order Paper.
It makes nonsense of the procedure of any Committee to spend time debating issues and coming to decisions if those are not the decisions that are put before the House. Of course, the Government have the right to move an amendment. Committees are taking the place of the House in scrutinising important European legislation. These Committees are new, and if the Standing Orders are wrong, they should be amended very speedily.
The current position in unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The procedure should be quite clear. If a Committee comes to a decision, that decision should be incorporated in the motion before the House. Any change should be the result of an amendment accepted by the House.
Mr. Speaker: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member has said, but I am bound by the Standing Orders. The hon. Member ought to approach the Leader of the House, who is monitoring the new procedure, with a view to having changes made.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, Sir, have cited Standing Order No. 102, as amended on 22 January 1991. Surely the words
"If any motion is made in the House"
must be read in conjunction with paragraph (8), which deals with procedure in the Committee. That paragraph ends with these words:
"The Committee shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which it has come, without any further question being put."
Surely the motion that should be put to the House is the one to which the Committee has agreed after its deliberation.
Mr. Speaker: The Committee has reported to the House. The hon. Member must read on. Under paragraph (9), the Government may put down any motion. I accept
724
what the hon. Member has said. This is a new procedure, and the matter that has been raised needs to be considered, but I am bound by the Standing Orders as printed.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Orders are intended to ensure that we follow the proper procedure. One thing that has to be protected is free speech. I do not think that any Committee of the House has unanimously agreed the wording of a resolution and reported it to the House, only to have a Minister change it before debate on the Floor of the House. If the practice is not to be protected by the Chair, the House of Commons is in great danger.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady knows well where my sympathies lie. However, I am bound by Standing Orders as they are printed.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems that the difficulty in which the House finds itself, and in which you may find yourself, is that the technical reporting of a conclusion of a Committee, which may be on an amended motion, is placed on the Table. The Standing Order is as you have stated, and the Minister is left to table a motion. The understanding during the discussion which preceded the Standing Orders was that the Minister would table the motion that was passed by the Committee. I think that you have put your finger on the nub of the issue in saying that the Standing Order permits what the Minister has done, but that that was not the understanding of the House when the Standing Orders were approved.
Mr. Speaker: It is clear that these matters need to be further considered. The occupants of the Opposition Front Bench should perhaps discuss them as a matter of urgency with the Leader of the House.
Mr. Devlin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have already heard the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Devlin: I am sorry to trouble you again, Mr. Speaker, but may we be clear whether an amendment tabling the original words as agreed by all members of the Committee would find favour in being discussed on the Floor of the House in due course?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot announce my selection before I have seen the amendments.

Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
10.55 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for the payment by the Secretary of State of grants for the year beginning on 1 April 1991 to charging authorities, within the meaning of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and local authorites, within the meaning of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987; and

(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act.

I thought that it might be for the convenience of the House if I made some comments this evening by way of background to the money resolution and to try especially to set out the facts of the administrative implications of the changes that are being made in the face of stories that are being put about of the consequences for local authorities.
I well appreciate that introducing the legislation at this stage in the cycle for local authorities produces disruption and administrative costs. It—[Hon. Members:"Chaos".] Oppositions Members claim that it causes chaos, but the result is far short of that. It is only right to acknowledge, however, that it creates a certain amount of disruption.
The House will want to know why it is necessary to introduce changes at this time of the year, which is not the most convenient time in the cycle for local authorities and their administration. I think that the answer might be obvious. The Government have undertaken a major change in the balance between the amounts of taxation that are raised locally and the amounts that are raised centrally—a switch of about £4·3 billion from taxes raised from local taxpayers to taxes that will be raised in future from the payers of value added tax. We can make that sort of switch and put those extra resources into local government only in the context of a Budget strategy. Therefore, the only time that a Government can announce such a change is at the time of the Budget, when all the implications can be seen and the amount of money paid to local government can be seen alongside the implications for taxation. That is both expenditure and the method by which it will be paid for.
I must pay tribute to local authorities. The majority of them have proceeded well with their billing process. It should be remembered that, for most local authorities, community charges were set in only the first half of March. Local authorities had got well ahead with their billing. They had sent out bills to community charge payers, or had got them to the post office at least. It is true that the proposed legislation will cause them disruption and the necessity for work to be repeated, but there is evidence that it is possible to complete the computer run fairly quickly once the figures have been fed into computers. It was only a matter of days between the setting of budgets, the setting of community charges and the issuing of the first series of bills.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The matter must have been under consideration for some time, at least some weeks. As that was the time when local authorities were going to send out bills and were encouraged to get on with the job, surely it would have been possible for Ministers to say that, in the light of the review that was taking place, further changes in the final announcement could not be ruled out and authorities might be wise to defer sending out bills? If that had been done, there would have been a colossal saving in money and paper.
Mr. Portillo: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and it may be a good debating point, but I am surprised that it comes from him. As the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman, he will understand better than anybody that the Government were in no position to hint at changes in community charge levels or in quantities of grant, except in the context of the Budget. The important thing was to explain simultaneously the money that was to be provided and the means by which it was to be paid for.
Mr. George Foulkes: What advice is the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities giving to local authorities where the cost of collection per head will be more than the money raised in the poll tax?
Mr. Portillo: In a very few instances, the amount to be collected might be less than the cost—
Mr. Foulkes: In Westminster.
Mr. Portillo: An hon. Member has yelled out, "Westminster." For reasons that I shall explain shortly, I do not believe that Westminster is in that category. As I shall explain later, in my view the collection costs will be a great deal lower than some of the views that have been publicly expressed. Therefore, the number of authorities in which the amount to be collected is less than the cost of collection is very few. It is open to local authorities which find themselves in that extraordinary position to set a lower budget and a lower community charge if that would enable them to expunge the community charge altogether, and so not have to collect anything. Perhaps that argument will become clearer as I proceed with my speech.
There have been some wild stories about the effects of the reduction in charges on local authority administration. As a result of the general reduction in the charges there will be some delay in sending out fresh bills. However, we know that many authorities are keen to issue bills as quickly as possible and it would be wrong to assume that there will be a long delay.
On the point on which I was recently interrupted, we would expect the average cost of re-billing to be in the range of £1·50 to £2 per charge payer. That is consistent with the experience of the more efficient of the charge-capped authorities this year. There will, of course, be a range around that figure, with authorities in higher-cost districts towards the upper end of the range. However, the suggestions that appeared in the press last week that re-billing could cost up to £40 per charge payer are implausible. The Audit Commission's estimate of the annual administration costs of the community charge demonstrate that. The Commission has estimated the average annual cost to be £14 per charge payer, but that includes not only billing—with which we are dealing now

727
—but collection and enforcement. The total amount is estimated to be £14, so it seems implausible that billing alone could be £40.
Mr. Foulkes: Surely the Minister recognises that the local authority has to take account of the cost of re-billing, collection and enforcement to decide whether it is worth spending even £14 to raise what may, in some cases, be a similar or lower amount? What advice will the Government give to a local authority such as Shetlands council—and there may be others in that position? It is an important matter, and the Minister must give us some answer today.
Mr. Portillo: I do not think that it is for me to advise local authorities what to do, but I shall give the hon. Gentleman the options and the considerations. Although I have no responsibility for Scotland, I believe that I am right in saying that, in Shetland, the outstanding amount is less than £1. Shetland council has two possible courses of action. It could reset its community charge lower than it has—it is within the law to set a lower charge. It could set it at such a level that the £140 reduction being made available by the Bill that we are to debate tomorrow wholly expunged the liability of all charge payers, so that there would be nothing to collect and the cost would be saved. Alternatively—this would be a matter between the council and the local authorities' auditor, the council might argue that it was uneconomic to collect the tiny charge. In that matter, it would have to take account of the auditor's view on whether he could sanction such action. Examples of that will be very few.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: As I had five minutes to waste, I read the Bill at the weekend. As I understand clause 2, a local authority is prevented from setting a budget that takes the £140 into account. How can it set another budget that is lower in accordance with the law when the only reason why it could set it is the £140?
Mr. Portillo: We shall discuss clause 2 tomorrow. [Interruption.] However, that is not my understanding of clause 2. Clause 2 prevents a local authority from setting a budget that takes account of the fact that it will get £140 back. There is nothing to prevent local authorities from setting a lower community charge.
Mr. John Maxton: I take the Minister's point that a local authority could write off an amount and not collect it if it was below a certain level. If the 20 per cent. minimum payment goes below the level which makes it collectable, could a local authority then say that it will not collect the 20 per cent. minimum payment?
Mr. Portillo: The local authority would have to convince its auditor on that point. [Interruption.] There has always been provision that local authorities may in some circumstances find themselves chasing debts that they believe are uneconomic to chase, but they would have to convince their auditors on that point, and that is quite a tough hurdle to clear.
Mr. Alistair Darling: The Minister keeps telling us that councillors should take advice from their auditors. Is he aware that auditors' advice tends to be available perhaps well after the financial year in question has been completed? Such councillors may find themselves surcharged because they failed to collect money that was due to the local authority because
728
the auditors subsequently decided that they were wrong in refusing to collect. Surely the Government, having brought about this mess, should at least be prepared to tell councillors what they are supposed to do and not leave them to expose themselves financially simply because, once again, the Government do not have a clue what sort of mess they have created.
Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks, he will see that I have given local authorities a number of indications of what they can do. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that local authorities must act, first, in accordance with the law and, secondly, with reference to what their auditors may say.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Portillo: I shall give way for the last time, because I wish to make progress.
Mr. Cryer: Does not that exchange demonstrate the foolishness, rashness and lack of preparation by the Government in taking the money resolution before the debate on the Bill? Such action in respect of any Bill is unprecedented. We normally have the agreement of the usual channels for such an arrangement. This procedure is absurd. The Minister must accept that it is extremely awkward for the House to consider the money resolution devoid of the usual debate about the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Portillo: I did not sense that the House felt in the least bit inhibited about debating this matter. It seemed to be entering into the debate in a well-informed manner. I do not think that there is any difficulty in the House reading the Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) gave a reason for his reading the Bill, but other hon. Members have read it for other reasons.
The Bill, by requiring the payment of grants and reductions in charges, will bring about a major change in the amounts that central and local taxpayers pay towards the cost of local government services which we have concluded is right if local taxation is to be at a level that is sustainable in the longer term. The Chancellor made it clear in his Budget speech that our intention is to produce an average community charge in Great Britain of less than £175. We have now been able to make a detailed assessment of the complex interactions between our proposals for lower community charges and the existing community charge reduction scheme and community charge benefit arrangements.
In reducing headline community charges by £140, we plan to reduce the gross revenue from the community charge by £5·6 billion. We also expect to make savings of £1·3 billion on community charge benefit and the community charge reduction scheme taken together.
The net cost of £4·3 billion is to be financed from separate taxation. Consistent with that £4·3 billion net reduction in the local tax burden that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in the Budget, it is now clear that we can extend the community charge reduction scheme to bring in more people and to increase the amount of relief. Specifically, we propose to give the full rate of relief to all adults in a household and to provide that, where people have moved to a new property this year, they will be able to qualify for a relief based on the new property and to reduce the threshold amount that charge payers are expected to meet from their own resources from £2 a week

729
to £1 a week. Similar changes will be made in the Scottish scheme, although different arrangements will apply in Wales, but those do not require any adjustment. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum needs to be read in the light of the remarks that I have just made.
Mr. Simon Hughes: It was not clear last week what percentage of community charge payers will receive £140 back. The clear implication is that many people's community charge bills will be reduced by much smaller amounts. Does the Minister have the percentage or a breakdown of the number of people who pay some community charge so that we can know exactly who will receive the full £140 reduction and how many will receive less than that—for example, because they already receive rebates and are therefore entitled to a much smaller amount?
Mr. Portillo: In the region of 8 million people are likely to benefit from the community charge reduction scheme. If I have any corrections to make to that, I will provide the House with a different figure tomorrow.
Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret having to raise this point of order, but it relates to what the Minister has just said. Just now—at 11.10 pm—the Minister made a major announcement. He said that what he has said tonight must be read in conjunction with the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum. We are going to debate the Bill tomorrow, but without the benefit of Hansard. What arrangements can be made to ensure that the Minister's comments are actually available when we begin that debate tomorrow? That is important because the Minister said that his remarks must be read in conjunction with the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Minister is responsible for his own comments and I am sure that he will have heard the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Portillo: I should be delighted to make a copy of my remarks available in the Library.
However, in response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), about 8 million people will benefit under the community charge reduction scheme. The Government set out to reduce the community charge of certain people to a small threshold above what they had been paying before in rates. it makes no difference to those people whether that reduction is made by virtue of the community charge reduction scheme or by virtue of the £140 reduction that applies generally so long as the final result is what the Government intend—that they should be paying only a very small amount above what they were paying in rates. The announcement that I have just made reduces the threshold from £2 to £1.
I commend the money resolution to the House.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he is willing to place a copy of his remarks in the Library. However, that means that they will be available only to one or two people. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about photocopiers?"] If 650 people turn up to take photocopies there will be a problem tomorrow——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Those points are matters for debate. They can be made in questions to the Minister during this debate, of which rather less than three-quarters of an hour remain. They are matters for debate, not for the Chair.
11.13 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: We must pursue further the issues that the Minister has just raised. It is an extraordinary precedent for a statement to be made during a debate on a money resolution. I am sure that it must be unprecedented in the experience of hon. Members who have been here longer than I have. Moreover, as has already been emphasised, because it is past 10 pm we shall not have the report of the Minister's words in Hansard in time to debate these matters further tomorrow. We therefore seek an assurance that the necessary information will be made available in the Vote Office in a manner and form which makes it easily available to every hon. Member. I will give way to the Minister now if he will give us that assurance.
Mr. Portillo: Naturally, I shall be delighted to provide the information to the House in the way that seems best. I thought that placing it in the Library would be adequate, but I shall be happy to put it in the Vote Office.
Mr. Blunkett: That is helpful.
As we have pressed for changes that do not disqualify people from a variety of forms of relief and exemption, we welcome the lifting of the deadline date so that people who move house will be entitled to this particular form of relief. I did not hear the Minister say—I shall be interested to examine his words more closely—whether the change applies to other forms of relief and exemption which currently disqualify people from eligibility because they happen to have moved house since the due date. Those matters, along with the implications of the Minister's announcement, will be subject to debate in the House tomorrow. I have no intention in the remaining 25 minutes of delaying the House unduly on those matters today.
We are here today to examine the amount that it will cost the nation to implement the Bill if it is passed. The estimates that the Minister ridiculed earlier are serious ones made by professionals in the field. The Times today, in an article entitled "Lamont delay 'cost taxpayers £200 million'", said:
"Norman Lamont, the Chancellor, could have saved taxpayers more than £200 million if he had announced the Cabinet's plan to reduce poll tax bills by £140 a fortnight ago, a local government expert said".
Ian Denholm, director of local government services at McConnell Douglas Information Systems, which supplies computer systems to 50 local authorities, said:
"This could have been done at virtually no cost to anyone, If we had been told about the change a fortnight ago, we could have altered the figures before the bills were printed. Tons of stationery and hours of system time will have to be devoted to getting the new bills out."
That is only a fraction of the cost of the changes that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor announced last week. It emerges from talking to treasurers and finance officers that the costs involve the immediate recalculation of entitlement to rebate, particularly for private tenants whose bills and eligibility must be recalculated immediately if they are not to find themselves

731
subject to eviction by a landlord demanding immediate payment of bills and, therefore, recalculation of entitlement.
Those changes, plus the wider rebate changes which will affect literally millions of people, will be touched on tomorrow. In this debate on a money resolution dealing with large sums, we want to put it on record that we are appalled that the Government are willing to do this with public money when they were not willing to spend the money on decent education, the care of the elderly and the provision of facilities for children. In other words, the Government are willing to spend large sums on manipulating the system to save their skins, but not to ensure the well-being and quality of service of everyone around us.
The Government, having introduced the community charge reduction scheme in an effort to save the Ribble Valley by-election, are now willing to spend £4·25 billion, plus the £200 milion to implement the new changes, to save their skins in the local elections. It will not work any better on 2 May than it did in the by-election. The result will be the same— a profound and immediate rejection of the way incompetence and indifference have led to our money being used to bribe us and persuade us that the poll tax was not so bad, that the changes are not so bad, and that the Government are worth re-electing. The British people know better.
11.19 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: It is strange to me, as a regular contributor to money resolution debates, that all of a sudden their importance has been exaggerated. We are debating this resolution because of the complete chaos that the Government have been thrown into by external circumstances, the major one being the deep unpopularity of a vicious tax—the poll tax. The Government have been busy trying to extricate themselves from the mess that they have got the nation into and, frankly, they have been unable to accomplish that. Among other things, the money resolution provides for payments of £60 million to local authorities for the administrative chaos. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) suggested that the cost could be as much as £200 million.If that is so, the Government will be coming back to the House with a further money resolution to secure that money.
It has been argued today that previous notification to local authorities would have made the position clear. That enormous sum could have gone some little way to rectifying the huge national health service waiting lists or to provide a better standard of education. However, the Government have argued that they cannot leak what is expected to be announced in the Budget. But they determine the date of the Budget and, had they so chosen, they could have brought forward the Budget statement so as to make the announcement in time for the local authorities to make better provision——
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that many Labour-controlled local authorities have already wasted huge sums sending people five, six or as many as 10 community charge bills over the past year. I cannot see that sending an extra one now will make a huge difference to their budgets, given all the money that they have wasted in the past year.
Mr. Cryer: I am merely going by the money resolution. The Government are providing £60 million in the Bill, authorised by the money resolution, for those local authorities which have been forced into administrative expenditure which is rendered null and void as a result of the Government's decision. The Government have not included any reference in the legislation to the maladministration of Labour-controlled authorities because that would be palpably untrue. This is not the fault of the local authorities—it is the fault of the Government for not providing better planned arrangements for replacing the poll tax. That is the top and bottom of it.
To make some petty point about all the vices being in Labour-controlled authorities is to say something that is patently untrue. Local authorities of all political complexions have suffered as a result of the Government's incompetence. There is no question about it, and that is the message that has gone out from this place because, contrary to the improvement that the £4·5 billion was designed to bring about, it is clear that the opinion polls have shifted against the Government in recognition of the ham-fisted way in which the Government have handled the matter.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Could he make this clear to the House: is he in favour or is he against the reduction of community charge bills by £140? If he is in favour of it, how would he have set about it?
Mr. Cryer: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if I were in government, I would certainly handle things more efficiently than the present set of incumbents. The hon. Gentleman started from rock bottom in referring to his own group of people. It is an easy debating device to ask Back Benchers how they would handle things. We are here today to debate a money resolution tabled by the Government, and we are being subject to a compulsory debate tomorrow and to a guillotine in the Government's confused and lacklustre attempt to rescue themselves from the poll tax. The vast majority of the people who are subject to this oppressive tax welcome any sort of relief, but they do not simply accept the relief as a God-given gift or a gift from the Conservative Government—they recognise that the Government are seeking to extricate themselves from an unpopular tax to which in every conceivable way the people of this nation have expressed strong and continuing opposition.
If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wishes me to suggest how the Government could have produced a better and saner system, I will. They could have maintained the,,,rate support grant that was operating in 1978–79 under Labour instead of robbing local authorities of billions of pounds of rate support grant. In an answer not to me or to any Labour Member, but to a Conservative Member, it was revealed that, if the Government did that, the average poll tax would be not the £250 that the £4·5 billion in the money resolution and to be debated tomorrow will produce, but £150—that is, £100 less. That shows how local authorities have suffered from the withdrawal of rate support grant and poll tax support grant over the 10 or 11 years during which the Government have been in operation.
I find the Government's double standards very annoying. If Labour, or indeed, Conservative-controlled local authorities—the Government prefer to pick on

733
Labour authorities, but they might be forced to pick on Conservative ones— had misapplied money in the way the Government have done, the Government would be pursuing the Audit Commission, surcharging the authorities and hounding people out of office. It reveals a regrettable and lamentable set of double standards that the Government can produce this money resolution free of any consequences whatever.
The money resolution in its present form is of some help to the House. We have to have a money resolution. But the topsy-turvy way in which the Government have gone about it is a demonstration of the chaos that they are in. Ordinarily, money resolutions follow the debate. The only precedent for taking the money resolution first was when the Prevention of Terrorism Bill was first introduced. On that occasion, the money resolution was taken first with the consent of both sides of the House. This time there has been no such agreement. The Minister has demonstrated that his statement is necessary for the debate tomorrow, and he has agreed, at our request, to provide information to be available in the Vote Office tomorrow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raised a question about clause 2 of the Bill. We are not debating that matter. It is outside the terms of the money resolution, but it is clearly linked directly with the Minister's response. If the debate comes before the money resolution, the money resolution can be applied directly to the terms of the Bill. The money resolution is within the terms of the Bill. On several occasions when money resolutions were debated in the House, it was discovered that the money resolution did not cover the terms required by the legislative proposals. Ministers had to accept that they would have to come back with a different money resolution, but that will not be possible on this occasion because we are taking the money resolution first.
An entirely topsy-turvy way to proceed has been introduced by a Government who are bereft of political ideology and are in absolute chaos. We and, most importantly, people outside are having to suffer. The sooner we get rid of the present Ministers in a general election, the better it will be for the nation.
11.28 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: Situation normal, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Opposition have said for years that they do not like the community charge, or poll tax, as they call it. One of the reasons, they said, was because it was too high. The Government, after a great deal of consultation, come forward with a proposal to reduce the community charge by £140 per head. It is a reasonable, straightforward and honourable solution. Ask the Opposition whether they are in favour of that reduction and they do not know. They have not reached a decision.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Marlow: No. There is no time, so I shall be brief.
Ask the Opposition how, if they were to reduce the community charge, they would set about doing it, and one hears that it is not their responsibility; they do not know;
734
they do not have a clue. That is the story of the Opposition for the past 11 years, and that is why they will stay in opposition for the next 11 years.
11.30 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: Not-withstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), what a right old mess we have here. The Government have had to bring forward a money resolution designed to extract from my constituents, as taxpayers, money that can be paid to Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council and Alnwick district council to relieve those same constituents, as charge payers, from the administrative costs of the Government's own mistake. There is no Government money; it is our constituents' money, and a great deal more of it has been spent than needed to be.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: No. I wish to develop my argument and I have little time in which to do it.
There is always more joy in heaven over the sinner that repenteth than over the ninety and nine. We must all rejoice that there is recognition on the Conservative Benches that the poll tax was, to put it mildly, a mistake, that something has to be done about it and that even more had better be done about it in the coming year than had previously been planned. There were signs of repentance some time ago. It has not come altogether suddenly. Yet while all these plans were being hatched and prepared, local authorities were encouraged to get on with the job of collecting the charge. Had they been dilatory in doing so, none would have been quicker than the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to say to them, "It is vital to get the bills out and to get the money in." Many sensible local authorities did, indeed, get on with the job, and many of them had their bills out and on the doorsteps before the old community charge year was over and the new one began.
It would not have been unreasonable to say to those authorities—to all authorities—that the Government's review of the poll tax was continuing and might even lead to further changes for the coming year. That could have been done in the context not of the Budget discussions but of the review that the Secretary of State for the Environment was carrying out. If that had been done, we should not have had post offices piled high with mailbags of community charge bills and local authority offices piled high with bills already printed. At least in the latter case, the postage had been saved; in the former, the authorities had actually paid the postage and the expense involved was vast.
Although I have no truck with some of the foolishly high-spending authorities to which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred, I am sure that if any local authority, in any other circumstance, had engaged in wasted expenditure such as this, Ministers would have been fulminating at the Dispatch Box at their carelessness, chaos and inefficiency. In this instance, all the inefficiency is down to the Government.
Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend will know that, by the end of the current financial year, the administrative cost of the poll tax will have been £250,000 per day. Does my hon. Friend imagine that we shall be able to discover from the Government at the end of this debate, or at the

735
beginning of tomorrow's, the cost of administering the system next year and—more important—the additional cost to local government which is not met by the Government's giving the money back? In London, for example, the Government have given the authorities some grant, but they have not begun to meet the cost that they imposed on community charge payers and local authorities. The Government are not paying back even the money of which they have robbed our local authorities.
Mr. Beith: Ever optimistic, my hon. Friend hopes for many more figures from the Government than he will get. I have serious doubts whether the figures provided for in the money resolution will be sufficient to reimburse local authorities even for the cost of the chaos that has been caused by the lateness of the announcement. It will certainly not meet many of the other very high costs of the poll tax and it would not meet the very high costs of the Government's alternative plans of other alternative property taxes that have been suggested, which would be expensive to collect. We shall go into some of those issues—if we are given any time at all—when we debate the guillotine motion tomorrow. The issue that concerns us tonight, however, is whether it was really necessary for so much money to be wasted and therefore reimbursed.
We argued that local income tax could have been decided upon early enough to be implemented in time for the coming year. Even if we had proceeded on the track that the Government have chosen—we would never havedone so—I still maintain that the Government could have alerted local authorities to the continuing significance of the review for the coming year's bills. That would have saved a lot of money in the process.
I cannot imagine the scale of the invective that the Government would have deployed against anyone else who had made as expensive a mistake as this.
11.34 pm
Mr. Max Madden: As we have the massed intellectual ranks of the Ministers of the Department of the Environment present, I ask one simple question to which I should be grateful to receive a simple answer during proceedings tomorrow.
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities has already been asked by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to give us precise information as to what share of the £140 reduction those in receipt of rebates and transitional relief will receive.
I cite a specific case involving a constituent, Mr. X, who is 77 and lives in a small bedsit. He is in receipt of a pension which, because he worked on for a couple of years after retirement, is slightly higher than the state pension. He receives £57 a week. Mr. X has been a claimant of housing benefit and rates poll tax rebate for several years without a break. Earlier this month, however, he received a final notice demanding that he pay the full £276 or face a court action. That demand caused Mr. X a great deal of worry, which could have serious consequences in view of his poor state of health.
The demand was followed by a bill which took into account the rebate. However, Mr. X is still being asked to pay £102 by April. He is aware that, if he does not pay, he may be sent to prison. Mr. X cannot afford to pay and it is felt that it is not his fault that the authority did not bill
736
him until this late stage of the financial year. The authority has been asked to use its powers to remit the charge on the grounds of poverty.
Will the Minister reflect on that case? It is not unique to Bradford. Many hon. Members could relate similar cases. It would not be much good asking the Bradford district auditor whether Mr. X can be relieved of the payment so that he can stop worrying about the likelihood of being sent to prison if he cannot pay £102.
I should appreciate a reply on behalf of Mr. X tomorrow. I am sure that many hon. Members would like to know whether those on rebates and in receipt of transitional relief will receive the full £140 benefit.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I receive your assurance that money resolution No. 5 is not a supplementary resolution for the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill? You will see that that motion relates to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill. In view of the Government's situation, I thought that it might be a supplementary resolution.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman offers us a little light relief, but we should press on.
11.37 pm
Mr. Allen McKay: I have a brief question on local authorities and the cash flow problem, which could be answered tomorrow. Because of the delay caused by the Government, between the time the money should come to the local authorities and the time it is now due—particularly if there are problems with the software—local authority treasuries will have to borrow at an exorbitant rate of interest. Will they be compensated for those interest rate charges?
11.38 pm
Mr. John Maxton: It is estimated that £500 million of the money in question will go to Scotland. It would take £30 million to abolish the 20 per cent. minimum payment to all those eligible for it in Scotland. Will the Minister allow or instruct local authorities to spend that £30 million—it would still allow quite a substantial reduction in bills to other poll tax payers—to get rid of the single biggest burden on poll tax payers, which also causes local authorities the most administrative problems?
11.39 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I have another question for the Minister which follows his earlier answer. The Government said that they would give everyone back £140. What percentage of the adult electorate will get back the full £140?
11.40 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was getting himself into an unnecessary lather. He asked a question that was irrelevant. The Labour party would not have introduced the community charge in the first place. It was introduced in a fit of panic by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr.

737
Younger), when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, following the revolt of the Troon ratepayers. We have made it clear——
It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for the payment by the Secretary of State of grants for the year beginning on 1 April 1991 to charging authorities, within the meaning of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and local authorities, within the meaning of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987; and

(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 9016) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Ordered,
That Clause 1 of and the Schedule to the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection:
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill which is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fourteenth day after this day, and

(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents
That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for the committal of Clause 1 and the Schedule to a Select Committee shall be discharged
That any petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of Clause 1 and the Schedule against that Petition:
That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee:
That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee:
That when Clause 1 and the Schedule shall have been reported by the Select Committee, without amendments or as amended, or if the order for committal to that Committee is discharged, those provisions shall be re-committed or (as the case may be) committed, to a Standing Committee:
That Mr. Speaker shall then allocate the Bill to a Standing Committee as provided in Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of Standing Committees).—[Mr. Boswell.]

WAR CRIMES BILL
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to Order [ 12 March]:—
The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 57.

Division No. 103]

[11.40 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Foster, Derek

Alexander, Richard

Franks, Cecil

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Freeman, Roger

Allason, Rupert

Gale, Roger

Alton, David

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Amess, David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Arbuthnot, James

Golding, Mrs Llin

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Gorst, John

Ashby, David

Graham, Thomas

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Baldry, Tony

Hague, William

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Batiste, Spencer

Hampson, Dr Keith

Battle, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Beith, A. J.

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bendall, Vivian

Hayes, Jerry

Bevan, David Gilroy

Haynes, Frank

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Blunkett, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Body, Sir Richard

Hind, Kenneth

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hood, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Howells, Geraint

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Brazier, Julian

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Bright, Graham

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Burns, Simon

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Burt, Alistair

Jack, Michael

Butler, Chris

Janman, Tim

Butterfill, John

Jessel, Toby

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Carr, Michael

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Carrington, Matthew

Kennedy, Charles

Carttiss, Michael

Kilfedder, James

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Chapman, Sydney

Knapman, Roger

Chope, Christopher

Knowles, Michael

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Lambie, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lamond, James

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Clelland, David

Latham, Michael

Cohen, Harry

Leadbitter, Ted

Conway, Derek

Lee, John (Pendle)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Lewis, Terry

Cope, Rt Hon John

Livsey, Richard

Crowther, Stan

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Cryer, Bob

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Currie, Mrs Edwina

McAllion, John

Darling, Alistair

McAvoy, Thomas

Day, Stephen

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Devlin, Tim

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Dixon, Don

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McKelvey, William

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Maclean, David

Durant, Sir Anthony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Emery, Sir Peter

McMaster, Gordon

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

McWilliam, John

Evennett, David

Madden, Max

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Fallon, Michael

Mans, Keith

Fearn, Ronald

Maples, John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Marland, Paul

Flynn, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

739

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Shersby, Michael

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Skinner, Dennis

Meacher, Michael

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Meale.Alan

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Squire, Robin

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Moate, Roger

Steen, Anthony

Morgan, Rhodri

Stevens, Lewis

Morley, Elliot

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Summerson, Hugo

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Nellist, Dave

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thorne, Neil

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Thurnham, Peter

Norris, Steve

Tracey, Richard

Oppenheim, Phillip

Turner, Dennis

Patchett, Terry

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Patnick, Irvine

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Waller, Gary

Pike, Peter L.

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Portillo, Michael

Wareing, Robert N.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Raffan, Keith

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Randall, Stuart

Wheeler, Sir John

Redwood, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Reid, Dr John

Wilkinson, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Riddick, Graham

Winnick, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wood, Timothy

Rooker, Jeff

Wray, Jimmy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Yeo, Tim

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Salmond, Alex

Sayeed, Jonathan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sedgemore, Brian

Mr. Timothy Boswell and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Amos, Alan

Benyon, W.

740

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Mills, lain

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Mitchell, Sir David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Pawsey, James

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Couchman, James

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Dalyell, Tam

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Dover, Den

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Favell, Tony

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Speller, Tony

Gill, Christopher

Stokes, Sir John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Harris, David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Haselhurst, Alan

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Hayward, Robert

Viggers, Peter

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Warren, Kenneth

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Watts, John

Hunter, Andrew

Wiggin, Jerry

Irvine, Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

Knox, David

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Maginnis, Ken

Malins, Humfrey

Tellers for the Noes:

Mates, Michael

Mr. Nicholas Budgen and Mr. Tony Marlow.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Miller, Sir Hal

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

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY AND UNFITNESS TO PLEAD) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr.Sackville.]

PETITION

  Under-five Education (Warwickshire)
  11.52 pm
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: I beg to present a petition that has been prompted by the concern felt by my constituents about the possible serious reductions in the educational provision of the under-fives in Warwickshire. I also hope that any such reductions will be avoided.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) will be presenting a similar petition. My petition, which is signed by about 30 constituents, and reflects the strong feelings held in my constituency, reads:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the North Warwickshire Under-Fives Action Group and other citizens of Warwickshire showeth that Warwickshire County Council has been unfairly treated in relation to the revenue support grant.
  Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to reconsider the level of revenue support grant for Warwickshire.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

Lloyd's (Self-regulation)
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr.Boswell)
11.54 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs for answering the debate. Neither of us expected him to have to do so at the beginning of the week, but—because of matters in the courts which I think we both understand—it was felt appropriate to transfer responsibility from the Attorney-General's office to the Department of Trade and Industry. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming out on parade tonight.
What I am going to say is in no way meant as an attack on Lloyd's of London. It is much more a plea for that institution to be protected, and for its good name to be ensured. I believe that Lloyd's is one of the great national institutions for good: it has protected millions of people over the centuries and brought billions of pounds to the country. It is the powerhouse of our invisible exports. It has provided investment opportunities for its 26,500 `names', based on risk but grounded in the utmost good faith. I shall centre my speech round that motto of the market.
I am an unashamed Lloyd's supporter. I want Lloyd's to lead for Britain in our drive to make London the financial capital of the increasing market and community of Europe, and indeed of the world beyond; but it will do that only if it is above reproach, and there is not the faintest whiff of anything underhand. Of course there will be the occasional rotten apple, and from time to time changing technology or abused practices will require new safeguards; but so long as the rotten apple is seen to be dismissed the market, and so long as the new safeguards are intelligible and apparent, I believe that the public can be reassured.
The basis of the discipline and integrity of Lloyd's is, of course, the self-regulatory regime as set up under the Lloyd's Act 1982 and subsequent byelaws resulting from that Act and from the 1987 Neill report. One of the most important has been the 1989 "Run-Off Years of Account" byelaw. The temptation has been for Ministers to refer to the newness of the 1982 Act when asked about subsequently emerging evidence of malpractice. It must be given time to settle down, we are told—and, anyway, the actual offence often predates the Act.
I do not dispute that; I submit, however, that, after the best part of a decade's experience of the Act, it has proved inadequate to protect investors entirely from financial disaster, resulting not just from the vagaries of the market but from dubious actions by some people in that market. Sometimes that has led to civil action, sometimes to serious fraud investigations and sometimes to internal—or largely internal—inquiries, which have too often given the appearance more of cover-up than of genuinely seeking to uncover the truth.
I must be careful not to refer to matters that are currently before the courts; I can therefore speak only in general terms, giving general illustrations. I hope, however, that the hypothetical nature of the language of tonight's debate will not hide from Ministers, or from the Council of Lloyd's, the reality of the need for Lloyd's to do

743
more to convince the public that it is serious about rooting out wrongdoing; if not, there will be an unanswerable case for DTI regulations.
I have constituents who have lost very large sums of money as names at Lloyd's. I have constituents who stand to lose their homes because of these losses. Most sensible people who invest in Lloyds as names now take out "'stop loss" insurance against losses beyond a certain point. But some losses are unlimitable because the insurance years when major losses occur may themselves remain open way beyond the three-year norm. That, one might say, is tough, and no more than the name should have known was possible when he or she took the risk and perhaps benefited from the investment over a number of profitable years.
If, on the other hand, reports on the escalating nature of a particular risk, and forecasts of potential colossal levels of claim, are received by leading people in the management of Lloyd's— these are, of course, the same people who are responsible for its self-regulation—and if such warnings are kept secret by them, then one can no longer say that it is tough on the affected names; one has to say that they have been done down by a dishonourable, if not dishonest, act. Their agents and underwriters will have taken risks on their behalf without the full information that was available to others but not disclosed to them. In no way can such a situation be fair and above board, or acceptable under the laws of natural justice.
In some instances, the situation is even worse than that. There have been cases where it has emerged that firms with which those in the know have connections have themselves taken avoiding action and divested themselves of the risk by passing it on to an unsuspecting someone else. At the very least, in such cases, there must be grounds for an independent inquiry. The Chinese walls that are supposed to exist between Mr. X the regulator of Lloyd's and Mr. X the director of a Lloyd's firm of underwriters or brokers are frequently paper-thin. They can be acceptable only if any suspected breach of them is investigated rigorously and by people totally independent of, and not nominated by, the market. That, alas, does not happen. That is my main complaint.
I believe also that, when there is a major financial disaster within one or more of the Lloyd's syndicates—a disaster that is, prima facie, not the result of a fair risk that has gone wrong fairly—the burden should, at least in part, be shared throughout the society. A central guarantee fund, to which all members have to subscribe, protects policyholders. It would seem reasonable to have something comparable for the protection of investors. There have indeed been occasions when such a call has been made on members. Perhaps a system should be instituted whereby a beleaguered syndicate's names might call on such a fund to tide them over while an independent inquiry or a court case was held, and subject to repayment if the loss were found to be fair.
The current problems are, of course, often the product of pre-Lloyd's Act accounts which were not due to be closed until after the Act was in force, and which were then left open because of the unknown quantities of claims. That has muddied the waters when taking a view on the adequacy of self-regulation. On the other hand, if actions taken by Lloyd's under the new self-regulatory regime are inadequate, it is surely no excuse to say that the case being dealt with goes back to a period before the current Act.
744
The main cause of concern has been the unresolved question whether all material information relating to liabilities is always revealed when contracts have been offloaded and when warnings have been received by Lloyd's council from working parties or other outside experts. There are strong suspicions that this has not been the case, and the new self-regulatory framework does not seem to have the capacity to discover the truth.
Perhaps most difficult of all to understand have been the occasions when we are told that a Lloyd's inquiry has found no case to answer, and we subsequently hear of investigations by the Serious Fraud Office. The key justification for self-regulation in the financial world—or other worlds of complexity and technical knowledge—is that practitioners know better than anyone else where the skeletons are or could be buried, and how the system could be or is being abused. It is a poor reflection on the experts when their inquiries exonerate, while outsiders—whether fraud officers, journalists, or other hunters after truth—find a case to answer.
Whether one listens to the Willis Faber director, Mr. James Sinclair, who bitterly attacked the administration of Lloyd's saying,
"You cannot have confidence in Lloyd's, its policies, regulatory control or agents",
or to Lloyd's head of regulatory services, who himself said,
"We do not feel comfortable about what has happened",
it is clear to me that people of integrity and good will within Lloyd's are disturbed at the current state of self-regulation.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to wait for current cases that we cannot mention to be finished but to call in the management of Lloyd's to discuss how better it could carry out its duties to its investors. I believe that my hon. Friend should make it clear that if that is not done to the satisfaction of his Department and of the House, he will consider bringing forward a system of regulation by his Department. A stroke of the pen, or at least a simple Government order, could bring Lloyd's within the Financial Services Act 1986. Above all, my hon. Friend should tell Lloyd's that when its friends, not its natural enemies, are critical of its procedures, it would do well to pay heed.
12.6 am
The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for bringing such an important matter before the House, for his opening courtesy towards me and for his opening comments on Lloyd's. As he said, it is a fine and important market that has done a great deal of good over many years. I have every sympathy with the constituents of my hon. Friend and with other names whose case my hon. Friend has taken up. I understand his reasons for circumspection of language, which will partly be mirrored in my remarks.
Although every investor is now warned that investments can go up as well as down, and all new names are told that insurance is a risk business, it is always a shock to make substantial losses. Lloyd's is a unique and important institution. It operates a system of professional independent regulation with a strong practitioner input. It employs 200 full-time staff on the regulatory side, and none of these can be names or practitioners.
There have been significant changes during the past decade in the way that Lloyd's is regulated, particularly to

745
improve the protection of the names. As my hon. Friend said, many of the problems which are still causing losses to names had their origins in the early part of the 1980s, before the reforms were introduced. As he also said, the Serious Fraud Office is currently examining one such set of problems to see whether there is a case that it should take on. If my hon. Friend has specific evidence about this or any other case, it should be sent to the SFO so that it has in its possession all the relevant information when coming to its important decision.
There are, of course, continuing losses for some, not least because the insurance industry has been passing through a low point in its cycle. Low premium rates have coincided with an abnormally high level of catastrophes and with the emergence of unforseeable losses arising from policies often written many years ago.
Lloyd's regulation encourages ethical standards of behaviour, not just obedience to the letter of the law. I recognise that, early in the 1980s, practice at Lloyd's fell short of what was required. In the past 10 years, however, much has changed, as my hon. Friend accepted. By the Lloyd's Act 1982, the constitution of the society was revised and a new council created which began to implement the reforms. The Act gives the Council of Lloyd's the authority and the responsibility for regulation of the members of Lloyd's and all those businesses which operate within its market.
In 1986, the Government set up a committee of inquiry into regulatory arrangements which was chaired by Sir Patrick Neill. The inquiry was prompted by the wish to give names at Lloyd's protection comparable with that proposed for investors under the Financial Services Act. The Neill report made 70 recommendations, which the Government asked the council to implement. This it did. All the recommendations have now been acted upon.
One of the key recommendations was to increase to eight the number of "nominated" members of the Council of Lloyd's. The appointment of these council members, who have no other connection with the Lloyd's market, is subject to confirmation by the Governor of the Bank of England. Combined with the eight external names who are members of the council, the nominated members now form the majority of the members of the council. The council therefore has a majority of independent and non-practising members.
Lloyd's concentrates on disclosure, monitoring and discipline. Regulation has to protect the interests of the policyholders and the names. In doing so, it must allow the people who actually conduct the business—the brokers and underwriters—to get on with their jobs.
The essence of any good regulatory system comprises rule making, applying the rules and dealing with breaches. The council of Lloyd's has powers, which it cannot delegate, to establish byelaws to govern the society and to regulate all who participate in its business. Each byelaw has to be approved by council by separate majorities of the working members and of the external and nominated members, ensuring a balance of commercial relevance and protection for the names and policyholders.
746
A general review department was set up to monitor the ability of agents and brokers to comply with the regulations. It visits agents and brokers active in the market to assess the adequacy of their management, systems and procedures. Investigation and discipline in cases of misconduct are also handled through council committees with tripartite representation.
The information available to names has also been strongly improved. Improved accounting and auditing arrangements have enhanced the competition between agents. An ombudsman has been appointed to investigate complaints by names against their agents or the corporation. A names interests committee keeps the complaints procedures under constant review. No regulatory system can offer a guarantee against all regulatory breach, but there is no reason to believe that a change from Lloyd's present system would achieve higher standards or more willing compliance.
We now need a period of stability, in contrast to the significant changes that have taken place since the events of 10 years ago. Several of the reinsurance contracts between Lloyd's syndicates have resulted in disputes between those who wrote the original business and those who reinsured them. We have to be clear what regulation can and cannot do. Unfortunately, it cannot prevent losses arising from adverse developments in the market or from poor underwriting. The emergence of losses does not necessarily mean that there has been fraud or negligence, but if there is a suspicion of that, evidence must be forthcoming and then action can be taken.
The council can and does offer to conciliate in the case of disputes between market bodies, but ultimately some disputes must be for the courts to decide. Where litigation is involved, I cannot comment.
I do not believe, from what I have heard so far, that there are grounds for a further major review of self-regulation at Lloyd's. It is important to remember that Lloyd's is far from standing still. An important step in looking to the future was the establishment of a task force to examine the basis on which capital is provided to support underwriting at Lloyd's.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has made suggestions tonight on liability and burden sharing. One-year syndicates, individual membership and unlimited liability will all be considered by the task force, which is being chaired by David Rowland, the chairman of Sedgwick, and aims to report before the end of the year. I look forward to that report and support the efforts Lloyd's is making to take on the challenge of Europe and the development of a more global insurance market.
I shall also ensure that the chairman of Lloyd's sees a copy of the Hansard record of this debate and my hon. Friend's comments, so that Lloyd's can understand the nature of the allegations about which my hon. Friend is worried and can see the seriousness with which the House takes the matter of regulatory standards in an important organisation such as Lloyd's.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Iraqi Nationals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made in regard to Her Majesty's Government's policy on applications by Iraqi nationals applying for(a) leave to remain in and (b) entry to the United Kingdom since 15 January.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 18 January my right hon. Friend introduced an immigration rules change (HC 160) under which applications for visas, leave to enter or extensions of stay by Iraqi nationals fall to be refused. These restrictions were introduced as an exceptional measure following the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf. We are keeping them under review and will relax them as soon as my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it is safe and consistent with the national interest to do so. In the meantime, discretion to grant applications outside the rules is being exercised in compassionate circumstances where we are satisfied no threat to national security is involved.

  National Security Detainees.
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many national security detainees were released from(a) Her Majesty's prison Wormwood Scrubs, (b) Her Majesty's prison Full Sutton and (c) any other prison establishments on 8 March 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 8 March 1991 nine Immigration Act detainees, held pending deportation on grounds of national security, were released from Her Majesty's prison Wormwood Scrubs and 24 from Her Majesty's prison Full Sutton. No other prison service establishments were holding these detainees.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken following the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee in its fifth report of Session 1989–90 that applicants for naturalisation should be kept informed of the stage that their application has reached.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government undertook in their reply to the report (Cmnd 1368) to issue regularly bulletins on the progress of nationality work. The first such bulletin will issue shortly.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are issued to immigration officers at ports of entry to the United Kingdom for the questioning of visitors from(a) Poland, (b) USSR, (c) India, (d) Chile, (e) Tanzania and (f) Taiwan.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Instructions are not issued on the basis of nationality.
  268
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) naturalisation and (b) registration applications awaiting decision were made (i) before 1 January 1988, (ii) before 1 January 1989 and (iii) before 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 20 March 1991 the number of outstanding applications by date of application was as follows:

  Application date

  Naturalisation

  Registration

  Before 1 January 1988

  16,351

  11,155

  Between 1 January 1988 and 31 December 1988

  12,912

  1,915

  Between 1 January 1989 and 31 December 1989

  16,756

  2,441

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to deal with applications for variation of licence to stay in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an application for variation of leave to remain in the United Kingdom and the decision, for cases decided in caseworking groups and in the public inquiry offices in the fourth quarter of 1990, was a little under two months.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to issue explanatory statements by the immigration and nationality department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Records are not kept of individual processing times for all explanatory statements but it is estimated that at present the average time taken to prepare and despatch an explanatory statement to the immigration appellate authorities is about six months.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the current and projected processing times for applications for(a) registration and (b) naturalisation;

  (2) how long the immigration and nationality department takes to determine applications for naturalisation as at 1 March;

  (3) if he has set targets for the time that his Department should take to deal with applications for naturalisation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average time taken for certificates of registration issued in February 1991 was 24 months and for certificates of naturalisation 36 months. Our objective is to reduce both the level of outstanding cases and waiting time as quickly as possible. The level of arrears is reducing considerably, but I cannot predict when precise waiting times will be achieved.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications on behalf of over-age dependants who have established relationship by means of DNA tests have been(a) considered, (b) granted, (c) refused and (d) are pending under his discretionary policy.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 466 applications involving over-age reapplicants have been reviewed under the terms of the concession announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) on 14 June 1989 at
  269
  column 461. A total of 108 of these applications have been granted and 358 refused. A total of 159 applications are currently awaiting review under the terms of the 1989 concession.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what changes have been made to the length of tiime for which an invitation/sponsorship form approval is valid; when the period of validity dates from; and whether there are variations, by country, in the length of time such approvals are valid;

  (2) if he will list the countries from which visitors to the United Kingdom have to fill in an invitation/sponsorship form for approval before being allowed entry into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is open to an entry clearance officer to seek up-to-date confirmation from a United Kingdom sponsor if he wishes to satisfy himself that the immigration rules as to maintenance and accommodation will be met in respect of any national seeking entry to the United Kingdom.

  Deportation
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals issued with notices of intention to deport on national security grounds(a) in November/December 1990 and (b) in January 1991, (i) left the United Kingdom voluntarily, (ii) were handed over to the Ministry of Defence as prisoners of war and (iii) appeared before the national security panel.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The answer is as follows:

  (a) (i) three; (ii) none; and (iii) three.

  (b) (i) 56; (ii) 35; and (iii) 48.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) Iraq and (b) other middle eastern countries have been issued with notices of intention to deport on national security grounds since November 1990; and how many in total were detained.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since November 1990, 144 Iraqis and 11 other nationals of middle eastern countries have been served with notices of intention to deport for reasons of national security, of whom 110 were detained.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals issued with notices of intention to deport on national security grounds(a) in November/December 1990 and (b) January 1991 and who appeared before the national security panel were, prior to 8 March 1991, (i) released with notices of intention to deport withdrawn, (ii) released on restrictions pending further investigation into the deportation decision, (iii) released pending the making of a deportation order, (iv) held in detention pending further investigation into the deportation decision and (v) held in detention pending the making of a deportation order.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The answer is as follows:

  (a) (i) one; (ii) none; (iii) two; (iv) none; (v) none.

  (b) (i) 14; (ii) seven; (iii) one; (iv) 25; (v) six.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant a visitor's permit to the spouse of a British citizen to enable that person to visit an hon. Member at his invitation, for discussions relating to the 270
  refusal of an entry certificate by an entry clearance officer in the Indian sub-continent so that that hon. Member, in whose constituency the spouse is resident, can determine how and whether to represent that person at an appeal against refusal of entry; and if he will confirm that, as the appellant will already have launched his appeal, the provisions of section 13(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 will not apply.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 14 March 1991 at column 656. All visa nationals who wish to visit the United Kingdom, whatever the purpose of the journey, must apply for an entry clearance at a British diplomatic post overseas. The entry clearance officer would consider such an application under the relevant requirements of the immigration rules (paragraph 22 of HC 251).

  By virtue of section 13(3) of the Immigration Act 1971, an applicant who holds a current entry clearance has a right of appeal in the United Kingdom against a decision to refuse him leave to enter the United Kingdom. However, a person has no right to enter or remain in the United Kingdom because there is an appeal outstanding against a previous refusal of an entry clearance.

  Family Law
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each Government grant to organisations active in relation to family and divorce law and its operation in the past year.

  Mr. John Patten
  A list of all voluntary organisations funded by Government Departments was placed in the Library when details of grants made in 1988–89 were announced on 11 May last year at columns 254–55. Similar details of grants made in 1989–90 are planned to be announced shortly in the same way.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average time between the lodging of an appeal and its determination by an immigration appeal tribunal.

  The Attorney-General
  It is estimated that in those cases where leave to appeal is granted the average time between the lodging of an appeal and its determination by the immigration appeal tribunal is four to six months, depending on the length of time it takes the parties to prepare for the hearing.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were pending hearing before the immigration appeal tribunals on(a) 1 March 1989, (b) 1 March 1990 and (c) 1 March 1991, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The information required is set out in the table:

  Number of cases pending before the immigration appeal tribunal

  Number

  (a) 1 March 1989

  262

  (b) 1 March 1990

  177

  (c) 1 March 1991

  360

  271
  The immigration appeal tribunal received 35 per cent. more cases in 1990 than in 1989, which accounts for the rise in the number of cases pending as at 1 March 1991. Additional resources have been made available to the IAT to cope with the increased work load, and the Lord Chancellor's Department will keep the IAT's work load under close review to ensure that the number of outstanding cases is kept as low as possible.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Attorney-General how soon Ramesh Kumar's appeal against refusal of entry clearance to the United Kingdom on 22 January will be heard; and whether any regard will be taken of compassionate circumstances surrounding the case when the date for hearing is fixed.

  The Attorney-General
  Mr. Kumar's appeal papers were received at the immigration appellate authorities (IAA) in London on 13 March 1991. On 15 March 1991 the IAA despatched the case papers to Mr. Kumar in India requesting that he nominate a representative by 15 May 1991. Once Mr. Kumar nominates a representative in the United Kingdom, and the representative has prepared for the hearing, the IAA will aim to list the case within two to three months. The listing of immigration appeal hearings is a matter for the IAA which gives full consideration to all requests made to it from either party for the early hearing of an appeal.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Attorney-General whether, under the provisions of section 22 of the Immigration Act 1971, an appellant against the refusal of entry into the United Kingdom as the spouse of a British citizen, has the right to be represented al: an adjudication or before a tribunal by an hon. Member.

  The Attorney-General
  The Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 (SI 1984/2041) made under section 22 of the Immigration Act 1971 state that in proceedings before the immigration appellate authorities (IAA) the appellant, with the leave of the IAA, may be represented by any person appearing to the IAA to be acting on the appellant's behalf.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when his Department first became aware of the existence of documents relating to forensic tests carried out on 21 November 1974 on other ferry passengers besides the men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  The Attorney-General
  The DPP first became aware of such a document on or shortly after 8 October 1987 when he received a written statement by a scientist dated 5 October 1987.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General for what reason the statement taken by West Midlands police officers from the forensic scientist who conducted tests on passengers on the Liverpool to Belfast ferry was not made available to representatives of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings before their appeal in November 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has asked for a report covering the handling of this statement. I will write to the hon. Member in the light of that report.
  272
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General for what reason the results of forensic tests carried out on passengers on the Liverpool to Belfast ferry on 21 November 1974 were not made available to the defence at the trial of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions was not aware at the time of the trial that such tests had been carried out.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when the statement taken from the forensic scientist who tested the hands of passengers on the Liverpool to Belfast ferry, which has recently come to light, was taken by West Midlands police force officers; and what other statements were taken in 1987 by West Midlands police officers in relation to the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  The Attorney-General
  The first statement by the scientist was taken on 5 October 1987. A further statement was taken from him on 19 October 1987. As to other statements taken in 1987, I will write to the hon. Member giving him such particulars as I am able to provide having regard to the practice whereby the names of persons who have given written statements to the police in the course of their inquiries are held in confidence and are disclosed only to the parties to legal proceedings, unless the makers of the statements consent to wider disclosure.

  Child Care Law
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Attorney-General what further steps have been taken to name the judiciary who will deal with child care cases in the higher courts under the Children Act 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  The Children Act 1989 is due to be implemented on 14 October 1991. Central to the philosophy of the Act is the principle that children's cases in the higher courts should be heard by judiciary who, by reason of their experience and training, are specialists in family work.

  Under the Courts and Legal Services Act the Lord Chancellor has the power to nominate such judiciary with the concurrence of the president of the family division. The nomination process will extend over a period of months and began on 22 November 1990 with the announcement of the names of 47 circuit judges who are to be known as "designated family judges". As a second step in the process the Lord Chancellor has today, with the approval of the right honourable Sir Stephen Brown, president of the family division, named two further groups of specialist judges.

  The first group comprises 49 circuit judges who will he known as "nominated care judges" and the second group consists of 127 district judges who will be responsible for the allocation of care cases, in the higher courts. Both groups will sit at the network of county court "care centres", the locations of which were announced on 22 November 1990.

  The "nominated care judges" will deal with substantive hearings and emergency protection orders arising in child care cases transferred up from the magistrates courts. They will also have jurisdiction in family proceedings.

  As their title suggests, the district judges responsible for the allocation of care cases will deal primarily with the allocation and timetabling of child care cases transferred

  273
  from the magistrates courts. They will also be able to deal with emergency protection orders and interlocutory matters within transferred cases.

  As announced on 4 May 1990, an extensive programme of judicial training is already under way. The nominated care judges and the district judges responsible for the allocation of care cases will receive training in the new procedures established by the Act. Special jurisdictional arrangements will operate in London where the district judges of the family division will have the same jurisdiction as the nominated care judges while also performing the role of district judges responsible for the allocation of care cases.

  Lists showing the "care centre" locations together with the names of the nominated care judges and of the district judges responsible for the allocation of care cases have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Children Act Central Advisory Committee
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Attorney-General who is to chair the Children Act central advisory committee announced by the Lord Chancellor on 9 July 1990.

  The Attorney-General
  Mrs. Justice Booth will chair this committee, now to be known as the Children Act advisory committee. The appointment will be for a two-year term.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Nuclear Structure Facility
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils; and whether he discussed the funding of the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of the ABRC on 15 January. At that meeting the board's advice on allocation of the science budget and other scientific matters were discussed. The future of the Science and Engineering Research Council's nuclear structure facility was not specifically mentioned.

  Museums
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he has taken to assist museums to be able to respond to the demands to be made on them from classroom teachers who will be implementing the history national curriculum in terms of staff and other resources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Responsibility for funding staff at national museums rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. Aside from independent museums, funding for local museums is in the main provided by local authorities. The Government will be providing some £170 million in specific grants in the 1991–92 financial year to help schools with the implementation of the national curriculum. It is up to each LEA to decide how to deploy the funds allocated to it, according to local needs and priorities.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has of the effect 274
  of his Department's circular regarding parents' financial support for school visits on the number of such visits to museums; and what action he plans to take.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has recently completed a review of the evidence of the effects of the charging provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 and circular 2/89 on school activities and concluded that the evidence does not point to a need to change the law. Evidence was received from a range of sources and included a survey of a sample of schools and all local education authorities commissioned from the National Foundation for Educational Research. The evidence suggests that there has not been a significant change in the number of visits to museums since 1988.

  Teachers
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the numbers of teachers employed by each education authority.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested for January 1990 is contained in the DES statistical bulletin 5/91, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Non-teaching Staff
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of(a) non-teaching staff and (b) administrative staff employed centrally by each local education authority.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information on the number of full-time and part-time non-teaching staff employed by each local education authority has been placed in the Library. No information is available on the number of centrally employed administrative staff.

  University Staff
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science why he has decided to delay ratification of the agreement of committee A of the negotiating machinery for university academic and academic-related staff to increase London weighting with effect from 1 July 1990, through the committee B stage of the machinery.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No decision has been taken to delay: committee B is considering the proposal made to it by committee A on 13 February 1991 and will respond to it as soon as possible.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funding arrangements were agreed between his Department, the Universities Funding Council and the CVCP, prior to the offer made by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to the Association of University Teachers to increase the London allowance for university academic and academic-related staff, with effect from 1 July 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None. Funding is a matter for the Universities Funding Council.

  Administration
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the amount of money held for the administration element of central services for each local education authority.
  275
  Mr. Fallon
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies of 21 February and 22 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, (Mr. Hughes) at columns 235–38 and column 236.

  More detailed figures are set out in part 1 of the authorities' LMS budget statements for 1990–91, prepared and published under section 42 of the Education Reform Act, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Vacation Hardship Allowance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) in 1989–90 how much was paid out in vacation hardship allowance in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland;

  (2) how many students received vacation hardship allowance in 1989–90 in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave in respect of England and Wales to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 13 March 1991, at column 516. Student support in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish orders to introduce geography and history in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have published today documents setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for geography and history in the national curriculum and have laid orders which will bring these documents into effect from the beginning of the next school year for pupils starting key stages 1, 2 and 3 (those aged five, seven and 11 in September).

  The publication of these curriculum documents will ensure that pupils follow sensible and comprehensive courses of study in history and geography. The introduction of national curriculum requirements for these subjects will lead to high academic standards and worthwhile levels of achievement by pupils.

  The documents which I am publishing today do not include a reduced course in geography for pupils at key stage 4 who are not taking a course leading to GCSE. I intend to publish shortly for consultation a further draft order concerning the reduced course.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is making separate orders to introduce geography and history arrangements in Welsh schools.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Pharmaceuticals
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has concluded his deliberations on the European Commission's proposed regulation on patent term restoration for pharmaceuticals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government are still considering the Commission's proposal and intend to announce a position shortly.

  Argentine Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if during his recent visit he discussed with the Argentine Government the Argentine Condor II ballistic missile project and the export controls required for such technology being developed by private industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]: No.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Arms Spending
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to collate information on the percentage of gross domestic product spent on arms by countries which are recipients of aid from the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on 13 March at column 517 we consider that there is room for improvement in such data, which are also included by the World bank in its "World Development Report" published annually. Such information is best collected on an international basis, and we are exploring how best this might be done.

  Starvation
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of persons in the world who were starving, assessed on the basis of the OECD reports in 1961, 1971 and 1981.

  Mrs. Chalker
  According to the OECD no such assessments have been made. The most recent report available to us is the latest assessment by the World Food Programme that up to 29 million people may be at risk of starvation in 25 sub-Saharan African countries.

ENERGY

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the impact of the transitional contract for supplies by British Coal to the electricity generators on the future of coal-fired power stations capacity in South Wales.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None.

  Coal Industry Ownership
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss future ownership of the industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of the British Coal Corporation regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Coal Imports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the chairman of British Coal regarding the level of coal imports after 1 April 1993.
  277
  Mr. Wakeham
  I have regular consultations with the chairman of British Coal on all aspects of the coal industry, including the remarkable efforts that the corporation has been making to improve its competitiveness and fight for a major share of the United Kingdom coal market over future years.

  Offshore Oil Platforms
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the installation of emergency shut down valves on offshore oil platforms.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Of the 193 valves required to be fitted as a result of the Offshore Installations (Emergency Pipe-line Valve) Regulations 1989, 164 have now been fitted. In a further 13 cases, work is either in hand on the installation of the valves or the pipelines are shut down until the work can be performed. In 16 cases temporary exemptions have been granted until 31 March 1991 only, with stringent safety conditions attached, after which time these pipelines will also be shut down for the valves to be installed.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of United Kingdom energy production was state owned(a) in 1979 and (b) since the privatisation of National Power and PowerGen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In 1979 about 45 per cent. of United Kingdom production of primary fuels was by nationalised industries. It is estimated that the proportion now is about 32 per cent.

  In terms of the proportion of final energy consumption in the United Kingdom supplied by nationalised industries, this represents a change from 59 per cent. in 1979 to about 8 per cent. now.

  Loft Insulation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the Government's estimate of the percentage of Britain's housing that does not have loft insulation up to the standard of 1990 building regulations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The higher requirements for the thermal insulation of the roofs of dwellings in England and Wales, introduced in the 1990 building regulations, can effectively be met by 6 in. of loft insulation. Information currently available on levels of loft insulation in existing homes does not enable identification of specific levels of insulation over 4 in. in homes in England and Wales.

  Landfill Gas
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many landfill gas schemes are currently in operation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department is aware of 32 landfill gas schemes currently in operation.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to change the formula applied by OFFER for proposed price adjustments by the regional electricity companies to the domestic tariffs.
  278
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 22 February at columns 280–81.

  Oil Supplies
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the effect of the Gulf war on oil supplies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait last year, and the cessation of its oil exports, other countries—mainly Saudia Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela—increased their production levels and made up the shortfall. Oil stocks have been at high levels throughout the period.

  Offshore Supply Industry
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the share of the United Kingdom offshore supply industry in the world market for offshore work.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department's best estimate is that the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry's share of the available market for offshore work was in excess of £6·5 billion in 1990 of which about a third—or approximately £2 billion—was exports.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the average annual level of expenditure on energy efficiency between 1974 and 1979, 1980 and 1984 and between 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Average annual expenditure by my Department on energy efficiency programmes in the five years ended 1984–85 was £9·9 million and in the five years ended 1989–90 was £19·8 million. This compares with expenditure in 1979–80 of £2·4 million; previous expenditure is not separately identifiable.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the steps currently being taken to strengthen the arms control regimes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are a number of arms control fora: further measures to supplement the conventional armed forces in Europe (CFE) treaty and the Vienna package of confidence and security building measures (CSBMs) are under consideration in NATO and among the participants in the Vienna negotiations.

  Negotiations continue between the United States and the Soviet Union on a START agreement which we hope can be concluded later this year.

  NATO is currently considering its approach to negotiations on short-range nuclear forces in Europe.

  An early and successful conclusion is being pursued in the conference on disarmament in Geneva for a chemical weapons convention.

  The third review conference of the 1972 bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons convention in September

  279
  will provide an opportunity to strengthen the convention by improving its confidence-building measures regime and reviewing the scope for verification.

  Closer co-ordination is being sought in the Australia group on contacts on CW precursors and dual-use equipment.

  Discussions continue in the United Nations, the co-ordinating committee for multilateral export control, the missile technology control regime and groups of nuclear suppliers on strengthening other arms control regimes.

  Military Attaché, Baghdad
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what periods since 1979 the United Kingdom retained a military attaché at the British embassy in Baghdad.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom had a succession of defence attaches at the British embassy at Baghdad from 1979 until the last incumbent departed on 27 September 1990.

  Nuclear and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, (Mr. Kaufman)Official Report, 13 March, column 929, he will set out the specific loopholes and weaknesses in the agreements and control regimes for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to which he makes reference.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We work constantly to strengthen the control of all weapons of mass destruction through the co-ordinating committee for multilateral export controls, the missile technology control regime, groupings of nuclear suppliers and the Australia group. We are also working to achieve an effective global ban on chemical weapons through an international convention.

  Iraq
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Ministers from his Department last visited Iraq, and what was the purpose and outcome of the visits.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office visited Iraq in February 1989 to discuss bilateral and commercial issues; to appeal for the release of Mr. Ian Richter; to encourage an early peace settlement with Iran; and to raise Iraq's use of chemical weapons and her human rights record. The policies of the Iraqi Government have prevented progress on any of these issues.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made by Her Majesty's Government since 1985 to other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council in regard to their sales of military equipment and technology for Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our policy on sales of defence equipment to Iraq since 1984 was to refuse the sale of any equipment which would significantly enhance Iraq's ability to prolong or exacerbate its conflict with Iran. Since 280
  1980 we had refused to allow the export of lethal equipment to either side. This policy was well known to the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

  Israel
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed during his meeting with his Israeli counterpart in London on 5 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Discussions focused on regional security and the prospects for relaunching the Arab-Israel peace process following the ceasefire in the Gulf. There was also some discussion of bilateral issues.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to instruct the United Kingdom ambassador to the Board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency to seek to put on the agenda of the next IAEA governors' meeting the issues of(a) strengthening international nuclear safeguards and (b) the effects on the IAEA safeguards regime of the bombing of safeguarded nuclear facilities in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The director general of the IAEA raised a number of safeguards issues in his statement to the board of governors meeting in February.

  The UK governor agreed that these were important matters to which the board would need to return at its next meeting.

  Conferences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the invitations his Department received to participate in or send an observer to conferences to be held in March.

  Mr. Lennox-Boy
  d The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to his Soviet counterpart on the recommencement of the negotiations on self-determination for the Baltic states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Ho
  gg My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the situation in the Baltic Republics with his Soviet counterpart, Mr. Bessmertnykh and with President Gorbachev in Moscow on 21 March. In both meetings he stressed our belief that constructive negotiations between Moscow and the republican authorities should begin as soon as possible.

  CFE Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of the CFE treaty to date.
  281
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The signatory states have taken certain steps (data exchange and corrections, notification of inspectors' names, active inspection quotas and other details required by the inspection protocol) under those provisions of the CFE treaty which were provisionally applied from the time of signature. Further steps in the implementation of the treaty (including the destruction/ conversion of excess equipment and the establishment of the verification regime) will take place after the treaty has entered into force, which happens only afterall 22 signatories have deposited instruments of ratification. To date, no signatory has done so.

  Legislative Competence
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to produce a guide to hon. Members on the areas of competence of EC legislation and the United Kingdom Parliament.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The areas of Community competence are defined by the Community treaties, as interpreted by the ECJ. Through the European Communities Act 1972 and other legislation, Parliament has given the necessary effect to the United Kingdom's obligations under the treaties. In addition, scrutiny procedures enable Parliament to review thoroughly all proposals for Community legislation, and where appropriate to call for debates.

  Missile Technology Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his current information on the nations that are now members of missile technology control regime; and when they joined.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him of 1 February. Since then Austria has announced her adherence to the missile technology control regime.

  Children
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to seek implementation of the articles of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child regarding children in conflict situations in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Iraq has not ratified or acceded to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and is not therefore bound by its provisions. We remain deeply concerned about the general human rights situation in Iraq.

  Sharks
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Governments of the United States of America, Taiwan, Malaysia, China, Japan and Indonesia in respect of the slaughter of sharks for their fins; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We do not intend to do so.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 167, what was the position of William Cowlins and Son with respect to the involvement of E. C. Harris in the proposed South Glamorgan TEC headquarters before 24 September 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  I am not in a position to comment on any relationship that may have existed between William Cowlins and Son and E. C. Harris before 24 September 1990.

  Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the reasons for the delay in updating the quarterly findings from the YT leavers survey; when he next plans to update the results of the survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Administrative systems used to collect information about YT leavers were changed last year. It has taken some time for the new systems to settle down. When I am satisfied that the YT follow-up system is producing good quality reliable data I will resume the release of results.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what effect the move to delivery of training provision through TECs has had on the collection, processing and presentation of data from both the ET and YT leavers survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  There has been no change to the system for collecting, processing and presenting ET follow-up information as a result of the move towards TEC delivery of programmes. The YT system has been changed to bring it into line with ET.

  Training, Brixton
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library copies of the letters sent out in March 1991 by his training enterprise and education directorate inner London south area office to trainers in the Brixton area about funding levels for training in 1991–92; and if he will make it his policy to maintain current funding levels for training in the Brixton area.

  Mr. Jackson
  The letters sent to trainers in the Brixton area by the inner London south area office are confidential between the Department and the contractor and should not be publicised. It is not possible to give a guarantee that current funding levels in the Brixton area will be maintained.

  Children's Rights
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the implementation of article 32 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and
  283
  Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) on 21 March at columns 192–93. Article 32 of the convention seeks to regulate hours and conditions of employment and, under the convention's definition of a child, would apply to young people aged 16 to 18. We believe that terms and conditions of employment of young people, as of other employees, are matters for negotiation between employers and employees or their representatives. We have therefore made it clear that when we ratify the convention we will enter a reservation on this article.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kashmir
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will urge the United Nations to implement its resolutions that the people of Kashmir should be given the right of self-determination.

  The Prime Minister
  United Nations resolutions on Kashmir over 40 years ago were concerned with the accession to India or Pakistan of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Government consider that any proposal to resolve the continuing dispute over the status of Kashmir needs to take account of subsequent developments, and to be mutually agreed between the Governments of India and Pakistan.

  President Gorbachev
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed at his meeting with President Gorbachev.

  The Prime Minister
  The main subjects we discussed were the middle east, arms control, the Baltic states, the progress of political and economic reform in the Soviet Union and bilateral relations.

  Kuwait
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will consult the United Kingdom Institute of Waste Management on the methods of reclamation of building rubble for the reconstruction of Kuwait.

  The Prime Minister
  The institute would be advised to register with the Department of Trade and Industry's Kuwait reconstruction database so that United Kingdom expertise in this field can be made available to the Kuwaiti authorities.

  Nuclear and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 1094, to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), if he will list in the Official Report those forums and institutions at which he intends to take up the matter of the export of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 6 March 1991.

  Moscow
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister which organisations he met during his recent visit to Moscow.

  The Prime Minister
  During my visit to the Soviet Union I held meetings with President Gorbachev, Prime Minister Pavlov, Defence Minister Yazov and representatives of the armed forces, representatives of the Baltic states, and leading liberals.

  Child benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister further to his oral answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 456, if he will make a further statement on the uprating of child benefit.

  The Prime Minister
  I welcome the uprating of child benefit announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 19 March 1991.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 472, what is the estimate of total Government expenditure on research and development in enterprises with fewer than 200 employees; and what proportion of it is estimated to be for defence purposes.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1989 survey of expenditure and employment on research and development (R and D) in United Kingdom industry was largely restricted to enterprises with 200 or more employees.

  A provisional estimate for civil and defence research and development expenditure in enterprises with fewer than 200 employees has been made of £255 million. Details are given in the notes of the Central Statistical Office's "Business Bulletin" issue 14/91, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The nearest grouping for which firm data, disaggregated into civil and defence R and D, exists is that with 200 to 499 employees for which the proportion of expenditure for defence purposes is 2·4 per cent.

  President Bush
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the matters discussed during his meeting with President Bush in Bermuda on 16 March.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 21 March at column 193.

  Prime Minister, Tuvalu
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he met the Prime Minister of Tuvalu during his visit to London on 19 March.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he is making to the request for assistance in the establishment of a South Pacific disaster relief programme to respond to natural catastrophes, set out by the Prime Minister of Tuvalu.

  The Prime Minister
  This issue was not raised by the Prime Minister of Tuvalu when he saw the Minister for
  285
  Overseas Development on 18 March. However, we are always ready to respond to the need for disaster relief assistance whether in the Pacific or elsewhere.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what information he has concerning the extent of damage to sewerage systems, water purification plants, hospitals and medical centres in(a) Iraq and (b) Kuwait arising from military action in the Gulf war; and what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to provide humanitarian aid to each country to alleviate hardship and disease caused by military action.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Nations Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on 21 March on Under Secretary-General Ahtisaari's findings following his mission to Iraq.

  Ahtisaari reported that sewage systems, water purification plants, hospitals and medical centres are largely undamaged but are not functioning fully due to a lack of electricity and fuel. The United Nations sanctions committee is considering how to respond urgently.

  Although Kuwait suffered widespread damage and sabotage to its infrastructure as a result of the Iraqi invasion and occupation, the Government of Kuwait have already started to organise repairs and have made arrangements to provide purified drinking water. Medical facilities were relatively undamaged and are continuing to operate.

  The United Kingdom supports the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations relief agencies in Iraq and Kuwait. This year we have already given £2·5 million to the ICRC's Gulf appeal (the largest single cash donation) and US$1 million to the United Nations appeal co-ordinated by United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation. In addition, the EC Commission has given £8·75 million to support the relief activities in the Gulf region. The share of this attributable to the United Kingdom's aid budget is £1·75 million.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives have been taken by Her Majesty's Government's representatives to(a) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (b) the United Nations environment programme, (c) the International Atomic Energy Agency, (d) the International Energy Agency, (e) the World Health Organisation, (f) the International Labour Organisation, (g) the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, (h) the European Commission and (i) the United Nations, respectively, to alleviate hardship caused to civilians in Iraq and Kuwait caused by the Gulf war.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]: The International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations relief agencies are the main international organisations providing assistance to civilians in Iraq and Kuwait. A multi-agency UN mission has just returned from Iraq where it has assessed the needs of the civilian population and will shortly be visiting Kuwait. Representatives of British non-governmental organisations, Oxfam and Save the Children Fund, just back from Baghdad, are also planning relief activities. UNEP is helping to tackle the effects of oil pollution in the Gulf. The
  286
  EC Commission has given £8·75 million to support relief activities in the Gulf region. The share of this attributable to the United Kingdom's aid budget is £1·75 million.

  We are not aware that the other organisations mentioned are currently providing assistance to civilians in Iraq and Kuwait.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what communications he has had with the director of the World Health Organisation concerning disease and epidemics in Iraqi cities arising from destruction of sewage and water purification plants, and electricity generating stations, by allied bombing in the Gulf war.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]: We are in close touch with United Nations agencies including the World Health Organisation and the International Committee of the Red Cross about requirements for humanitarian assistance in Iraq.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 12 March,Official Report, column 472, he will make it his policy to make a one-off extra donation to the United Nations children's organisation, UNICEF, from the United Kingdom to help children in Iraq suffering as a result of the destruction of the economic infrastructure in Iraq from allied bombings.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]: A multi-agency United Nations mission has recently been in Iraq to assess humanitarian needs. It will make recommendations to the Secretary-General on emergency actions the United Nations might take. In the light of the mission's report we will consider what response to make to any appeal for funding launched by the Secretary-General, including what would be the most appropriate channel.

  Middle East
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the United States Government on the prospective role of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in a peace settlement in the middle east.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]: We are in regular contact with the United States Administration on all aspects of the Arab/Israel dispute, including the position of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The PLO has done little to enhance its role in recent months.

  Iraq
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for 10 Downing street library a copy of the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation report on trade with Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]: No.

  Food Chain
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a single department of state to supervise matters relating to the food chain from farm to plate.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 March 1991]: No. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food already performs this function, sharing responsibility for food safety with the Department of Health.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the annual change in living standards since 1979 of(a) non-pensioner couples with children, (b) non-pensioner couples without children, (c) non-pensioner single people, (d) non-pensioner single people with children, (e) single pensioners and (f) pensioner couples up to the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 26 July 1990 at columns 501–6.

  Disability
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the letter on severely disabled children the hon. Member for Birkenhead sent to him on 19 November 1990.

  Mr. Scott
  I apologise for the delay in replying but we will do so as soon as possible.

  Social Fund Loans
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards allowing local offices to recycle social fund loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Loan recoveries are returned to the national budget and any recycling of the money is made centrally. This enables us to focus the additional funds on those offices whose budgets are under most pressure. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Local Offices
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are receiving income support in the areas covered by the Poplar, Stepney and Shoreditch Department of Social Security offices, respectively; and how many people in Tower Hamlets as a whole are receiving income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information for the London borough of Tower Hamlets is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information in respect of the Department of Social Security local offices is as follows:

  Total income support claimants

  Department of Social Security office

  Number

  Poplar

  13,829

  Stepney

  9,486

  Shoreditch

  10,025

  Note:

  Data derived from 28 February 1991 count of cases in action, which include a number of cases where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are receiving income support in the areas covered by the Poplar DSS office.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total number of people receiving income support in the area covered by the Poplar 288
  DSS office is 13,829. Information in respect of areas within the local office boundary is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Note: Data derived from 28 February 1991 count of cases in action, which include a number of cases where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Over-60s Card
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in discussions on the European Community over-60s card.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom welcomes the proposal for an over-60s card and has responded positively to the idea. However, we, like other EC member states, are not yet in a position to reply finally to the Commission about implementation. Departmental officials are having further discussions with their European counterparts to seek to resolve various problems associated with the introduction of such a card.

  I recently wrote to Members of the European Parliament about this matter and I will send the hon. Member a copy of the letter.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the study of the standards of examining medical practitioners for attendance allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We plan to publish the report in the summer.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what monitoring his Department has undertaken of the operation of guidelines for visiting doctors introduced last April to allow disabled children under two years of age to qualify for attendance allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Guidance was issued by the attendance allowance board to its delegated doctors on those factors which should be taken into account when deciding whether the medical conditions for an award are met in children with disabilities who are aged less than two years and for whom a claim has been made for attendance allowance. At the same time, the board also advised visiting doctors (examining medical practitioners) on the special needs of disabled infants which should be reflected in the reports of medical examinations. The examining doctors are routinely monitored by the Department's regional senior medical officers. We are not aware that any particular problems have emerged during the process of such monitoring following the extension of attendance allowance to children aged less than two years.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the research study on lone parents conducted for his Department by Professor Bradshaw and Dr. Millar, which is referred to in the White Paper, "Children Come First".

  Mr. Jack
  The Department has now received the final report of the research study. It is expected it will be published by HMSO by the summer.

  Income Support
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was, on the same basis as the tax/benefit tables (i) the total income support of an employed married man with children aged four and six, in December 1990, whose income was(a) £70 per week, (b) £120 per week and (c) £140 per week, and (ii) the total income support of an employed married man with children aged three, eight and eleven, in December 1990, whose income was (a) £70 per week, (b) £120 per week and (c) £140 per week.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is contained in the tax/benefit model tables, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Low Wages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families rely on means-tested benefits to top up low wages.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 March 1991]: The table sets out the latest available information on the number of families in receipt of income-related benefits who were also in receipt of income from employment (either part time or full time). There is no agreed definition of what constitutes "low wages", and as indicated in the published DSS tax/benefit model tables, entitlement to income-related benefits can extend some considerable distance up the income scales depending on family circumstances and composition. The contribution made by income-related benefit to overall household income will similarly vary between families—clearly, some of the families listed will be entitled to larger amounts, whereas for others the benefit may form only a very small proportion of overall household income. Figures for income support and housing benefit are derived from the 1989 annual statistical inquiry and show the position at May 1989. The figure for family credit is an estimate of case load as at July 1990.

  Number

  Income support

  112,000

  Housing benefit1

  150,000

  Family credit

  325,820

  1 The total includes those in receipt of rent rebate, rent allowance and or rate rebate in England and Wales and recipients of rent rebate/allowance and community charge rebate in Scotland. This therefore excludes cases in Scotland who were in receipt of community charge rebate only.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Schoolchildren (Part-time Work)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated number of children of compulsory school age who work part-time; and if he will make a statement on the survey recently carried out by the North-Eastern education and library board on pupils working part-time.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available. It would be premature to comment on the survey undertaken by the North-Eastern education and library board until that board has completed its own consideration of the matter and submitted its views to the Department of Education.

  Gas Pipelines
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek estimates for the provision of a gas pipeline from Morecambe bay or elsewhere to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The proposal being considered is for a pipeline between Scotland and Northern Ireland and estimates of the capital costs of the pipeline will form part of the economic assessment of the project.

  Second-hand Cars
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many second-hand cars have been imported into Northern Ireland and how many exported in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and in each year how many came from and were sent to(a) Great Britain and (b) the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland holds statistical information on the total number of vehicles removed from the vehicle register as a result of having been permanently exported or scrapped but does not have separate figures on the number of exported vehicles. The information set out in the table relates to used vehicles registered for the first time in Northern Ireland having previously been used in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

  Origin

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Great Britain

  9,255

  11,077

  16,675

  Republic of Ireland

  2,085

  3,203

  1,552

  Total

  11,340

  14,280

  18,227

  Dumping
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to increase efforts to ensure(a) that the environment is protected from illegal dumping and (b) that existing sites where dumping has occurred are cleared.

  Mr. Needham
  In Northern Ireland district councils are responsible for controlling the disposal of waste, including illegal dumping and the clearance of sites. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is currently reviewing the problem of illegal dumping, in light of provisions introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals, companies, or organisations have been prosecuted for unlawful dumping in each district council area, in each of the past seven years; and in how many cases prosecutions were successful.

  Mr. Needham
  In Northern Ireland, each district council is responsible for enforcing in its area the legislation on the disposal of waste. Records of prosecutions are not held centrally. However, the information which the hon. Gentleman requires will be sought from the various councils and I shall write to him as soon as possible.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of workers engaged in agriculture in Northern Ireland in 1980, 1985 and 1990(a) in total and (b) whole time.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  1980

  1985

  1990

  Total agricultural labour force

  63,500

  60,600

  58,400

  Of whom whole time on farms

  35,500

  31,500

  27,800

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many agricultural holdings there were in Northern Ireland in 1980, 1985 and 1990, respectively.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Agricultural holdings

  1980

  35,256

  1985

  32,426

  1990

  29,850

  Current prices £ millions

  Constant prices £ millions (1985 Base)

  1979

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1979

  1980

  1985

  1990

  Plant and Machinery

  40·94

  27·59

  45·22

  43·46

  56·24

  34·19

  45·22

  33·69

  Vehicles

  8·68

  5·39

  9·38

  15·50

  13·56

  7·41

  9·38

  10·64

  Buildings and Works

  50·93

  76·92

  110·40

  82·38

  72·45

  83·34

  110·40

  58·43

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) ewes and shearlings, (b) dairy cows and (c) breeding sows and gilts there were in Northern Ireland (i) in each of the five years from 1986 to 1990 and (ii) on average for the years between 1979 and 1981, inclusive.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Ewes

  Dairy cows

  Sows and gilts

  ('000)

  ('000)

  ('000)

  1979–811

  542

  268

  71

  1986

  819

  292

  62

  1987

  886

  289

  60

  1988

  980

  279

  62

  1989

  1,085

  277

  58

  1990

  1,168

  278

  59

  1Average.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Ireland how many tractors were acquired by the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland(a) in total and (b) of 40 kW and over, in 1979, 1985 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of agricultural tractors first registered in Northern Ireland in 1979, 1985 and 1990 were as follows:

  Number

  1979

  1,882

  1985

  2,257

  1990

  1,312

  292
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) whole-time and (b) part-time farmers there were in Northern Ireland in 1980, 1985 and 1990, respectively.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  1980

  1985

  1990

  Farmers:

  —whole time

  27,600

  25,300

  22,700

  —part time

  10,900

  10,700

  11,900

  —total

  38,500

  36,100

  34,600

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the level of investment by the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland in(a) plant and machinery, (b) vehicles, (c) buildings and (d) works in 1979, 1980, 1985, and the latest year for which figures are available (i) in cash terms and (ii) at fixed prices.

  Mr. Hanley
  Investment by the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland in plant and machinery, vehicles and buildings and works in 1979, 1980, 1985, and 1990 is given in the table (i) in current prices and (ii) in constant (1985) prices. Separate figures for investment in buildings and works are not available.

  The information is not available by the tractor's kilowatt power rating

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hectares of(a) cereals and (b) potatoes were grown in Northern Ireland (a) in each of the five years for 1986 to 1990 and (b) on average for the years between 1979 and 1981, inclusive.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Cereals

  Potatoes

  ('000 ha)

  ('000 ha)

  1979–811

  57·3

  14·0

  1986

  53·9

  11·8

  1987

  52·3

  12·4

  1988

  50·1

  12·0

  1989

  47·9

  10·3

  1990

  45·3

  10·8

  1Average.

WALES

  Children Act
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what element was included in his revenue support grant to cover statutory provisions relating to the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Revenue support grant is paid in support of expenditure on services generally and is not earmarked for particular services. In setting the level of
  293
  total standard spending for Wales for 1991–92 account was taken of the local authority associations' view that the introduction of measures under the Children Act 1989 would cost £1·5 million in that financial year.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the standard spending assessment for(a)education and (b) social services, for each local authority in Wales in 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh revenue support grant formulae do not form a basis for calculating standard spending assessments for individual services.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the relative rates of increase in Wales of(a) council spending, (b) inflation and (c) the uniform business rate and locally determined rate poundage, over the preceding 10 years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information available is shown in the following table:

  Percentage change on year earlier

  Revenue spending1

  Retail prices index2

  Average general rate poundage

  1981–82

  N/A

  11·4

  14·2

  1982–83

  5·8

  7·3

  3·1

  1983–84

  5·0

  5·1

  0·7

  1984–85

  2·9

  4·7

  8·1

  1985–86

  3·7

  5·9

  7·8

  1986–87

  8·2

  3·0

  12·5

  1987–88

  7·1

  4·2

  7·2

  1988–89

  9·2

  5·9

  8·8

  1989–90

  38·1

  7·6

  10·1

  1990–91

  311·7

  10·9

  4N/A

  1 Revenue expenditure net of specific Government grants, sales, fees and charges. Because definitional changes in 1990–91, the percentage change shown for that year is on a slightly different basis to those shown for the earlier years.

  2 Using September of each year as the reference point.

  3 Provisional.

  4 Due to the change to the uniform business rate in 1990–91, no comparison with the preceding year is available.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether specific grants were ring-fenced for social service expenditure in the settlement for 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The following specific grants in respect of the Government's social services training support programme for local authority social services staff in Wales were included in the Welsh revenue support grant settlement for 1991–92:

  £ (000s)

  Child care

  453

  Children Act 1989

  240

  Community care

  465

  Post qualifying level training for staff in management and training posts

  300

  1,458

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the basis per adult for redistribution of the uniform business rate to local councils in Wales for(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92.
  294
  Mr. David Hunt
  Non-domestic rates income is distributed to local authorities in accordance with the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales and paragraphs 12 and 13 of schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  The figures per head of relevant population are as follows:

  Districts

  Counties

  £

  £

  1990–91

  32

  171

  1991–92

  40

  200

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what share of the total uniform business rate is being paid by(a) factories and (b) warehouses in Wales; and what were their relevant shares before the introduction of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The relevant shares of the total uniform business rate being paid by(a) factories and (b) warehouses in Wales and their relevant shares before the introduction of the uniform business rate are shown in the following table:

  Percentage share of total non-domestic rates

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  before transition

  after transition

  (a) Factories

  26

  19

  26

  (b) Warehouses

  6

  5

  6

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that employees who are required, for short periods of the year, to live in at their place of work are not required to pay community charge in respect of both their permanent abode and their temporary residence at their place of work.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Following our initial review of the community charge last year and associated consultation on the document entitled "The Standard Community Charge and Other Matters", a number of changes to the structure of the standard charge were brought into force by means of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1990 (S.I. 1990/2475). Among the new prescribed classes that will apply from 1 April 1991 is a class of unoccupied property (class M), with a maximum standard charge multiplier of 0·5 where the person subject to the standard community charge occupies another property which is job-related. In addition, local authorities already possess considerable discretion to specify their own standard community charge classes, and they may do so by reference to a number of factors, including the circumstances—other than financial circumstances—of persons subject to a standard charge.

  Damage to Highways
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he is now giving to local highway authorities in Wales with regard to the payment for damage done to highways in Wales by the fracturing of water mains and the consequential costs of repairs.
  295
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 contains provisions on the liability of water authorities and other undertakers to highway authorities for damage caused to the property of the highway authority. However, the current provisions have led to a number of disputes over the apportionment of costs of repairing roads following the fracturing of water mains. The New Roads and Street Works Bill now before Parliament would replace the 1950 Act provisions with a straightforward duty on undertakers to compensate the highway authority in respect of any damage or loss suffered by the authority as a result of the execution of street works or an event such as burst main.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to sell off investments currently held by the Welsh Development Agency in Welsh companies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Under guidelines issued by my Department, the Welsh Development Agency seeks to dispose of shares at the earliest practicable time consistent with its statutory purposes.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total estimated value of investments currently held by the Welsh Development Agency in 'Welsh companies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Latest available estimate of the gross value of the Welsh Development Agency's equity investment portfolio is £8 million.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for 'Wales whether he has taken steps with the European Commission to press for an extension to the programme timetable for the Dyfed-Gwynedd-Powys national programme of Community interest for a further two years; and if he will make a statement on the expenditure pattern of the programme to date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The European Commission has already agreed funds to enable the Dyfed Gwynedd Powys programme to continue until the end of 1993. Out of a total ERDF commitment of £79·4 million for 1987 to 1991, £51·2 million has already been committed and I anticipate that the remaining funds available for allocation in 1991 will be taken up.

  Salmon and Sea Trout
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the most up-to-date estimate of the number of(a) salmon and (b) sea trout making spawning runs in the waters and Rivers (i) Taff and (ii) Ely or their estuarial waters for each year since 1987.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There are no means of recording the number of salmon and sea trout entering to spawn on the rivers Taff and Ely or their esturial waters. However, records are kept by the Welsh region of the National Rivers Authority of the number of these fish reported by anglers, captured by the NRA, or found dead. These records provide minimum estimates of the runs of salmon and sea trout into the two rivers, and are as follows:
  296

  Salmon

  Sea Trout

  River Taff

  1987

  58

  409

  1988

  124

  322

  1989

  37

  101

  11990

  163

  141

  River Ely

  No salmon or sea trout recorded prior to 1989

  1989

  13

  23

  1990

  51

  73

  1 Incomplete.

  M4
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the dates on which the two motorway signs on the westbound carriageway of the M4 motorway at junction 48 were damaged; and by when he proposes to have them repaired.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Superficial damage occurred during the storms of Janaury 1990, but the more substantial damage occurred in February 1991. Both signs will be repaired by mid-April.

  Elderly People
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the Government's current policy towards the elderly in Wales; if he will comment on funding arrangements of organisations connected with the elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Our aim is to ensure that, wherever possible, elderly people are able to live with comfort and dignity in their own homes and communities. To secure this we have a wide range of co-ordinated policies and initiatives covering personal social services, health, housing and other matters. Organisations connected with the elderly benefit from a wide range of funds made available by the Department for a number of purposes. In addition to the general financial support provided to statutory authorities, we have just announced, for instance, special grants in 1991–92 totalling more than £750,000 to promote more flexible forms of community care for elderly people provided by a wide range of statutory and voluntary bodies. We shall also continue to contribute to the funding of 56 projects that are under-way throughout Wales under the Elderly Initiative at a planned cost of £2·3 million in 1991–92. We expect shortly to announce the allocation of resources in 1991–92 to voluntary bodies in this field operating at the all-Wales level.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) ewes and shearlings, (b) breeding sows and gilts and (c) dairy cows there were in Wales (i) in each of the five years from 1986 to 1990 and (ii) on average for the years between 1979 and 1981, inclusive.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is shown in the following table:
  297

  At June

  Ewes and shearlings

  Breeding sows and gilts

  Dairy cows

  1990

  5,234,964

  12,036

  327,009

  1989

  5,111,490

  12,680

  329,890

  1988

  4,893,276

  14,551

  336,798

  1987

  4,700,960

  15,530

  352,820

  1986

  4,566,884

  16,153

  364,942

  Average

  1979–81

  inclusive

  3,903,031

  16,548

  355,641

  Figures include estimates for minor holdings.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many agricultural holdings there were in Wales in 1980, 1985 and 1990, respectively.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There were 37,098 in 1980, 36,137 in 1985 and 36,487 in 1990. These totals include minor holdings.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) whole-time and (b) part-time farmers there were in Wales in 1980, 1985 and 1990, respectively.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested in respect of farmers, partners and directors working on agricultural holdings is shown in the following table:

  At June

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  1980

  24,872

  9,388

  1985

  24,461

  11,852

  1990

  23,404

  11,642

  Figures include estimates for minor holdings.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of workers engaged in agriculture in Wales in 1980, 1985 and 1990, respectively,(a) in total and (b) whole time.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information on the number of workers on agricultural holdings is shown in the following table:

  At June

  Total

  Whole-time

  1980

  21,513

  8,779

  1985

  20,672

  7,640

  1990

  18,343

  6,164

  Included as workers are family workers, other than spouses, hired, seasonal and casual workers, and salaried managers. Figures include estimates for minor holdings.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of(a) cereals and (b) potatoes were grown in Wales (i) in each of the five years from 1986 to 1990 and (ii) on average for the years between 1979 and 1981, inclusive.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Hectares under

  At June

  Cereals

  Potatoes

  1990

  56,016

  4,329

  1989

  61,621

  4,241

  1988

  66,700

  4,759

  1987

  67,367

  5,109

  1986

  66,497

  5,424

  298
  The average area under cereals and potatoes in 1979–81, inclusive, was 73,718 and 6,172 hectares respectively.

  The figures include estimates for minor holdings.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many tractors were acquired by the agriculture industry(a) in total and (b) of 40 kW and over, in Wales in 1979, 1985 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on acquisitions of tractors is not collected.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of investment by the agricultural industry in(a) plant and machinery, (b) vehicles, (c) buildings and (d) works in Wales, in 1979, 1980, 1985 and the latest year for which figures are available (i) in cash terms (ii) at fixed prices.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Gross fixed capital formation in the Welsh agricultural industry as follows:

  Current prices

  Constant 1985 prices

  Plant and machinery

  1979

  29·0

  39·8

  1980

  23·0

  28·5

  1985

  30·0

  30·0

  21989

  25·8

  20·9

  Buildings and works1

  1979

  29·0

  41·3

  1980

  44·0

  47·7

  1985

  69·0

  69·0

  21989

  50·6

  39·3

  Vehicles

  1979

  7·7

  12·0

  1980

  9·1

  12·5

  1985

  15·4

  15·4

  21989

  12·8

  9·5

  1 Figures are not available separately for works.

  2 (provisional)

  Note

  Constant prices have been calculated from implicit price indices for agricultural investment (1985 = 100)

  History and Geography
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to lay before the House the statutory orders in relation to history and geography in the national curriculum.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today laid before the House the statutory orders with associated documents setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for history and geography in the national curriculum for pupils from age five to 16 in schools in Wales. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  The Gulf
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions took place between his Department and the United States Department of Defense concening the decision to attack the withdrawing Iraqi forces at the Al-Muttla gap;
  299
  (2) what opportunities to surrender were offered to the withdrawing Iraqi forces on the road to Basra while they were in transit;

  (3) what discussions took place between the Allied military commanders in the Gulf and the Kuwaiti Government in exile concerning the decision to bomb the withdrawing Iraqi forces at the Al-Muttla gap;

  (4) whether he has any information as to whether there were any Kuwaiti captives travelling down the Basra road in the columns of withdrawing Iraqi forces that were subject to Allied air attack in the final days of the Gulf conflict; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what were the nationalities of the Allied aircraft involved in the bombing of withdrawing Iraqi forces at the Al-Muttla gap; and what role RAF planes played in this;

  (6) what is his Department's assessment of the number of Iraqi vehicles destroyed at the Al-Muttla gap; and how many of these were specifically military vehicles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Allied attacks during the night of 26–27 February on Iraqi units moving north with their equipment ahead of the allied advance on Kuwait city were part of the military operation to liberate Kuwait and to restore the legitimate Government, and were directed by coalition commanders in the same way as other military actions during the campaign. Fighting was in progress throughout the theatre and it was allied policy to attack Iraqi units which could continue to pose a threat. RAF aircraft were not involved in the attacks between Kuwait city and the Matla ridge as this was outside the area of operations of British forces, and I am therefore not able to comment in detail on the attacks. We have no precise information on the number of vehicles destroyed, although many were military, including a large number of tanks. Civilian vehicles were also being used by the Iraqi military. We have no information on whether any Kuwaiti detainees were in the vehicles. Any civilian casualties are greatly regretted but responsibility for the deaths of any Kuwaitis being taken to Iraq against their will lies with Saddam Hussein.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the means by which Kuwaiti captives were returned to Iraq during the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We do not know how and when Kuwaiti detainees were moved to Iraq.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department was aware of the locations of Kuwaiti captives held in Iraq between 2 August 1990 and the cessation of hostilities.

  Region

  Married quarters vacant

  MOD civilian houses vacant

  Under one year

  Over one year

  Under six months

  Over six months

  Northern

  67

  12

  1

  2

  Yorkshire

  573

  177

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  390

  430

  —

  —

  East Anglia

  488

  132

  —

  —

  South East

  3,121

  795

  29

  17

  South West

  1,409

  154

  12

  23

  West Midlands

  278

  63

  —

  —

  North West

  134

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  347

  71

  2

  5

  Scotland

  910

  423

  31

  46

  Northern Ireland

  510

  108

  —

  —

  Total

  8,227

  2,365

  75

  93

  300
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review his Department has made of the safety of the existing designs and designs currently under development of nuclear warheads; what application of three-dimensional modelling has been used; and what reconsideration has resulted of the safety case for an actual nuclear explosion which might be accidentally or unintentionally initiated leading to the dispersal of radioactivity and/or a nuclear yield.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All of the United Kingdom's nuclear warheads are designed to meet stringent safety requirements. Before entering operational service, the designs are subject to a comprehensive series of trials and assessments, encompassing normal and credible abnormal environments of in-service life, and to formal safety approvals procedures, which are assessed independently. In addition, the United Kingdom conducts a continuous safety review of all operationally deployed designs by way of routine examination and sophisticated modelling.

  Radiofrequency Radiation Weapons
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the British Army has any radiofrequency radiation weapon capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The British Army keeps abreast of developments in the military use of the electro-magnetic spectrum.

  Housing
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many properties, owned and administered by his Department, have stood vacant(a) for over six months or (b) for over one year; and what is the regional distribution of these properties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not maintained in the precise form requested. As at 31 December 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, 8,227 service married quarters in the United Kingdom had been vacant for under one year and 2,365 for one year and over. In addition, 75 Ministry of Defence civilian houses and flats in the United Kingdom had been vacant for under six months and 93 for six months and over. The regional breakdown is as follows:
  301
  Many of these properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly and others were being considered for disposal. A total of 1,701 of the dwellings were already in the process of being sold.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department obliges defence contractors to declare to him the nature and value of any sub-contracts for research and development that they place with other companies.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  On major contracts the Ministry of Defence requires the presentation of "make or buy" plans detailing each work package valued at £50,000 or more. These indicate whether work is intended to be carried out in-house or to be sub-contracted. In addition, contractors are required to notify the Ministry in advance of any sub-contract which they intend to place which includes design or development work. In appropriate cases the Ministry will then enter into a design rights agreement direct with the sub-contractor concerned.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department is making in its work with the Central Statistical Office in relation to the interpretation of Frascati definitions as they apply to defence research and development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Statisticians in MOD and CSO have had a number of preliminary discussions about the interpretation of Frascati definitions as they apply to defence R and D and will shortly be commencing consultation with representatives of industry.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average percentage profit element included in research and development contracts placed by his Department in private industry.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In the case of a contract awarded by competition the element included in the price in respect of profit is a mater for the commercial judgment of the tenderer.

  In respect of non-competitive contracts the Government profit formula does not draw any distinction between research and development contracts and other types of contract. For the average contractor the target rates of return on cost, on the basis of historic cost accounting, are:

  Per cent.

  Risk contracts (for example, those priced on the basis of forward estimates of cost)

  11·08

  Non-risk contracts (for example, cost plus percentage fee)

  8·52

  In the case of risk contracts the profit which the contractor actually earns will depend on the efficiency with which he performs the contract.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the amount of his Department's research and development expenditure in private industry which is further sub-contracted to other companies.
  302
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There is no departmental requirement to hold such information and disproportionate cost would be incurred in seeking to prepare an estimate.

  HMS Endurance
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Endurance was built; what is her expected future life in service; and what steps are being taken to design a replacement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Endurance was completed as the MV Anita Dan in 1956. She was subsequently purchased by the Ministry of Defence and converted to an ice patrol ship in 1967–68. HMS Endurance is capable of operating until the mid-1990s. The requirement for a replacement is being studied.

  Medication
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will examine the contracts of service men and women in respect of the provision of non-prescribed medication;

  (2) if he will consider changing the system whereby service men and women are expected to pay for non-prescribed medication.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The conditions of service for the armed forces allow non-prescribed medication issued to service personnel through military facilities to be provided free of charge. There are no plans to change this system.

  Army Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what countries were represented at the 1990 British Army equipment exhibition and at the previous exhibition.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 28 March 1990 at column 237.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nationals held as prisoners of war were(a) released following hearings before an Army board of inquiry and (b) released on 6 March 1991 following the cessation of hostilities in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Three Iraqi nationals held as prisoners of war were released from Rollestone camp following hearings before Army boards of inquiry; the remaining 32 were released on 6 March.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dairy Cows
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy cows there were in England and the European Community, respectively(a) in each of the five years from 1986 to 1990 and (b) on average for the years between 1979 and 1981, inclusive.

  Mr. Curry: The information requested is in the table:
  303

  Dairy cow numbers in European Community and England at December each year

  Source: Eurostat

  ('000 head)

  1979–81

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  England

  2,380

  2,292

  2,150

  2,098

  2,072

  2,043

  European Community

  224,947

  25,719

  124,680

  24,166

  23,780

  13,209

  1 Provisional as at 1 March 1991.

  2 Excluding, Portugal, Spain and Greece.

  Note: These figures are not directly compatible with those published in the table 5017 of Agriculture in the united kingdom 1990 which refers to populations in June, because for European Community purposes populations are normally measured at December of each year.

  Sharks
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what shark products have been imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

  Imports of shark products to United Kingdom

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Volume

  Value

  Volume

  Value

  Volume

  Value

  (tonnes)

  (£000)

  (tonnes)

  (£000)

  (tonnes)

  (£000)

  Fresh or chilled:

  Dogfish1

  3,377

  1,367

  1,085

  615

  236

  193

  Other sharks

  109

  67

  34

  30

  923

  553

  Frozen:

  Dogfish1

  917

  908

  1,284

  1,471

  1,549

  1,874

  Other sharks

  124

  160

  184

  191

  335

  366

  Frozen fillets

  Dogfish1

  1

  1

  31

  12

  30

  29

  Other sharks

  14

  24

  6

  21

  7

  11

  1Comprising the species squalus acathias and scyliorhinus spp.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  EC Surplus Food
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when decisions will be made on the designation of applicant organisations under the EC surplus food scheme; and whether groups of parish councils will be eligible for appointment.

  Mr. Curry
  The closing date for applications under the EC surplus food scheme was 22 March. All applications received by then are currently being considered arid an announcement will be made as soon as possible. Applicant parish councils meeting the requirements of the scheme will be designated.

  Cereals
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of cereals are grown in England and the European Community, respectively(a) in each of the five years from 1986 to 1990 and (b) on average for the years between 1979 and 1981, inclusive.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested by the hon. Member is set out in the table. The figures for the European Community are all for the Community as at present constituted minus the former German Democratic Republic, which joined after the 1990 cereals harvest.

  '000 hectares

  England1

  European Community2

  1979–81 average

  3,296

  36,652

  1986

  3,368

  35,560

  1987

  3,296

  35,053

  304
  Mr. Curry
  The volumes and values of imports of products of dogfish and other sharks are given in the table. Information on fresh fillets, minced fish, livers and rose and other products are available.

  England1

  European Community2

  1988

  3,256

  34,956

  1989

  3,257

  35,178

  1990

  3,076

  33,405

  1Source: MAFF

  2Source: 1979 to 1989, Eurostat. 1990, European Commission.

  Agricultural Holdings
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings there were in England and the European Community, respectively, in 1980, 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  The available information is as follows:

  1980

  1985

  11990

  England2

  155,688

  153,766

  150,652

  EC3

  6,820,287

  6,359,133

  —

  1 EC figure for 1990 not yet available.

  2 For comparability, the figures for England exclude minor holdings.

  3 EC10

  Farmers
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) whole-time and (b) part-time farmers there were in England and the European Community, respectively, in 1980, 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested for England is provided in the table. Information on the numbers of farmers in the European Community in 1980, 1985 and
  305
  1987 is set out on pages T/102 and T/103 of the Commission's publication, "The Agricultural Situation in the Community, 1980 Report", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Farmers, partners and directors in England

  as at June

  Whole time

  Part time

  '000

  '000

  1980

  136·6

  59·8

  1985

  129·8

  58·0

  1990

  119·0

  63·0

  Source: June Agricultural Census.

  New investment in England

  (£ million)

  Plant and machinery

  Vehicles

  Buildings and works

  (i)

  (ii)

  (i)

  (ii)

  (i)

  (ii)

  1979

  369

  501

  80

  125

  247

  347

  1980

  321

  396

  64

  88

  338

  362

  1985

  449

  449

  84

  84

  279

  279

  1989

  347

  281

  125

  92

  291

  224

  (i) Cash terms.

  (ii) Fixed 1985 prices.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of potatoes were grown in England and the European Community, respectively,(a) in each of the five years from 1986 to 1990 and (b) on average for the years between 1979 and 1981, inclusive.

  Mr. Curry
  Following are the figures:

  England

  EC-12

  (a)

  1986

  130,400

  1,476,400

  1987

  131,000

  1,463,100

  1988

  134,700

  1,392,800

  1989

  132,200

  1,389,500

  1990

  134,600

  1—

  (b)Average for years between 1979 and 1981 inclusive

  Total

  145,800

  1,676,900

  1 Not yet available.

  Agricultural Workers
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of workers engaged in agriculture in England and the European Community, respectively in 1980, 1985 and 1990,(a) in total and (b) whole time.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested for England is provided in the table. For the European Community farm structure surveys recorded the total number of family and regularly employed non-family workers in the EC 10 as follows (millions): 1983, 6·9; 1985, 6·7 and 1987, 6·2; the corresponding figure for EC12 in 1987 was 8·8 million. No reliable analysis of this series distinguishing between full and part-time workers has yet been published, but some details are contained in the Eurostat publication, "Farm Structure, 1987 Survey: main results", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  306

  Agriculture Industry (Investment)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of investment by the agriculture industry in(a) plant and machinery, (b) vehicles, (c) buildings and (d) works in England in 1979, 1980, 1985 and the latest year for which figures are available (i) in cash terms and (ii) at fixed prices.

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates of the level of new investment for each of the years requested is shown in the table for the categories of investment for which figures are available.

  Regular Family and Hired workers engaged1 in agriculture in England

  as at June

  Total

  Whole time

  1980

  189·7

  140·7

  1985

  172·1

  124·7

  1990

  145·7

  100·0

  1 Excluding salaried managers and seasonal and casual.

  Source: June Agricultural Census.

  Breeding Sows and Gilts
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many breeding sows and gilts there were in England and the European Community, respectively(a) in each of the five years from 1986 to 1990 and (b) on average for the years between 1979 and 1981, inclusive.

  Mr. Curry
  Figures requested are as follows:

  Breeding sow number in EC and England at December each year

  ('000 head)

  Year

  England

  European Community

  1979–81

  766

  8,924

  1986

  776

  11,086

  1987

  769

  11,298

  1988

  704

  10,655

  1989

  701

  10,887

  1990

  728

  110,892

  1 Provisional as at 1 March 1991.

  EC figures are the most complete available but exclude Portugal and Spain for 1979–81. Data from the ex-GDR have been excluded.

  Source: Eurostat.

  Ewes and Shearlings
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ewes and shearlings there were in England and the European Community, respectively(a) in each of the five years from 1986 to 1990 and (b) on average for the years between 1979 and 1981, inclusive.

  Mr. Curry
  Ewe and shearling numbers in England and the European Community are as follows:
  307

  ('000 head)

  Year

  England

  European Community

  1979–81

  6,380

  n.a.

  1986

  8,306

  60,914

  1987

  8,905

  65,536

  1988

  9,312

  170,224

  1989

  9,530

  72,790

  1990

  9,497

  172,205

  1 Provisional as at 1 March 1991.

  Source: Eurostat.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are measured at December each year.

  2. Data do not include animals in the former GDR.

  Bananas
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of 13 March,Official report, column 567, what percentage of the fruit referred to relates to plantains and what percentage to bananas.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom trade statistics do not differentiate between banana and plantain imports.

  Farm Capital Grant Schemes
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to consult interested bodies on changes to the farm capital grant schemes.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have today issued a consultation paper proposing the merger of the farm diversification grant scheme and the farm and conservation grant scheme. Copies are available in the Library of the House. As a result of the merger, the maximum investment on which grant would be claimable for diversification projects would be increased to £40,000 from £35,000 and under the farm and conservation grant scheme, to £85,000 from £74,000. However, the combined investment ceiling under both would not be allowed to exceed £85,000.

  Subsidies and capital grants to nationalised industries1

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  21990–91

  BAA plc

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Aerospace

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Airways

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Coal

  171

  244

  244

  335

  693

  731

  1,538

  907

  825

  917

  480

  3,586

  1,806

  British Gas Corporation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British National Oil Corporation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Rail

  494

  641

  610

  814

  846

  870

  843

  849

  755

  795

  556

  479

  621

  British Shipbuilders

  11

  31

  40

  46

  44

  33

  17

  23

  13

  10

  26

  14

  3

  British Steel Corporation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Telecom

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Transport Docks Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Waterways Board

  20

  23

  26

  28

  38

  40

  42

  43

  44

  44

  46

  48

  49

  308
  In reviewing the scheme I have decided to ask Parliament to abolish the rule that work started without formal acknowledgement of prior notification may not qualify for grant under the farm and conservation grant scheme. A number of farmers who have been penalised for ignoring this rule in their eagerness to deal with pollution problems will now be able to submit fresh claims as soon as the new rules are in force. However, the rule will not be abolished until Parliament has approved the necessary legislation and will remain in force for work carried out under an improvement plan. Farmers are therefore advised to consult the appropriate agriculture department if they are in any doubt as to their eligibility for grant.

  Tractors
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tractors were acquired by the agriculture industry(a) in total and (b) of 40 kW and over, in England, in 1979, 1985 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is not available.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report, the total contribution by or to the Exchequer to or from each of the then nationalised industries for each year since 1973.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not available in exactly the form requested. Data on central Government subsidies and capital grants to nationalised industries since 1978–79 and on net lending to nationalised industries since 1984–85 are set out in the tables. The tables are consistent with the analyses set out out in the nationalised industries section of the statistical supplement to the 1990 autumn statement (Cm 1520). Corresponding data for earlier years are not readily available.
  309

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  21990–91

  Civil Aviation Authority

  14

  25

  36

  10

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  3

  3

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  5

  6

  5

  9

  28

  11

  8

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity (Scotland)

  7

  11

  16

  -4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enterprise Oil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Girobank

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Transport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  323

  295

  239

  190

  287

  473

  National Bus Company

  19

  23

  24

  16

  6

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Freight Company

  14

  7

  5

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Post Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Transport Group3

  9

  10

  11

  12

  8

  8

  7

  8

  7

  6

  5

  6

  5

  Water (England and Wales)

  46

  62

  58

  56

  64

  49

  38

  29

  31

  69

  24

  9

  —

  Total

  860

  1,083

  1,076

  1,326

  1,731

  1,750

  2,563

  2,189

  1,972

  2,083

  1,331

  4,431

  2,961

  1 The figures exclude subsidies and capital grants from local authorities and subsidies and capital grants from central Government which are generally available to the private sector.

  2 Estimated.

  3 Includes Caledonian MacBrayne and the Scottish Bus Group.

  Net lending to nationalised industries1

  £ million

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  21990–91

  BAA plc.

  -5

  -5

  —

  -39

  —

  —

  —

  British Airways

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Coal

  261

  -400

  188

  154

  447

  -2,360

  -712

  British Gas Corp.

  —

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British National Oil Corp.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Rail

  -21

  -23

  -22

  -106

  -22

  -30

  117

  British Shipbuilders

  203

  66

  284

  108

  118

  4

  4

  British Steel Corp.

  667

  556

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Telecom

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Transport Docks Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Waterways Board

  1

  —

  1

  1

  -1

  -1

  —

  Civil Aviation Authority

  -10

  19

  -1

  -9

  24

  50

  70

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  -698

  697

  -658

  -919

  -363

  -1,335

  —

  Electricity (Scotland)

  -96

  -105

  -78

  294

  338

  1,059

  -133

  Enterprise Oil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Girobank

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Transport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Bus Company

  -15

  -32

  -17

  -56

  23

  —

  —

  National Freight Company

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Post Office

  -57

  -2

  —

  —

  -170

  —

  -22

  Scottish Transport Group3

  -1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Water (England and Wales)

  -130

  -122

  387

  758

  664

  396

  —

  Total

  101

  650

  23

  186

  1,058

  -2,216

  -676

  1 Includes issues of public dividend capital.

  2 Estimated.

  3 Includes Caledonian MacBrayne and the Scottish Bus Group.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what monitoring is being undertaken of the commercial lending exposure of building societies under the Building Societies Act 1986.

  Mr. Maples
  The Building Societies Commission collects systematic information from building societies and this includes what are known as class 2 assets, which cannot exceed 20 per cent. of all lending. Class 2 covers all mortgage lending except that secured on owner-occupied residential property.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all official documents that are available as guidance for civil service managers considering competitive tendering and contracting out, including guidance on how to compare in-house costs with contractors' bids.

  Mr. Mellor
  A list of all documents on guidance associated with competitive tendering and contracting out is not held centrally. Detailed guidance on the various aspects of competitive tendering and contracting out, including in-house costs, is contained in CUP guidance
  311
  No. 2, issued by the Central Unit on Purchasing (Her Majesty's Treasury). But Departments have the option of enhancing this guidance by issuing their own material. Departments also have access to "Fees and Charges: A Guide for Government Departments" and "Investment Appraisal in the Public Sector: A technical guide for Government Departments", both documents issued by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Taxpayers
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) basic rate and (b) higher rate taxpayers reside within Derwentside district; and what proportion they are of the post-18 years population;

  (2) how many (a) basic rate and (b) higher rate taxpayers reside within Wear Valley district; and what proportion they are of the post-18 years population.

  Mr. Maude
  I regret that estimates of numbers of taxpayers are not available at district level.

  Visible Trade Deficit
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the visible trade deficits for each quarter of 1990; and what effect he expects recent reductions in interest rates to have on the United Kingdom balance of trade during the current year.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 21 March 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  Visible trade balance

  £ billion

  1990

  Quarter 1

  -5·9

  Quarter 2

  -5·3

  Quarter 3

  -3·7

  Quarter 4

  -3·0

  Total

  -17·9

  The FSBR forecast is for the visible deficit to fall further this year, to £12 billion.

TRANSPORT

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date, at present rates of toll, payment for the Severn bridge will be completed; what that date would be if tolls increased each year at 3 per cent.; and what the annual income would be estimated to be in the final year(a) at present toll rates and (b) at 3 per cent. compound increases in toll rates.

  Mr. Chope
  At present rates of toll it is estimated, making a range of assumptions about future traffic growth and inflation, that the debt of the Severn bridge could be paid off between the years 2008 and 2016 with income in the final year of between £27 million and £29 million. An assumed 3 per cent. per annum increase in tolls would be entirely hypothetical.

  London Underground (Overcrowding)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the London Transport report on overcrowding on underground trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have no knowledge of a London Transport report on overcrowding on underground trains. If the hon. Lady is referring to the report on congestion at stations, which was undertaken by independent consultants in 1989, she should address her request to London Transport.

  Road Lighting
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will identify any environmental considerations which prevent the lighting of the Swanley-Sevenoaks section of the M25.

  Mr. Chope
  The decision whether to light the section of M25 motorway between Swanley and Sevenoaks will be based on a comprehensive appraisal of all relevant factors, including a full assessment of the environmental impacts. These will include the appearance of lighting by day and by night and its impact on the quality of the environment in the vicinity. The road safety and economic cost/benefit assessments will also be included.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to light the unlit section of the M4 motorway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We have no plans at present to light unlit sections of the M4. The provision of additional lighting will be considered in conjunction with current planning for widening the M4.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the M4 motorway in Wales.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has plans to light the unlit sections of the M40 motorway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is planned to light the M40 motorway between junctions 4 and 5 by the end of 1991. The provision of additional lighting will be considered in conjunction with planning for widening the M40, at present in hand.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will monitor the volume of traffic on the Swanley-Sevenoaks section of the M25 motorway with a view to installing lighting to improve safety.

  Mr. Chope
  The traffic volume and night-time accident records are already monitored on the Swanley to Sevenoaks section of M25 motorway so that the case for the installation of lighting can be properly assessed.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the effect of lighting of roads on night-time accidents; and what is his policy on the accident prevention value of lighting of roads.

  Mr. Chope
  Research in this country and elsewhere has shown that the average reduction in night-time accidents attributable to road lighting is about 30 per cent. There is, however, substantial variation between locations, depending on the type of road and other features. The figure of 30
  313
  per cent. is used by the Department for economic assessment of proposed road lighting schemes for motorways and trunk roads.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to extend traffic-calming measures; what are his Department's spending plans for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 for such measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department is actively promoting a number of traffic-calming measures including road humps and 20 mph zones. The responsibility for funding and installing these measures is primarily for local highway authorities. We shall continue to provide advice, guidance and research back-up.

  M62
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 195, what were the reasons for rejection of the alternative solutions to the problems of congestion on the M62 motorway.

  Mr. Chope
  Widening of the existing motorway is only an interim measure as it will not increase capacity sufficiently to meet projections in traffic growth. Limiting access to the motorway for local traffic would severely increase congestion on local roads. Although public transport—including rail—makes an important contribution it cannot fulfil the needs of more than a small proportion of private and business road users.

  MV Breydon (Explosives)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) on 5 March,Official report, column 90, what was the ultimate destination of the cargo of explosives carried on MV Breydon; whether there are regular shipments of explosives and ammunition to the Army through Drogheda port; and when the marine accident investigation branch investigation will be completed.

  Mr. Mcloughlin
  The greater part of the cargo was consigned to two commercial concerns, dealing in industrial explosives, in Dublin. The rest was for the Irish Ministry of Defence. The ultimate destination of the consignments is not known; there are regular shipments of explosives through Drogheda. On occasions these include consignments for the Irish. Ministry of Defence, and the marine accident investigation branch expects to complete its investigation next month.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in relation to the dock labour scheme, he will list, by individual port,(a) the estimated number of registered dockers who were expected to leave the industry, given also as a percentatge of the total of registered dockers, (b) the estimated contribution from the Government to the redundancy compensation scheme, (c) the actual number of registered dockers who have left the industry to date, given also as a percentage of the total of registered dockers and (d) the actual contribution from the government to the redundancy compensation scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government made no estimate before the compensation scheme was introduced either of the likely number of registered dock workers who would be made redundant or of the Government's contribution to their compensation on a port-by-port basis. the number of former registered dock workers at each scheme port who had been made redundant or had been given notice of redundancy by 22 March 1991, and the Government's contribution towards their compensation, are in the table:

  Ports

  Number of RDWs made redundant

  Percentage of RDWs in Port

  Government contribution

  Aberdeen

  149

  100

  4,921,500

  Ardrossan

  15

  100

  250,500

  Ayr

  14

  100

  215,250

  Barrow

  1

  12

  12,500

  Barry

  65

  100

  1,131,500

  Blyth

  35

  67

  498,000

  Boston

  58

  67

  1,015,000

  Bristol

  442

  91

  7,408,500

  Cardiff

  160

  96

  2,784,000

  Charlestown

  1

  100

  12,500

  Clyde

  113

  89

  1,938,500

  Dundee

  95

  100

  3,063,500

  Falmouth

  7

  100

  114,500

  Fleetwood

  44

  100

  741,000

  Forth

  152

  57

  2,560,750

  Fowey

  44

  100

  770,000

  Garston

  108

  100

  2,170,500

  Goole

  135

  82

  2,359,000

  Great Yarmouth

  101

  100

  2,937,000

  Grimsby and Immingham

  542

  75

  14,326,750

  316

  Ports

  Number of RDWs made redundant

  Percentage of RDWs in Port

  Government contribution

  Hull

  572

  84

  9,762,500

  Ipswich

  58

  48

  1,007,000

  Kings Lynn

  42

  79

  735,000

  Liverpool

  741

  58

  15,015,000

  London

  1,158

  66

  20,526,300

  Lowestoft

  30

  100

  340,000

  Manchester

  162

  100

  3,435,000

  Medway

  137

  23

  2,360,000

  Newport

  171

  84

  2,534,500

  Par

  28

  100

  484,000

  Penzance

  8

  100

  129,000

  Plymouth

  17

  57

  297,500

  Port Talbot

  6

  14

  105,000

  Seaham

  10

  63

  130,750

  Sharpness

  9

  19

  157,500

  Silloth

  1

  33

  5,500

  Southampton

  468

  69

  8,114,500

  Sunderland

  31

  100

  524,500

  Swansea

  81

  83

  1,335,000

  Tees and Hartlepool

  490

  88

  7,551,125

  Tyne

  81

  70

  1,383,250

  Weymouth

  11

  100

  168,500

  Wisbech

  11

  92

  332,500

  Workington

  10

  63

  143,000

  Highway Maintenance
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional resources, other than those transferred from revenue budgets, he intends to make available for highway structural maintenance on the primary route network.

  Mr. Chope
  We intend to provide £100 million a year from 1992–93 by way of transport supplementary grant and credit approvals for structural maintenance on the primary route network. The control total for the highways maintenance standard spending assessment for 1992–93 has yet to be decided.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with local authorities about increasing investment in highway structural maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I met representatives of the local authority associations on 18 February. Officials have also had meetings with the associations, most recently on 22 March.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received in favour of his plans to reclassify expenditure on highway structural maintenance on the primary route network as capital expenditure;

  (2) what representations he has had from local authority associations on his decision to reclassify expenditure on highway structural maintenance on the primary route network as capital expenditure.

  Mr. Chope
  Expenditure by local authorities on structural maintenance of roads is expenditure for capital purposes within the meaning of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and, under section 42 of that Act, does not need to be charged to revenue account if credit approvals are used as authority to capitalise it or it is reimbursed out of transport supplementary grant. The local authority associations have criticised our plans to make grant and credit approvals available towards such expenditure. No other representations have been received.
  317
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the criteria will be for assessing competing bids for transport supplementary grant for highway structural maintenance on the primary route network.

  Mr. Chope
  The criteria will take into account the length and structural condition of the roads concerned.

  Air Fares
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the percentage increase in air fares likely to arise on routes between the United Kingdom and other European Community countries as a result of higher airport charges and lower income for airlines if the current duty free allowances are withdrawn from such services.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The EC has yet to make a decision on whether or not to abolish duty free allowances after 1992. If they were to be abolished, there would be an effect on the income of airport operators and airlines. The time scale of any abolition, the competitive conditions in the market and the commercial response of airport operators and airlines are among the variables which make it impossible to give accurate estimates of any possible effect on air fares.

  M27 (Noise Pollution)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will order a survey of noise pollution caused by traffic on the bridge on the M27 over the River Hamble and undertake appropriate noise reduction measures.

  Mr. Chope
  No; when the secton of the M27 which includes the Hamble bridge was built in the 1970s, all the eligible properties were offered noise insulation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the related Noise Insulation Regulations. Part I of the 1973 Act also enabled eligible residents subsequently to claim compensation for depreciation in value of their property due to physical factors, including noise, attributable to the motorway.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by Eurotunnel in meeting its obligations under section 19(3) of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that these obligations are fully met by 15 June 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that Eurotunnel is working on plans for the carriage of pedal bicycles and motorcycles through the channel tunnel. Its plans will be subject to operating rules which require the approval of the intergovernmental commission in accordance with clause 13 of the concession agreement.

  MV Derbyshire
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in the light of apparent new material relating to the loss of the Derbyshire, if he will reopen the formal investigation into the loss; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The material, which included a paper written by the late Professor Bishop and his colleagues and 318
  an underwater film of the Kowloon Bridge, has been examined by the marine accident investigation branch. I have now received the chief inspector's conclusion. He advises, and I have accepted his advice, that the material does not warrant the reopening of the court of formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire. The chief inspector has set out his conclusions and the reasons for them in a letter to me, and I am placing a copy in the Library.

  I do appreciate the concerns expressed in some quarters about bulk carrier safety. There is currently work going on at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on this topic. The Department of Transport is making a contribution to that work, particularly in the area of investigation into cargo liquefaction. The attention of the International Maritime Organisation will also be drawn to the theories of Professor Bishop and his team.

  Driving Licence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to make further changes to the Great Britain driving licence.

  Mr. Chope
  We have considered this very carefully. We have concluded that there would be considerable benefits in including photographs on driving licences. Technological developments will make the inclusion of photographs on driving licences feasible in a few years at a modest additional cost. Accordingly, we are issuing a consultation document inviting views on the proposals today.

  Motorway Distance Limits
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what were the factors that caused him to extend the distance limit for safeguarding purposes beyond 67m from the centre line of the motorway in the case of the two-mile section of the M6 between junction 4 of the M6 and its junction with the M1;

  (2) what were the factors that caused him to extend the distance limit for safeguarding purposes beyond 67m from the centre line of the motorway in the case of the 80-mile section of the M1 between junctions 6A and 33.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 March 1991]: In the particular local circumstances where the existing external boundary of the motorway land is more than 67m from the centre line due to the hilly terrain with the inevitable wide embankments and cuttings, and in view of the uncertainty as to how the widening would be carried out, the Department concluded that it needed to be aware of development proposals affecting land within 30m of that boundary.

  East Norton Bypass
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to reply to correspondence from Mr. Robert Curnock of Hallaton road, East Norton, Leicestershire and Mr. Edwin de Lisle of Great Easton, Market Harborough, Leicestershire relating to the A47 East Norton bypass, details of which have been sent to his Department.
  319
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]: An acknowledgement letter was sent to Mr. de Lisle on 1 March. We hope to be able to send a full reply to Mr. de Lisle and Mr. Curnock before the end of March.

  M6 (Thornbridge Viaduct)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long work is expected to continue on the Thornbridge viaduct of the M6 motorway; what are the reasons for continuing work; and if he has made any arrangements for his contractors to consult and inform nearby local residents regarding the disturbance from the works.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]: Work currently under way for the installation of cathodic protection systems on the viaduct substructure between Beeches road and Thornbridge avenue should be finished by May 1991. A further similar contract south of Thornbridge avenue is expected to start in April 1991 and will last approximately 11 months.

  The work is part of the strategy for maintaining the midland links viaducts. In the interests of local residents, work on these contracts is limited to daytime hours.

HEALTH

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public funding is used to promote fluoridation; and if he will publish a statement detailing the nature and extent of that funding over the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Regional health authorities are generally responsible for local schemes for water fluoridation. Information on the total cost of these schemes is not available. Some financial assistance is, however, provided from central funds. This amounted to:

  £

  1986–87

  262,000

  1987–88

  433,000

  1988–89

  1,168,000

  1989–90

  430,000

  1990–91

  257,784

  In addition a grant under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 has been made each year to the British Fluoridation Society as follows:

  £

  1986–87

  20,000

  1987–88

  20,000

  1988–89

  30,000

  1989–90

  30,000

  1990–91

  33,000

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards there are for general practitioners who submit claims for cash-limited budgets in good time where the FHSAs are unable to process payments before the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Reimbursements from family health services authorities (FHSAs) cash limited budgets for 320
  practice staff and premises improvements are made quarterly in arrears although advances equal to an estimated 30 per cent. of the total due are made each month. The full entitlement, less the advance on account, is then paid during the first month of the quarter following that to which the reimbursement relates. The effect is that approximately 10 per cent. of reimbursements due for the final quarter of each financial year are actually paid during the first month of the following financial year. FHSAs should not commit themselves to making payments For practice staff and premises improvements to a value greater than the cash limit available for the year.

  Doncaster Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have received hearing aids in the Doncaster health authority area in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to Mr. J. G. S. Smith, chairman of Doncaster health authority, for details.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Doncaster health authority received lithotripsy treatment in the last 12 months; and how many are still awaiting such treatment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. Waiting lists are maintained according to the intended specialty of treatment, not by diagnosis or intended method of treatment. The hon. Member may wish to write to Mr. J. G. S. Smith, chairman of Doncaster health authority, for details.

  Female Circumcision
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about female circumcision since 21 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a number of letters expressing concern about the practice of female circumcision, particularly following a recent BBC 2 programme on the subject.

  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State held a meeting on the subject on 4 March 1991. Those present at the meeting were my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), Lord Kennet, Mrs. Efua Dorkenoo of FORWARD (Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development) and officials of the Department.

  The Department is to re-issue inter-departmental guidance on inter-agency working in cases of child protection. The new version is being revised to take account of the implementation of the Children Act 1989 and will draw attention to the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. Consideration will also be given as to how this guidance can be supported with more detailed advice.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each regional health authority area how many nursing clinical grading appeals have been heard so far at regional level, breaking down the total according to their outcome.
  321
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information available at 28 February 1991 is given in the table:

  Regions

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Failure to agree

  Total

  England

  Northern

  11

  7

  42

  60

  Yorkshire

  19

  16

  20

  55

  Trent

  6

  1

  17

  24

  East Anglian

  7

  —

  2

  9

  North West Thames

  13

  2

  47

  62

  North East Thames

  28

  3

  51

  82

  South East Thames

  14

  2

  53

  69

  South West Thames

  34

  2

  23

  59

  Wessex

  27

  —

  28

  55

  Oxford

  11

  12

  141

  164

  South Western

  35

  14

  72

  121

  West Midlands

  11

  2

  36

  49

  Mersey

  2

  —

  29

  31

  North Western

  21

  1

  42

  64

  Total

  239

  62

  603

  904

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the average cost associated with a single nursing clinical grading appeal hearing at(a) district level, (b) regional level and (c) United Kingdom level.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects nursing clinical grading appeals will be completed; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many nursing clinical grading appeals are currently waiting to be heard at (a) district level, (b) regional level and (c) United Kingdom level; and how many appeals have already been completed at each of those levels.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for health when he expects the appeal on grading by nursing auxiliaries at the Alfred Norris unit, Musgrove park hospital, Taunton, to be heard at national level; and to what he attributes the delay in processing this appeal since it was lodged in January 1990.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many clinical grading appeals are outstanding; how many appeals are currently being held on a monthly basis; when he expects the outstanding clinical grading appeals to be completed; how many appointments he has made to the panels dealing with clinical grading appeals; how many panels there are; and what is the remuneration and/or expenses paid to each;

  (2) if he will appoint more national appeals panels on clinical grading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Appeals against clinical grading decisions are heard under a complicated and time-consuming procedure agreed by the general Whitley council. When the clinical grading structure was negotiated, we offered to discuss a streamlined procedure for clinical grading appeals, but the nursing trades unions chose not to pursue this possibility.

  Under the agreed procedure the management and staff sides of the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council are both required to appoint members for each appeal hearing at national level. We are making every effort to process appeals as quickly as possible but future progress will depend on a number of factors, particularly
  322
  the availability of people who are suitably qualified to hear appeals. Both parties to the dispute meet their own expenses: management side members can claim expenses under normal rules.

  There is no information held centrally on district level appeals. The information available on appeals at regional and national level at 28 February is as follows:

  Numbers of appeals received (England)

  Number of appeals heard (England)

  Regional

  1,515

  904

  National

  504

  27

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  The appeals by nursing auxiliaries at the Alfred Norris unit, Musgrove Park hospital, are likely to be heard at the end of April.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for implementing the recommendations of the 1988 report on "Information Needs of Disabled People, Their Carers and Service Providers," prepared by Coopers and Lybrand.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This report, which has been widely welcomed, highlighted the importance of improving information services for disabled people and those who care for them. It recommended a three stage strategy:

  —the development of a national framework for the provision of information services to disabled people

  —the creation of local "federations" of information providers, responsive to the needs of the community

  —specific initiatives to develop improved common information services within the context of a national framework sensitive to local needs

  In 1990, we commissioned a study by PE International to identify the managerial and resource requirements of implementing such a strategy. Following PEI's conclusions, we now intend to commit ·3 million, subject to Parliamentary approval over three years (1991–1994) for a pilot initiative, known as the National Disability Information Projects, with the following objectives:
  323

  —Nationally, to promote closer working between organisations which collect and disseminate information of national relevance, with clear objectives to reduce duplication and improve the relevance and accuracy of information.

  —Locally, to encourage the development of federations of information providers, in order to achieve greater co-ordination at the local level and to widen access to information.

  The national disability information project will build on the achievements of a number of local federations already in existence, including those developed as part of the Oxford regional health authority information project which is supported by the Department of Health.

  Dentists
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the number of courses of treatment provided by dentists within the Bromley family health service authority and (b) the total monthly sums of money paid to them in respect of January and February; and what were the corresponding figures for the months of January 1990 and February 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not possible to compare on a like-for-like basis the total numbers of courses of treatment in the two years requested. Under the new dental contract introduced in October 1990, national health service treatment of children is provided under a capitation system and does not involve "courses of treatment". The information requested about total fees payable to dentists is provided in the table:

  Bromley family health services authority

  Total fees scheduled for payment to national health service dentists for the months of January and February in 1990 and 1991

  1990

  1991

  £

  £

  January

  516,466

  484,425

  February

  443,311

  413,103

  Blood
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on charging for blood and blood products using blood donated through the blood transfusion service; what is the income from charges for 1990 nationally and in each NHS region; what is the level of charges imposed currently, in 1990, and in 1989; and what was the source of the income from charges, whether inside the NHS, or from private hospitals or from disposals to commercial organisations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no charges made for blood which is freely donated in this country. The costs of collection, testing, processing, handling and transport, which are incurred in supplying non-NHS hospitals with blood and blood derivatives, are recovered by regional transfusion centres (RTCs). The handling charges for 1989–90 and 1990–91 and the income from the charges for the latest year available are shown in the table. Blood is not supplied to commercial organisations.

  The regional health authorities have traditionally allocated funds direct to the RTCs to cover their operating costs. However, from April 1991 those funds will be devolved to the district health authorities and the RTCs will recover their operating costs in proportion to the
  324
  hospital users demands on the RTC for blood supplies. The reimbursement will not include any element for the freely donated blood itself.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (per unit)

  (per unit)

  £

  £

  Buffy coats

  16·75

  17·50

  Cryoprecipitate

  11·00

  11·50

  Filtered blood

  32·75

  34·50

  Fresh frozen plasma for clinical use

  13·50

  14·25

  Fresh frozen plasma for paediatric use

  11·25

  11·75

  Frozen/recovered red cells

  22·00

  186·00

  Leukocyte-poor red cells

  19·25

  20·25

  Paediatric whole blood

  31·00

  32·50

  Plasma reduced blood

  17·00

  18·00

  Concentrated red cells

  16·75

  18·00

  Platelet concentrate

  14·50

  15·25

  Platelet concentrate (Apheresis)

  —

  46·00

  Platelet-rich plasma

  11·50

  12·00

  Red cell compatible blood cells

  31·25

  32·75

  SAG(M) red cells

  19·25

  20·25

  Saline-washed blood red cells

  33·25

  35·00

  Whole blood

  29·25

  30·75

  1 Note—more accurate costing for this product resulted in an exceptional increase.

  Table

  Income from handling charges for 1989–90

  £

  Northern

  21,679

  Yorkshire

  125,693

  Trent

  82,111

  East Anglia

  77,465

  North West Thames

  631,752

  North East Thames

  155,634

  South East Thames

  129,947

  South West Thames

  463,022

  Wessex

  383,224

  Oxford

  104,136

  South Western

  123,726

  West Midlands

  208,099

  Mersey

  27,243

  North Western

  171,745

  TOTAL

  2,705,476

  Confidentiality
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will issue draft guidance on the confidentiality of personal health information in the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. The Department is currently working on draft guidance on the confidentiality of personal health information in the NHS. This will be issued for consultation shortly.

  Children (Employment)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he has received fresh evidence of illegal employment of children supplied by the child employment study carried out by the low pay unit and Birmingham city council; and if he has any plans to issue new guidelines to the Health and Safety Executive to enforce legislation relating to the employment of children;

  (2) if he will now seek to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973;

  (3) if he has any plans to review the minimum age above which a child may be legally employed;
  325
  (4) if he will initiate a review of all legislation affecting the employment of children.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are studying the report published by the low pay unit and Birmingham city council in consultation with colleagues in other Departments with responsibility for enforcing current legislation on the employment of children. We shall then consider whether any further action is required to safeguard the welfare of such children.

  Drugs (Costs)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the actual cost of drugs provided under the national health service per family for each of the years 1980 to 1990; and what each of these costs would have been if there had been no inflation since 1980.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The following table sets out the annual cost of drugs in the national health service in England per head of population(a) in cash terms and (b) at 1980–81 prices, for the financial years 1980–81 to 1989–90.

  Financial year

  In cash terms

  At 1980–81 prices (based on GDP deflator)

  £

  £

  1980–81

  20·48

  20·48

  1981–82

  23·29

  21·24

  1982–83

  26·79

  22·81

  1983–84

  29·81

  24·27

  1984–85

  31·31

  24·26

  1985–86

  33·35

  24·50

  1986–87

  35·89

  25·49

  1987–88

  39·83

  26·83

  1988–89

  44·68

  28·05

  1989–90

  49·40

  29·15

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of private residential or nursing homes in each registration authority area which have closed within the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available centrally for nursing homes. Information about residential homes could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each local authority the number of directly provided care homes for the elderly which have either closed or transferred out of the local authority sector during each year since 1978.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information that is available centrally could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Care
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the continuing care of the mentally ill in the community after the three years' allocation of the specific grant for the mentally ill has elapsed.
  326
  Mr. Dorrell
  Consideration will be given to whether the specific grant needs to continue beyond 1993–94 in future public expenditure rounds; in the light of judgments about the adequacy of community care provision for people with a mental illness.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to monitor the use local authorities make of funds allocated for community care to ensure that the money is not used to fund other local authority functions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Where resources are specifically allocated to support aspects of community care, the Audit Commission ensures through its audit of local authority accounts that those resources have been used for the purposes for which they were allocated. Additionally, the Department generally calls for reports from authorities on the use that has been made of such resources. For the most part, however, Government support for community care is distributed through the revenue support grant, leaving local authorities free to determine their own expenditure priorities, though the Department receives information from authorities which enables it to monitor expenditure on community care.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assist local authorities unable to fund the 30 per cent. necessary to claim their entitlement to the specific grant for the mentally ill.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Local authorities' need to make a 30 per cent. contribution has already been taken into account in their standard spending assessment figure for the personal social services.

SCOTLAND

  Salmon
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has of the effect of the North East England licensed net fishery upon Scottish salmon stocks returning to spawn in Scottish rivers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As required by section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986, the report to be presented to Parliament reviewing salmon net fisheries from the Humber to the Ugie will address the issue of adequacy of spawning escapement of salmon in the review area. A good deal of scientific information has been collated on this and other aspects of the review.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report on East coast salmon netting, as reviewed under section 39(1) of the Salmon Act 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is hoped to present the report to Parliament shortly.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the occupation of each health board member and the original nominating body of each member not included in his answer of 28 February,Official Report, columns 574–75.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as set out in the table:
  327

  Board

  Member

  Occupation

  Original nominating body, if any

  Argyll and Clyde

  Mr. N. M. Faccenda

  Self Employed, Businessman

  Scottish Conservative Party

  Mrs. M. A. Foggie

  Housewife, formerly Solicitor

  Inverclyde Local Health Council

  Mrs. E. S. Lander

  Company Director

  CBI

  Mrs. J. C. Le Roux

  Housewife

  Cancer Research Committee

  Dr. J. Moffat

  Consultant Psychiatrist

  Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Mr. C. H. Parker

  Company Managing Director

  CBI

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Mr. J. Cahill

  Maintenance Painter

  Cunninghame District Council

  Mr. J. W. G. Donaldson

  Self Employed Electrical Engineer

  Health Board

  Mrs. A. Dunbar

  Teaching Auxiliary

  Cunninghame District Council

  Dr. K. G. Fegan

  General Medical Practitioner

  Health Board

  Mr. W. M. Ritchie

  Retired, Managing Director

  Health Board

  Mr. I. B. Valentine

  Chartered Accountant

  Ayr Constituency Conservative Association

  Borders

  Dr. D. W. Cameron, MBE

  General Medical Practitioner

  BMA

  Mr. D. A. G. Kilshaw

  Solicitor

  Health Board

  Miss M. Marshall

  Self Employed Businesswoman

  Scottish Association for Mental Health

  Mr. J. P. Metcalfe

  Retired Company Divisional Chief Executive

  Mr. A. C. Purves

  Lady Sanderson

  Housewife

  Borders Local Health Council

  Mr. R. A. Stewart, MBE

  Self Employed Development Officer

  BMA: STUC: Health Board

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Mrs. V. M. I. Jardine-Paterson

  Housewife

  Sir Hector Monro, MP

  Mr. H. S. McFadzean

  Farmer

  Health Board

  Mr. W. Seright

  Consultant Surgeon

  Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh

  Mrs. J. D. Tulloch

  Company Director

  Health Board: Western Joint Opthalmic Committee

  Dr. A. P. D. Wilkinson

  General Medical Practitioner

  BMA

  Mr. W. I. Wilson

  Chartered Accountant

  BMA: Wigtown District Council

  Fife

  Mrs. S. L. Aitken

  Housewife

  Mr. Barry Henderson

  Dr. A. C. A. Alexander

  General Medical Practitioner

  Dr. J. B. Gallacher

  Mr. F. J. R. Craig

  Company Director

  Self

  Dr. C. J. Ingram

  University Lecturer

  University of St. Andrews

  Mrs. M. Steedman, CBE

  Retired Headmistress

  Self

  Mr. G. M. Thomson

  Company Financial Director

  Health Board

  Forth Valley

  Mr. E. T. M. Bell-Scott

  Solicitor

  Health Board

  Mr. K. Harding

  Self Employed Newsagent

  Mr. Michael Forsyth

  Dr. G. B. Hastings

  University Academic

  Strathclyde University

  Mr. P. A. Joynson

  Chartered Surveyor

  Scottish Branch British Red Cross Society

  Mrs. K. A. Smith

  Vice Chairman Scotland/Emergency Services Organiser, WRVS

  Womens Royal Voluntary Service

  Mr. C. S. R. Stroyan

  Solicitor

  Self

  Grampian

  Mr. A. B. Broomfield

  Company Director/Managing Director

  Health Board

  Dr. C. A. Macleod

  Company Chairman

  Self

  Prof. D. Ogston

  Professor of Clinical Medicine

  University of Aberdeen

  Mr. J. A. Snedden

  Retired Managing Director

  Lord Sanderson

  Mr. N. Thornton-Kemsley CBE

  Farmer

  Lord Sanderson

  Mrs. J. G. A. Wisely, JP

  District Councillor

  Women into Public Life Campaign

  Greater Glasgow

  Rev. R. D. M. Campbell

  Minister of Religion

  Mrs. A. Gilchrist

  Company Director

  Lady Goold

  Housewife

  British Dental Association

  Mr. P. W. Hoist

  Insulation Contractor

  BMA: Western Joint Ophthalmic Committee

  Prof. R. M. Mackie

  Professor of Dermatology

  University of Glasgow

  Mr. A. Scobbie

  Company Managing Director

  Self

  Highland

  Mr. J. G. Ligertwood

  Retired Bank Manager

  Health Board

  Mr. D. J. Mackay

  Company Chief Executive

  CBI

  Mrs. A. MacPherson

  Housewife

  Ross and Cromarty Council of Voluntary Service

  Mr. C. Neilson, JP

  Self Employed Businessman

  Health Board: Lochaber District Council: Lochaber Local Health Council

  Mrs. S. G. H. Stone

  Company Managing Director

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Mrs. C. Thomson

  Housewife

  Ross and Cromarty Local Health Council

  Lanarkshire

  Dr. W. Criggie

  General Medical Practitioner

  Health Board

  Mrs. A. S. Hinshalwood

  Housewife

  Health Board

  Mr. I. L. Livingstone

  Company Consultant

  Health Board

  328 329

  Board

  Member

  Occupation

  Original nominating body, if any

  Mr. R. J. Logan, MBE, JP

  Farmer

  Health Board

  Mr. J. P. Robinson, JP

  Retired Regional Councillor

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Mr. J. Thomson, MBE

  Assistant Head Teacher

  Voluntary Association for Mental Health

  Lothian

  Prof. R. C. B. Aitken

  Professor of Rehabilitation Studies

  University of Edinburgh

  Mrs. G. Barton

  Former Nurse and District Councillor

  Lothian Regional Council: Edinburgh District Council

  Mr. J. A. Campbell

  Company Scottish Manager

  Mr. R. Findlay

  Company Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive

  Self

  Cllr. Mrs. M. B. M. Knox

  District Councillor

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  Mr. G. S. Millar

  Community Pharmacist

  Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Orkney

  Mr. J. Flett

  Solicitor

  Health Board

  Mr. E. M. Gibson, MBE

  Retired Assistant Headmaster

  Health Board

  Captain M. Gunn

  Ships Master

  CBI

  Mrs. E. B. Kerr

  Housewife

  Orkney Local Health Council

  Mr. J. Rendall

  Sub Postmaster/Postman

  Voluntary Services Orkney

  Dr. J. S. Walker

  General Medical Practitioner

  BME

  Shetland

  Mr. R. R. Bentley

  Airport Fire Service

  Health Board: Joint Ophthalmic Committee

  Mrs. M. U. Colligan

  Retired Teacher

  Shetland Islands Council

  Sqd. Ldr. B. P. Gregson

  Squadron Leader, RAF

  Health Board

  Dr. M. D. Hunter

  General Medical Practitioner

  BMA

  Mr. R. L. Johnston

  Retired Businessman

  Health Board

  Miss A. I. Manson

  Retail Business Proprietrix

  Shetland Islands Council

  Tayside

  Rev. K. Campbell

  Minister of Religion

  Health Board

  Mr. D.W.M. Davidson JP

  Pharmacist

  Area Pharmaceutical Committee

  Mrs. S. H. Fallon

  Housewife

  Self

  Mr. R. J. Jarvis

  Company Group Chief Executive

  Self

  Rev. L. E. Luscombe

  Primus of Scottish Episcopal Church

  Lord Sanderson

  Prof. R. E. Olver

  Hon. Consultant Paediatrician

  University of Dundee

  Western Isles

  Mr. J. H. Downie

  Retired Market Gardener/Fisherman

  Lewis and Harris Local Health Council

  Mr. W. A. Hay

  Retired Sales Director

  CBI

  Mrs. C. R. MacAskill

  Housewife/Seasonal Tourist Officer

  Health Board

  Rev. J. A. MacDonald

  Parish Priest

  Health Board

  Mr. I. D. Maclver

  Bank Manager

  Health Board

  Mr. A. Matheson

  Pharmacist

  Western Isles Island's Council

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total job losses in the steel indulstry in Scotland in each financial year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows total annual average employment in the Scottish steel industry, in plants with 11 or more employees, for each year between 1979 and 1989 (the latest year for which data are available).

  Employment in steel industry in Scotland 1979–1989

  Year

  Thousands

  1979

  20·0

  1980

  18·3

  1981

  14·9

  1982

  13·4

  1983

  10·7

  1984

  9·5

  1985

  9·3

  1986

  8·1

  1987

  7·4

  1988

  7·4

  1989

  7·4

  Source: Scottish Office Industry Department.

  Regional Data System.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdwon of the total number of nursing clinical grading appeals already heard at national level, stating how many resulted in an appeal being upheld, rejected or a failure to agree.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In Scotland 461 appeals have been heard at Scottish appeals committee level; 150 have been upheld, 167 rejected and in 144 cases the committee failed to reach agreement. In Great Britain 71 appeals from Scotland have been lodged with the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council and appropriate arrangements for determining their outcome are being made.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average cost associated with a single nursing clinical grading appeal hearing at(a) board level, (b) national level and (c) United Kingdom level.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the average cost of a clinical grading appeal at board, national and United Kingdom level is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish nursing clinical grading appeals are currently waiting to be heard at(a) board level, (b)

  331
  national level and (c) United Kingdom level; and how many appeals have already been completed at each of those levels.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of nurse clinical grading appeals currently waiting to be heard and the number of appeals completed at board level is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. At Scottish appeals committee level 1,925 appeals were waiting to be heard and 461 had been completed at 1 March. No information is held on the total number of appeals lodged at United Kingdom level but in Great Britain as at 28 February, 602 appeals were lodged (71 from Scotland) of which eight have been heard (none from Scotland) and 589 are currently waiting to be heard.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Appeals against clinical grading decisions are heard under a complicated and time-consuming procedure agreed by the General Whitley Council and future progress will depend on a number of factors, particularly the availability of people who are suitably qualified to hear appeals. Consequently it is not possible to estimate when nurse grading appeals will be completed.

  There is no information held centrally on board level appeals. The information available on appeals at Scottish appeals committee level and national (Great Britain) level is as follows:

  Number of Appeals Received (Scotland)

  Number of Appeals heard (Scotland)

  Scottish Appeals Committee

  nearly 2,500

  461

  Great Britain

  71

  None

  Secure Unit

  Region

  Number of Places

  Rossie School Montrose

  Tayside

  25

  St. Mary's Kenmure School Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  24

  Kerelaw School Stevenston

  Strathclyde

  24

  Howdenhall Children's Unit Edinburgh

  Lothian

  5

  Rimbleton House Glenrothes

  Fife

  2

  Weedingshall Youth Care Centre, Polmont

  Central

  2

  Closeburn Assessment Centre, Closeburn

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2

  List D Schools
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of places available in list D schools in Scotland in each of the past 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will indicate the average occupancy rate of these places in each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The list D category was abolished from 1 April 1986. The relevant information up to 1986 is as follows:

  Year

  Available places

  Occupancy rate

  (Per cent.)

  1980

  1,509

  86

  1981

  1,514

  80

  1982

  1,349

  77

  Liver Transplants
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to establish a liver transplant facility in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Our priority has been to establish a heart transplant unit in Scotland and we expect the first operations to be carried out at the end of this year in Glasgow royal infirmary.

  Social Work Supervision Orders
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons aged under 16 years were placed on social work supervision orders in(a) Dundee, (b) Tayside and (c) Scotland in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of children aged 0–17 years, who were under supervision requirements at 31 March each year, are set out in the table:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Dundee

  237

  260

  307

  357

  322

  Tayside

  453

  476

  521

  549

  525

  Scotland

  8,099

  8,582

  8,333

  8,387

  8,533

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many places in secure accommodation there are for persons aged under 16 years in Scotland; and where they are located.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Available places

  Occupancy rate

  (Per cent.)

  1983

  1,203

  79

  1984

  1,099

  78

  1985

  1,107

  65

  1986

  857

  75

  The latest information on establishments used by local authorities for residential care after 1986 (including former list D schools) is set out in the statistical bulletin R6/1989 on "Residential Accommodation 1988", a copy of which is in the Library.
  333
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names and locations of list D schools in Scotland which are(a) currently operating and (b) have closed down during the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The list D category was abolished from 1 April 1986, when local authorities assumed full funding responsibility for young people placed in residential care. Such establishments are required to be registered by local authorities. The following former list D schools are still operating:

  Kibble, Paisley

  Wellington, Penicuik

  Geilsland, Beith

  Oakbank, Aberdeen

  Kerelaw, Stevenston

  Snowdon, Stirling

  St. Mary's Kenmure, Glasgow

  Ballikinrain, Glasgow

  Balrossie, Kilmacolm

  St. Joseph's, Tranent

  St. Philip's, Airdrie

  St. John's, Glasgow

  Balnacraig, Perth

  Rossie, Montrose

  The following establishments closed since March 1980:

  Loaningdale, Biggar

  St. Andrew's, Shandon

  Dr. Guthrie's Boys, Edinburgh

  Dr. Guthrie's Girls, Edinburgh

  Langlands Park, Port Glasgow

  Dale, Arbroath

  Thornly Park, Paisley

  Tynepark, Haddington

  St. Ninian's, Gartmore

  St. John Bosco's Aberdour

  Balgowan, Dundee

  Balgay, Dundee

  Therapy in Schools
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to local education authorities concerning the provision of speech therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and the teaching of dyslexic children in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Speech therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy may be special educational needs of children for which education authorities have responsibility under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. In such cases authorities usually make arrangements for health boards to make the necessary provision. Guidance on the identification, assessment and recording of special educational needs was given in circular 1087 issued on 9 December 1982.

  The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the answer I gave him on 27 June 1990 that my Department has commissioned a research study which will offer guidance to teachers about the needs of children with specific learning difficulties. A report is expected in early 1992.

  Cancer Screening Unit
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in supplying a mobile breast cancer screening unit at Woodside place, Glasgow to cover the Argyll and Clyde and Western Isles health boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The first mobile unit, operating from Woodside place, Glasgow, began screening women 334
  in the Argyll and Clyde health board area on 15 August 1990. Several districts have been completed and screening will begin in Oban on 22 April 1991, with the mobile unit subsequently moving to Mull and Lochgilphead. The opportunity will be available to women from nearby islands to be screened at that time.

  Screening is expected to take place in the Western Isles during autumn 1992.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in supplying a mobile breast cancer screening unit in Inverness to cover the Highland health board area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The mobile unit will operate from the static screening and assessment centre at Raigmore, Inverness and is currently undergoing final maintenance and equipment checks.

  The intention is for the static and mobile screening service to begin screening in early summer.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women on average are screened at a mobile breast cancer screening unit in one year; and what is the cost of running one such unit and the number of units currently operational, by health board area in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are six mobile breast cancer screening units currently operating in Scotland. The information on costs and numbers screened is not available as the service is not yet fully operational.

  Industrial Sites
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on trends in the supply of fully serviced industrial sites in the past two years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The information is not available in the form requested. The nearest equivalent information, available from the industrial sites register (the joint annual register of industrial land) is on sites which are immediately available or could be made available within one year. The data for 1985 to 1989 are as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Area (hectares)

  2,567

  2,814

  3,337

  2,743

  2,821

  Number of sites

  535

  534

  549

  567

  629

  The 1989 survey is still being analysed, and figures may be liable to adjustment. The 1990 survey is under way.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much provision of fully serviced industrial sites has been made available by (i) Scottish new towns, (ii) Scottish Development Agency, (iii) Highland and Islands Development Board and (iv) Scottish local authorities, in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The information is not available in the form requested, but the following table may be helpful:
  335

  Provision for industrial sites in Scotland

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  New town development corporations1 £'000s

  Not available

  3,300

  2,400

  3,300

  3,500

  3,400

  4,400

  Land owned3

  569

  540

  540

  538

  557

  NYA

  SDA2 £'000s

  Not available

  2,677

  2,044

  1,969

  3,796

  4,802

  Site numbers

  29

  18

  21

  19

  14

  Land owned3

  410

  397

  366

  463

  483

  NYA

  HIDB £'000s

  4,600

  4,800

  7,200

  5,300

  6,300

  4,200

  2,800

  4,100

  6,600

  7,400

  Site numbers

  6

  9

  8

  4

  7

  8

  6

  6

  7

  8

  Land owned3

  39

  35

  36

  44

  57

  NYA

  Local authorities2 £ '000s

  8,225

  9,243

  11,511

  9,887

  13,077

  15,437

  15,488

  17,091

  17,738

  17,415

  Land owned3

  1,741

  1,988

  2,046

  41,305

  1,803

  NYA

  1 These figures relate to site development work only.

  2 These figures relate to total expenditure on factory building and industrial sites. Returns do not allow for site only information to be supplied.

  3 These figures (in hectares) are for land owned by the agencies and bodies shown and identified for industrial purposes. It includes both fully serviced and unserviced sites. The data is as published in the Industrial Sites Register. The data is as at 31 March for the year concerned, thus the 1,741 hectares shown for local authorities in the 1984–85 column shows the picture at 31 March 1985.

  4 The drop in the local authority entry for 1988 is explained by the introduction of new marketability criteria, as detailed in the published Commentary on the Industrial Sites Register 1988.

  NYA—Not yet available.

  High-technology Premises
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what high-technology premises are being planned or supplied for Scotland and by when.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The supply of premises for high-technology companies is not monitored. The industrial sites register does not specifically record sites suitable for high-technology companies, and it would not be feasible to do so. Existing premises may often be sufficient to meet the needs of many such companies.

ENVIRONMENT

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is responsible for auditing the work of the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Key
  Paragraph 12 of schedule 3 to the Local Government Finance Act 1982 requires the Commission to keep proper accounts and other records; to prepare a statement of account in respect of each financial year in the form directed by the Secretary of State; and submit the statement to him by the date he directs. The Secretary of State is required, on or before 30 November in each year, to transmit the statement of account to the Comptroller and Auditor-General who is required to examine and certify the statement of account and lay copies before Parliament with his report on it.

  Leisure Centres
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has plans to ensure that local authorities who run leisure and entertainment complexes shall be required to publish at one and the same time capital and revenue accounts for each undertaking.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Local Authorities (Tendering)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what safeguards there are in the local authority competitive tendering process to ensure that the terms and conditions of the tender are not subsequently varied by mutual consent.

  Mr. Key
  Under part I of the Local Government Act 1988, local authorities must comply with a number of tendering requirements if they wish to use their own work-forces to carry out defined activities after dates set out in subordinate legislation. One of these requirements is that, in carrying out the work, they must comply with the detailed specification which was prepared as the basis for competitive tendering, although this will normally provide limited scope for some variation in the work to be done. The Secretary of State has sanction powers under the 1988 Act which he may use if he considers that an authority has failed to comply with the statutory requirements.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for the city of Sheffield the number of projects which were not given approval for 1991–92 under the urban programme, indicating the nature of the projects rejected and giving a percentage figure, and a cash value figure, which related to the ethnic minority community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Sheffield urban programme for 1991–92 includes 105 new projects, of which 83 were approved on 1 March. The 22 projects which could not be approved have a total value of £1,035,000 and include five projects relating to the ethnic minority community costing £530,000.

  My Department met Sheffield city council on 20 March and the council is now working up information on most of the 22 rejected projects in order to resubmit them. Any attempt to assess the number of projects finally rejected would therefore be premature.

  Industrial Waste
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make available to the public information concerning the nature of industrial waste being dumped in any given local authority area.

  Mr. Baldry
  Waste disposal plans drawn up and published by waste disposal authorities should give a picture of the industrial waste arising and where it goes for disposal within each authority's area.

  The deposit of industrial waste is illegal unless authorised by a licence from the waste disposal authority under part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Waste disposal authorities must keep registers of all such licences open to the public. Each licence shows the types of waste permitted at each site. Under section 64 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the information to be kept on public registers will be greatly expanded. The extent of this information will be prescribed in regulations on which my Department will be consulting publicly before the implementation of section 64.

  Individual records are kept of the transport and disposal of the most difficult and harmful wastes, designated as special waste under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These records are copied to waste disposal authorities. In a consultation paper ("Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Special Waste Regulations 1980, a Consultation Paper, Special Waste and the Control of its Disposal") issued by my Department and the Welsh Office last year, the Government proposed that registers of special waste records should be open for public inspection.

  Climate Convention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the inclusion of a commitment to the precautionary principle in the climate convention currently under inter-governmental negotiation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Negotiations for a framework convention on climate change are taking place under an inter-governmental negotiating committee established by the United Nations General Assembly. The United Kingdom is playing an active role in the negotiations and we hope that the convention will include an expression of the need for precautionary action in the face of serious or irreversible threats of environmental degradation.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the specific grant received by each local authority in respect of(a) community charge rebate and (b) transitional relief for the year 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for the available information for 1990–91 to be placed in the Library of the House. I shall be in a position to publish a final figure for the amount of transitional relief given when local authorities submit their final grant claims later this year.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those rivers in England where prosecutions have been undertaken because of pollution;338
  who were the polluters; what fines were levied; and what remedial measures were ordered in each case to prevent a recurrence of the pollution.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally. The National Rivers Authority is responsible for enforcing water pollution controls, and is empowered to carry out operations to prevent or remedy pollution where appropriate.

  I understand that the authority brought a total of 370 prosecutions for water pollution offences in England and Wales during its first year of operation to 31 August 1990.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards control of the dumping of rubbish and other pollutants from private boats in estuaries and inshore waters.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the provisions of the 1989 Water Act it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit the entry of polluting or solid waste matter to "controlled waters", (which include estuaries and inshore waters), although the discharge of trade or sewage effluent from a vessel is excluded from these controls. The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulations 1988, which extend to private boats, impose restrictions on the disposal of garbage, defined as all kinds of victual, domestic and operational waste, into the sea. The Merchant Shipping (Reception Facilities for Garbage) Regulations 1988 require every harbour authority in the United Kingdom to provide facilities for receiving garbage from ships.

  The Gulf (Birds)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to the International Council for Bird Preservation and RSPB reports on the Gulf birds.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 March 1991]: As I indicated to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 15 March at column 1392, I very much welcome the initiative taken by the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) in sending two experts to the Gulf earlier this month.

  The ICBP has now prepared a proposal for further work to survey the spring migration in the Gulf in April and May. We have been interested to see this and will consider it carefully and I understand that ICBP has discussed the proposal with the National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development in Saudi Arabia.

  Oil-skimming Equipment, Bahrain
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who supplied and manufactured the oil skimming equipment handed over by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in Bahrain last week.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]: The equipment was supplied by DESMI Ltd. from its factory in Newcastle, Staffordshire. These particular items were manufactured in Denmark by DESMI's parent company, A/S De Smithske, and use major United Kingdom components, particularly engines made by Lister Diesels, hydraulic equipment from Hamworthy Ltd. of Poole, Dorset, and valves manufactured by Chalwyn Valves Ltd.

  Recycling Credits
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress in the introduction of recycling credits.

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to the answer, 30 January 1991, c. 537]: The Touche Ross report on recycling credits
  340
  commissioned by my Department has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. We will publish draft regulations and guidance on the calculation and payment of recycling credits for consultation with local authorities in due course, taking account of the advice we have received.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Arms Manufacturers: Future
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their refusal to assist arms manufacturing companies to convert to production for civil purposes as set out by the Earl of Arran (H.L. Deb., 4th March, col. WA 63) indicates a lack of government concern, and if so whether they will reconsider their policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, no. It indicated the Government's belief that decisions about the way companies conduct their business are best left to the commercial judgment of the individual companies concerned.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that this is no time for ideological economics? The reiterations on the positions of Thatcherism will not convince anyone that the Government have left that position behind. Does the Minister agree that a number of companies are having difficulty in making the transition, and that unless the Government are prepared not merely to reiterate their theoretical position but also to give help, many of those companies will go under?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this is not an ideological situation, as the noble Lord tries to suggest. We are suggesting, as we always have, that this is a practical way forward. We accept the need to keep industry closely informed of our requirements. However, decisions on the forward equipment programme must be a matter for the department.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not rather a paradox that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, whose hostility towards arms manufacture is well known, should be asking the Government to subsidise those who in the past have indulged in it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a good point.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while in the present situation there are bound to be substantial cuts in defence orders, it is the Government's duty to give the longest possible notice to the defence industry of changes? In that respect, why has a decision not yet been taken on the order from Vickers for new Challengers? The decision could have been taken by the end of last year. Is the Minister aware that as a result of being strung along in this way Vickers are experiencing great difficulties?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is undoubtedly aware that we have just returned from victorious conflict in the Gulf. Following the document Options for Change, it is extremely important to absorb and learn from lessons in the Gulf before any final decisions are taken.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while his comment was accurate, during the cold war period there were many arms manufacturers and skilled craftsmen whom we should thank for their efficiency? Inevitably, they will now find themselves in difficulties. Should we not remember what they did during the cold war and help them as much as we can now that the thawing period is about to set in?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are always mindful of the service that our suppliers have performed on our behalf. The Government fully consult and inform our suppliers at all times in order that they know our thinking.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at present there are five naval shipyards which are employing 21,000 people, and that in five years' time there will be two naval shipyards employing only 8,000 people? All those people are part of a skilled workforce. Is it not possible for Members of the Government to sit down and plan the run-down of this major industry; or must we have the same old comments about market forces ruling? The Government have tried to junk most of Thatcherism, so when are they going to junk this aspect?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is a master of speculation and hypothesis. I am not sure from where he obtained the figures for the years that lie ahead; but he knows very well that under Options for Change much must be learnt, and great attention must be paid to the situation in the Soviet Union and to the evidence of arms control and its workings.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as chairman of a defence contractor employing between 15,000 and 20,000 people. Does the Minister agree that, in view of recent events in the Gulf and the continuing uncertainty in the Soviet Union, it is a little premature to talk of converting our defence industry for peaceful purposes? Will he assure the House that, if such a dismantling of the defence industry takes place, the Government will collaborate with industry in solving the problems of redundancy which will inevitably follow?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are aware at all times of the need for industry to know of changes as far ahead as possible.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, have the Government received any approaches from the industry about possible government help for the industry in that conversion?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not know whether approaches have been made by the industry.

839
However, there is no reason why that should not take place, although it is up to the Government to take the initiative.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very difficult and expensive to convert swords into ploughshares?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that does have its problems.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we agree, as the noble Earl said, that it is for the Government to take the initiative. Will he accept from me that the source of the figures which I gave him is no less than the chief executive of VSEL, a firm of which no doubt the Minister has heard? Is it not time that the Government took the initiative in contacting that chief executive about the run-down of VSEL in Barrow so as to give him some help?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is probably aware, my honourable friend in another place is about to go to Barrow on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry in order to consult with that company.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, despite the difficulties of converting swords into ploughshares, will the noble Earl express on behalf of the Government his hope and intention that that process will take place over the years? If that is the case, would it not be in the immediate interests of the workers in those factories, like British Aerospace, if the Government took the same attitude towards those industries as they have taken towards the agricultural industry through the CAP and the Rover car manufacture and assist, although not necessarily financially, in the transformation from wartime to peace-time manufacture?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, whatever transformation may take place in the future, the noble Lord will agree that the quality of arms which our British forces require for the defence of the country is of prime importance.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me the timescale regarding the new Challenger tank?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend about that; but as soon as there is any information, an announcement will be made.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, were not some of the present difficulties which are worrying employees in the private sector of the arms industry brought about by the Government's programme of privatising large sections of the arms industry which were formerly under public control?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not quite sure what is the point which the noble Lord makes. As I have indicated, there is much to do under Options for Change from the point of view of the quality and equipment of our armed forces.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if there was an indication of flexibility in the Minister's replies to this Question, many of us will welcome that. On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, perhaps he will agree also that it is entirely logical for someone opposed to arms manufacture in principle to welcome and urge the Government to help those firms which wish to change from the production of arms to civil manufacture?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the way forward for manufacturing arms companies is best left to its management, directors and shareholders.

Wales: Army Command Structure
2.46 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received in support of the retention of Wales as a separate military district within the United Kingdom military command structure.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, a number of representations have been received, principally in the form of letters from Members of Parliament and local authorities.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that clear and informative reply. Is he not aware that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister recently received a letter signed by every Lord Lieutenant in Wales protesting most vigorously, although with characteristic courtesy, against the proposal to downgrade Wales as a military district? Will the noble Earl tell the House what action the Government propose to take?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is no intention of downgrading Wales as a military presence. I must refute that in the strongest possible terms. The whole point of any new operational district structure of our armed forces is to make them operationally effective.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, from the information he has before him, does the noble Earl not agree that feeling in Wales about the reorganisation to which he referred is quite clear and very strong? To carry out that reorganisation and to leave the army in Wales in a position subordinate to its present position would be offensive to Wales and offensive to those Welsh soldiers who flew the red dragon on their tanks in the Gulf. It would also be very damaging to recruitment in Wales. Has the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales been consulted as to his views on the matter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has indeed been consulted as has the Ministry of Defence. However, I must make clear to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that of paramount importance is the operational effectiveness of Her Majesty's armed forces.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Earl explain the operational effectiveness which may be damaged by the maintenance of Wales as a military region? What estimates have the Government made of the manpower and financial savings arising from the change? Is he aware that they will have to be substantial to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the majority of Welsh people?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, jumps to a conclusion about change. No change has yet been announced although a decision is close. However, I repeat that operational effectiveness is designed by the Ministry of Defence in line with the district commanders in order to see that Her Majesty's armed forces are operationally able to take account of any situation which may arise, in particular the defence of the United Kingdom.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Earl admit the peculiar irony of the fact that yesterday the United States of America recognised Lieutenant-General Sir Peter de la Billiere, who recently served as General Officer Commanding Wales, for the great soldier that he is? Will the noble Earl also bear in mind during the negotiations with the Secretary of State that at the moment real hardship exists in Wales as the result of earlier defence retrenchment? The closing down of defence establishments around Wales is causing unemployment. If it were proposed that the military establishment at Brecon be moved elsewhere, that would only add to the problems of the Principality.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, Wales is part of the United Kingdom. If it should be thought that there is a continuing downgrading of Wales I ask the noble Lord, Lord Parry, to look at the position more closely. That is far from the truth. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, mentioned General Sir Peter de la Billiere. He was GOC for the Welsh district at some point. He did a good job there. He has done a great job on behalf of this country in the Gulf and has been rightly recognised for it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that for many years the Principality of Wales achieved enormous power and influence in the United Kingdom, in this House, in commerce and practically everywhere? Does the noble Earl believe that our Welsh colleagues now hold ambitions in the military field?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that the admiration, devotion and love for the Principality of Wales is shared by all in your Lordships' House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is always helpful to have the support of a Scottish peer. Can the noble Earl say why a distinction has been drawn between Scotland and Wales in this matter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge no distinction has been drawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that had it not been for the prowess of the Welsh under the rule of Henry Tudor, Britain as we
842
know it would not exist as a thoroughly united administrative country? It would have achieved neither the commercial nor the industrial strength that it has, nor indeed the military strength. Does the noble Earl recognise that fact? Will he ensure that Wales remains in case England once again needs to be saved from itself?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his fine sentiments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, the noble Earl said that there was to be no distinction in the treatment of Scotland and Wales. However, is it not the case that Scotland is to remain a military district on its own, whereas Wales is not?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no announcement has been made and no decision has yet been taken.

Gulf War: Costs
2.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total cost to public funds of British participation in the Gulf war, and what was the total financial contribution made to this country by other participating states.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the additional costs of the Gulf conflict, falling to Defence Votes, are so far assessed at around £1.75 billion. The eventual costs will be significantly higher—possibly up to £3 billion, spread over several years. Financial contributions paid or pledged so far amount to £1.5 billion including some £250 million as the value of Saudi support and other nations' assistance in kind.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely interesting reply. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government are pursuing demands on those members of the European Community, other than France and Germany, whose contributions to our financial and military activities in the Gulf were negligible?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as my noble friend said, we received generous help both financially and in kind from a number of countries, for which we are most grateful. We are seeking further financial assistance and help with the recovery of our troops to the United Kingdom from a number of allies and other nations.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to say exactly how much Belgium paid? I have asked this question before; it is like talking to oneself.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord might ask that question. He can be content that I came to the Dispatch Box with the answer. Belgium contributed, or pledged to contribute, £15 million. It also had a strong military presence in the Gulf.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell the House, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, how the Government are proposing to obtain more money from the European allies? For instance, will the war costs be one of the matters discussed at the meeting of Community Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg this week?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I need notice to answer such a question. However, if it will help the noble Lord, I shall write to him.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, having established the cost of the war, will my noble friend say whether British firms are to be assisted in winning some of the business opportunities that may arise in Kuwait?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that question is extremely wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of us feel that the £3 billion spent in the Gulf is a good investment in the interests of peace and winning the war; and how does the Minister compare it with the £13 billion wasted when the poll tax legislation had to be changed? Does that not indicate that this Government are perhaps better at running the country during a war than during peacetime?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is even wider of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the war was ostensibly fought under the directions of the United Nations, is it not now the responsibility of the United Nations, rather than the European Community or any other regional grouping, to ensure that the bills are paid through the United Nations?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no. It is up to each individual country to say how much to donate to coalition forces.

Air Service Agreement
2.57 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the effect on British Airways of the new air service agreement which has been concluded with the United States of America.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, estimates were made of the value of the package from the point of view of UK carriers as a whole. The bulk of these benefits would be available to British Airways. Experts from the Civil Aviation Authority and representatives from British Airways were involved throughout the negotiation in assessing those benefits.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that ingenious reply. While the Government have been asserting that the agreement negotiated with the United States would enable British airlines and others to mount operations into the United States via points
844
in continental Europe, is it correct that that will not apply until we have similar agreements with the remainder of the European countries? Consequently, does that not mean that the Americans achieved everything they wanted, whereas there is nothing immediately on the table for British Airways?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly not. As far as the value to UK carriers is concerned, the package was worth in excess of £200 million a year. It is true that not all the opportunities can be used immediately. However, the benefits are among those to which British Airways attached particular importance, looking forward to the completion of the internal market in Europe.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would the Minister agree that three of the main strands of the negotiations in regard to the United Kingdom have not been met immediately? Two of them require congressional approval—namely, the right to operate cabotage routes in the United States and the right to control United States airlines in the United States—and that approval is a long way off. With regard to the right to be able to operate hub airports in Europe, that, as my noble friend Lord Stallard asserted, depends on the agreement of other European countries. What immediate benefits have arisen for British airlines in relation to these negotiations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first two points—that is to say, cabotage and inward investment—we knew perfectly well that, because of the need for congressional approval, the Americans could not deliver agreement on either of these matters in the short term and therefore that was not asked for in the negotiations recently concluded. British Airways was involved throughout in deciding our strategy and shopping list, virtually, all of which was obtained. There are a considerable number of benefits to UK airlines which are immediately available. In particular, there is the designation of a second British carrier to operate from Heathrow; a new facility for second or third UK airlines to ply on certain existing routes; fifth freedom opportunities, European fifth freedoms, code sharing, more permissive rules on joint ventures and a three-year restriction on US carriers' capacity at Heathrow.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that most of the benefits which he has just outlined are not immediate? Does he agree that the main planks of the negotiations which British Airways certainly wanted to assert have not been met and that they are unlikely to be met until a long time in the future? Does the Minister agree that it is a fact that Pan Am and TWA have been permitted to transfer their landing slots at Heathrow immediately to United States Airlines and American Airlines, which is of tremendous benefit to those two companies?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands the situation. I have just listed a number of benefits which are immediately available. Perhaps I may quote from the New York Times for 18th March. It described these negotiations as,

845
"a British coup in accord on Heathrow. Many industry executives and analysts say that Britain got the best of the deal. We really did not get anything in return".
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that there is great anxiety in the industry at what seems to have been a fairly rushed and cobbled-up agreement in order to rescue the American airlines? We all understand the difficulties of Pan Am and the need to rescue it from its economic problems. We also understand the need to give Virgin airlines a slice of the cake. However this has been done at the expense of British Airways, which at the moment is discussing further staff redundancies. Is the Minister not worried that there is some concern in the industry about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly disagree with the noble Lord's assertion that these negotiations were rushed. There were detailed negotiations which took place over quite a few months. There was a series of meetings with the Americans. The choice was between a settlement which would benefit both the airlines, including British Airways, and the consumers, and a stand-off which would have given consumers less choice and British Airways no new competitive opportunities. We seized the opportunity.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to hazard a guess as to the extent to which consumers will benefit from these new arrangements through reduced airfares?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, history shows us that consumers benefit from greater choice, particularly on air routes. For example, the liberalisation of domestic routes to Scotland has proved itself.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Gaming (Bingo) Bill will be taken.

Business of the House
3.3. p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in the event of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill being brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday 27th March to enable the Bill to be taken through all its stages on that day; and that Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be also dispensed with to give the Bill precedence that day.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Criminal Justice Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clauses 1 to 8,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 9 to 13,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 14 and 15,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 16 to 26,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 27 to 44,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 45 to 52,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 53 and 54,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 55 and 56,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 57 to 73,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 74 to 84,
Schedule 10,
Clause 85,
Schedules 11 and 12,
Clause 86.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Introduction of disability living allowance]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, after ("mobility') insert ("(physical and mental disablement)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 to 18 inclusive and Amendment No. 34. In view of the government amendments, in particular Amendments Nos. 11 and 14, I do not think that I need take very long. It looks as though we are nearing the end of what has been quite a long-running serial. I wish briefly to remind your Lordships of what is in issue. These amendments are primarily concerned with about 8,000 to 9,000 people who suffer from severe mental handicap and severe behavioural problems. The Bill as drafted provides for two rates of mobility allowance, but Section 37ZC(1) (a) is in terms which preclude these people from qualifying for the higher rate. Their disability is not physical and, literally speaking, they can walk. The trouble is that no one knows where they will walk or whether they might instead lie down and scream or suddenly dart into the traffic unless physically restrained.

847
Presumably they would qualify for the lower rate of mobility allowance. Therefore we are concerned with the difference between the lower and the higher rate.
If there were a fairly complete take-up, the cost would be about £8 million or a little less. That is not a very large proportion of the total cost of the mobility allowance, which must now be coming up to about 100 times that figure. At Committee stage we reached the position that the Government accepted the figure of 8,000 to 9,000 people and that all that remained was the problem of definition. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that, if that could be solved, the Government,
"would be quite prepared to accept an amendment".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1527.]
In the discussions held since then we have agreed that there should be a preliminary hurdle to be surmounted; namely, that any applicant will first have to satisfy the conditions for the highest of the three rates of the care component as provided for in Section 37ZB(1)(b) and (c). We further agreed that this requirement should appear on the face of the Bill. However, as I understand it, agreement has also been reached with the department about the drafting of the regulations which would define what is meant by severe mental handicap and severe behavioural problems. If that is so, it looks as though no further difficulty remains. The department has been most helpful and I thank it for its efforts in finding a solution to this quite difficult drafting problem.
I was always a little dubious about the powers under the existing law to make regulations on behalf of the deaf and blind. I was therefore glad to see Amendment No. 10. I believe that the take-up under the present regulations has not been what was expected. I wonder whether they are drawn a little too tightly and whether it might be possible to take a slightly more relaxed approach for this group under these new powers. The amendment which I am moving is limited to the mentally handicapped, where the problem has been to devise a formula which is sufficiently tight.
If the Minister confirms what I have said about agreement having been reached, we need not have a very long debate. I am quite prepared not to press the amendments which are in my name and those of other noble Lords and to accept the government amendments if, as I believe they do, they achieve what our amendments are also trying to achieve. In my time, I have had far too much experience in the preparation of Bills to be surprised at parliamentary counsel being reluctant to accept other people's drafts on a complicated issue of this kind. I do not think that any question of principle remains. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has explained the background extremely well. It is appropriate to point out that this agreement by the Government is the end of a long campaign by MENCAP and other organisations, but particularly MENCAP. The House will wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and Mary Holland of MENCAP. They have kept to the job for a number of years. This is no
848
time for recrimination. The Government have accepted the argument and we are pleased about that. For the past four years I have had the privilege of being involved in the arguments from this side of the House. I am delighted that the Government now accept the points we have been making.
The government amendment is carefully drafted. It obviously meets all the requirements and the amendment that stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and myself will therefore be withdrawn. The government amendment specifically mentions the deaf and blind. As this is the only opportunity during our proceedings on the Bill to say a few words about the way in which the regulations appear to be working on the eligibility of the deaf and the blind for mobility allowance, I shall put some questions to the Minister. I do not expect him to reply on the spot. Perhaps he will write to me with the answers.
It appears that the rate of success at the moment of the deaf and the blind in applying for mobility allowance is very haphazard. We see people with similar symptoms treated differently by the examining doctor. Certainly, the organisation SENSE has expressed concern about the quality of the guidance directed to medical practitioners. The Mobility Allowance Amendment Regulations 1990 specifically require, in the case of the applicant, that,
"he is both blind and deaf and, by reason of the effects of those conditions in combination with each other, he is unable, without the assistance of another person, to walk to any intended or required destination while out of doors".
I should like to repeat the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. Is the Minister able to tell the House how many people so far have qualified for mobility allowance for the deaf and the blind? The regulations state specifically "while out of doors".
The notes for medical practitioners state:
"If possible the test should be conducted outdoors so that the effects of loss of hearing on the claimant's outdoor mobility problems can be properly assessed. Where an outdoor test is not possible the results should be related to the outdoors".
On the "Link" programme yesterday for the disabled—I declare an interest as a director of the company which makes the "Link" programme for the disabled on the ITV network—there was an interview with a lady who is both profoundly deaf and totally blind. She told the interviewer that she was seen for less than 10 minutes in her flat by the examining doctor. How that was supposed to relate to outdoor conditions I do not know. That is perhaps an isolated incident. But there is concern among the organisations about the way the regulations are being interpreted.
The guidance to applicants for mobility allowance specifically refers to whether an applicant needs to have someone with him when he goes out of doors. I believe that in the first draft of paragraph 19 of the notes for medical practitioners the word "cripple" was used. That word is no longer acceptable in disabled circles. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply now or will write to me on these points.
I should like to return to the main government amendments, Amendments Nos. 7 to 18, which will replace the ones we have moved. This is a very happy

849
day for the carers of the 8,000 to 9,000 severely mentally handicapped people who will benefit from the Government's change of heart.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 14. They are the culmination of a long, hard struggle led ably and with dedication by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He is to be congratulated on the outcome. I also pay tribute to Ministers for achieving, however belatedly, what noble Lords on both sides of the House have wanted to see done for such a long time. It would be churlish not to acknowledge generously the decisions now made by the Government.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as one of those past Ministers who may or may not have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Renton, I too congratulate my successor in the hot spot, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Social Security, on a very satisfactory outcome to a battle, so ably prosecuted by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, which has gone on for four years. Indeed I seem to remember that I was in the hot seat when the matter first arose in your Lordships' House. I have to say that then it was purely a matter of numbers, not a matter of being unwilling to prosecute the case. As I said in Committee I am very sad that it has taken so long to reach agreement as to the number of these particularly unfortunate members of society who would be affected and who therefore would benefit from the higher rate of mobility allowance. However, this is not a time for recriminations. It is a very successful outcome all round. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, are to be warmly congratulated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I am glad that it is not a time for recriminations. In speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I shall be speaking to my own Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 17 and also to Amendment No. 34. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for moving his amendment and for saying that he would agree not to press it and that he preferred the government amendments. I also join all noble Lords and especially my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who knows what it feels like to respond from the Dispatch Box on this issue in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for what I hope will he the successful conclusion to his campaign.
I am obviously delighted that we have been able to come forward with a solution to what has been the most difficult of problems. My right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and I have never made any secret of the fact that we wanted to take the step if we could be sure of pin-pointing the group which both MENCAP and the Spastics Society in particular have always said they wanted to find. In passing I join the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Carter, in congratulating MENCAP on its campaign.
850
I freely admit that we have found it exasperating that the issue has remained so intractable. However, I do take great pleasure today in being able to add to the changes that we have made in the field of disability benefits—provision for the deaf-blind, double amputees and so on—in the context of a Bill which makes a further advance in provision to help with the extra costs of disability. What this will mean in cash terms is that severely mentally handicapped people will get more than £70 a week, or nearly £3,700 a year, from DLA alone. That is completely disregarded when calculating income related benefits. But if the claimant is getting income support that will add at least a further £16.65 to his income, making rather more than £4,500 a year from the state in recognition of the cost of his disability.
Today is clearly not the occasion to rehearse the difficulties which we have experienced in defining the group. I can assure the House that we have devoted much time, both at ministerial and at official level, in trying to devise the answer. I have no doubt that the same applies to the noble Lord and to his advisers. Again, I should like to pay tribute to the very constructive way in which the whole issue has been approached.
The amendments on the Marshalled List in my name and that of the noble Lord are so similar that it is obvious we have been working on very similar tracks. I do not believe that the House would want me to go into elaborate detail as to how we intend to define and then in practice find this group. A great deal of the detail on how we get the message to the people who will need to fill in the claim form, or provide the evidence, needs to be worked out over the coming year. I repeat, we shall again want to work very closely with the professional and voluntary groups which have expertise in the area.
I should like today to give the House the assurance that we accept that our target group is around 9,000 strong. That is the group we shall do the utmost to find. I can be quite unequivocal about our intention to identify that group through the regulations. I cannot give Members of the House copies of the draft regulations at this stage of the proceedings. We want to draw these up with some care in the coming months before letting interested parties see them. However, we shall be sending them out this summer along with other key draft regulations.
I turn now to Amendment No. 10 and the question of the deaf-blind and why we felt it was necessary to put this on the face of the Bill where previously we had felt that regulations would be sufficient. It is only a matter of putting entitlement to the higher rate of people who are both deaf and blind beyond any conceivable doubt. There is no doubt about our policy. Moreover, in the light of what my right honourable friend has admitted as being a slightly disappointing start in the area, we have taken steps to amend guidance and have also issued further publicity to ensure that the policy works.
However, we had a slight technical legal worry about the position of someone who, although deaf and blind, was not unable to walk but simply needed guidance to do so. Currently, we give someone in that

851
position mobility allowance. We shall now give them the higher rate mobility component. Conversely, we did not wish to fall foul of legal authorities which might just rule that if someone needed only guidance, they should receive the lower rate only. As I said, it is purely for the avoidance of any doubt. I trust that it is welcome news to see that this group's entitlement is enshrined in statute.
The noble Lord was also worried that we might have drafted the rules too tightly. As I said, we had some problems with take-up for the deaf-blind—about 400 to 500 people have qualified. However, I do not believe that the problem was in the drafting of the legislation; the problem was one of interpretation and take-up. We have discussed these problems with disability organisations and issued revised instructions to the adjudicating authorities and to the examining doctors. We now believe that there should be no difficulty for people who are both deaf and blind in obtaining the allowances.
In conclusion, I am delighted that we have found a way forward on the issue. We have listened to the representations made by all Members of this House, and also to those made by many experts outside the House. We have studied most carefully the information and research which we have been given. We always listen to what is said in the House, even if some Members wish that we moved faster and further than is possible. Moreover, we have already made substantial amendments to improve the Bill and I hope that I shall later be able to respond positively to further issues. That serves to demonstrate that we are always anxious to look at the whole picture on disability benefits to see where adjustments and improvements need to be made. There is no question of us sitting on our hands when we are persuaded that we should take action.
The government amendments represent a major improvement to the Bill which, as I have already said, already involves a major step forward as regards help with disabilities. As the noble Lord has indicated that he will not press his amendments—I am most grateful for the fact that he will be withdrawing them—I hope that I shall be able to move formally the amendments tabled in my name at a later stage.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Abbeydale, withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may just point out that, if any further proof was necessary, the long and protracted argument which has taken place establishes beyond doubt the value of this House as a second Chamber.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it merely remains for me to thank the Minister for what he said. I also much appreciate the remarks made by other Members of the House. I especially endorse the point just made by the noble and learned Lord. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert:
852
("(2) a person's entitlement to the disability living allowance may be an entitlement to one or more of the components specified in subsection (1) above, or to an extra cost component as the Secretary of State may prescribe. In prescribing such additions the Secretary of State shall have regard to research conducted under the terms of this Act.').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall. with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 24. I was interested to hear what the Minister said at the end of his response to the previous amendment. He said that the Government listened and responded. I hope that they will be equally responsive in their reply to these amendments. The amendments deal with the extra costs of disability. We had a long and detailed discussion on the matter in Committees when a series of amendments were tabled which set out individual extra costs. Each of those amendments was spoken to by different Members of the Chamber.
We have approached the matter on Report from a different point of view. We have tried to use a more flexible approach so as to give the Government much more flexibility through regulations to deal with the problem. We are also requesting the Government to conduct research so that we can attempt to reach a resolution of the contentious issue of the level of the extra costs of disability.
Other Members of the House have attached their names to the amendments. I know that they will wish to put forward various details as regards the extra costs involved. Therefore, perhaps I may deal with the principle behind what is proposed. I should first point out that the amendments allow, but do not require, the Secretary of State to introduce a cost allowance. As I said, they ask him to conduct further research into the costs of disability.
It is clear that the issue of the extent of such extra costs, and the best way to allow for them in the care component, is not closed. We all know about the OPCS surveys on extra costs. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that many organisations for disabled people have questioned the methodology of the OPCS approach and the figures which it has produced for the level of the extra costs. Indeed, Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, acknowledged in the other place that OPCS figures were less than perfect and that further research and monitoring are needed. He said:
"If I am honest with the House, I should say that I will be surprised if we get matters right first time … We will have to research and monitor the impact of all this to see whether we need to make any adjustment".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/91: col. 460.]
The amendment proposed is entirely in line with that sentiment: it allows for a period of reflection to see whether the new benefits work as intended. It also includes a mechanism to enable the Government to act quickly if the benefits do not appear to be working adequately.
In Committee in this place the Minister objected to the series of amendments which were put forward to deal with the matter. I believe that his argument was based largely on the grounds of costs and complexity. However, it would be fair to remind him that he said:
"The Government's intention in introducing the disability living allowance and the intentions of noble Lords in

853
introducing their amendments are not dissimilar, but there are significant differences between the routes which we have chosen to achieve our respective ends. I am sure that all sides of the Committee would like to create a wide-reaching disability benefit which would cater for all the many possible kinds of additional expenditure which people with varying disabilities may face".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1539.]
That is the intention of these amendments.
The Minister will know that we are not confident that the DLA as presently designed will adequately meet the range of costs which disabled people have to meet. Some disabled people have high costs in respect of their disability, notably for their dietary needs. That aspect of the matter was touched upon in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. He mentioned those who had no significant care or mobility costs and who would not therefore fall within the DLA; in other words, they would receive no help. Some people have the care or mobility costs, but that is not recognised, or is recognised only inadequately. That applies to a number of blind or partially sighted people. There is a strong feeling that the DLA, especially the lower rate, will be inadequate to cover the whole and range of costs.
Amendment No. 24 empowers the Secretary of State to undertake further research. There is a clear need for more research into disability costs. In its Ninth Report of the 1989-90 Session the Social Services Select Committee recommended that the Government, in conjunction with disability organisations, conduct and publish research on the actual and potential costs of disability. The argument is a strong one. We feel that the involvement of organisations representing disabled people at the design stage of the research would inform the methodology for that research while maintaining its independence. This is an important matter. There is great anxiety among organisations representing disabled people that the extra costs of disability are not fully met by the DLA. With the strength of the argument that I know the House will produce on this issue, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendments or return on Third Reading with his own amendments. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my name is also down to the amendment, and of course I support it. We must bear in mind that technology and medical science are moving fast today; that more people with severe disabilities are staying alive much longer; and that we can help them in more ways. It is essential that regular research be carried out to ensure that we can give not just adequate but the right kind of help to mentally and physically disabled people.
If accepted, the amendments would allow the Government to change the allowances as needed, and probably more important from the Government's point of view, as funds are available. We all realise that we cannot do everything. Every housekeeping system has to keep something in reserve. There is one matter which we shall have to change on Third Reading: new Section 37ZA(5) talks about "both components" and "two components". Acceptance of the amendment would mean that there would be three
854
components. We can change that point without any difficulty when the Bill comes next to the House. I wholeheartedly support the amendments.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we add our support from these Benches. It is impossible to predict the changes that will take place in the matters that we are discussing. Research is therefore necessary, and it must be done properly.
On Amendment No. 24, Parliament should have an annual statement of the results of the research. That would give Parliament a necessary opportunity to keep in touch with what is going on and to press for such changes as the research shows to be necessary.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too have my name to the amendments, and so I support them. They try to ensure that the DLA will more realistically reflect the costs of disabled life and is payable to those who have extra costs.
Amendment No. 24 gives the Government the opportunity to respond positively to the recommendations of the Social Services Select Committee on conducting and publishing on-going research into the actual and potential costs of disability. The Select Committee also said that it believed that there were sufficient reservations, not least from the OPCS, to warrant further research into the extra costs of disability. I hope the Minister will agree that the OPCS surveys, which were carried out before the Social Security Act 1986 under which additional requirement payments for diet, heating and laundry were abolished, are out of date and that new research should be commissioned. Is he aware that his right honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People said in Standing Committee E on 6th December 1990 (col. 26 of the Official Report) that the survey might not be representative of the current position of disabled people or of the benefits available to them.
Amendment No. 2 seeks to resolve the problem of those people with disabilities who do not meet the qualifying criteria for DLA, whatever their extra costs. In Committee, we talked about mentally handicapped people, people with cerebral palsy and paraplegics. I do not know whether we mentioned blind and partially sighted people. The RNIB says that it is almost impossible for them to qualify for mobility or attendance allowance solely on the basis of visual impairment. Such people have extra heating costs merely because they do not go out as often as others. They have extra laundry costs due to spillages, and so forth, because they must ensure that their clothes are clean. They also have to pay for DIY, garden maintenance and decorating. There are a number of groups that are not at the moment covered by the care and mobility components.
The Minister said:
"The real test of a benefit system is not how good it sounds but how successful it is at getting cash to the people who need it".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1543.]
With these two amendments, the cash stands a much better chance of reaching the people who need it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too support the amendments. Audit is one of the most important aspects of the NHS to try to obtain good,

855
cost-effective standards. Why do we not have audits when dealing with disability needs? Anyone who understands severe disability knows that there are many varied needs, as was said by my noble friend.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I did not realise that the noble Baroness would finish so quickly. She usually has so many valuable things to say.
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, I refer to a Written Question in another place. In answer to Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Scott said that something under 500,000 people under the age of 65 said that they needed a special diet. I shall not give the whole of that answer, but at the end the Minister said that he estimated that nearly 200,000 of the people in that group would be in receipt of at least one of the rates of the new benefit.
That answer seems to identify a large gap. If my arithmetic is not wrong, it could be about 300,000 people. They are the people who were identified by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) in Committee (col. 1544) who will not qualify because the qualifying criteria are restricted to care and mobility. That was the point that they both made. Does the Minister accept that there is putative gap of about 300,000 people who will not receive any benefit under the Bill but who have additional diet requirements?
Research is vital. That is a point that has emerged during this short debate. The OPCS research was carried out in 1985. Even then, many people told the OPCS that diet was the greatest cost of their disablement. I gave the Minister a number of figures on Second Reading which I shall not repeat. He may remember that I took the Government to task a little for misinterpreting the figures of the two researchers, MacDonald and Forsythe, who later said that they did not think that the Government had used them properly. I raise that point again only as another argument in favour of renewed research into costs and needs. I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
The noble Lord will not be surprised if I say that a further factor in relation to research relates to HIV and AIDS. The numbers were extremely low in 1985 and much less was known about the disease and the effects of therapeutic drugs which enable people with HIV to live in the community. I suggest that it is definitely time for more research into the needs of those people in order to enable them to survive in the community.
At Second Reading I gave examples of some of the enormous hospital costs which would be incurred if people were not enabled to survive in the community. There are plenty of AIDS organisations like the Terrence Higgins Trust, Frontliners and London Lighthouse which might well be involved at no great cost in collecting figures for the needs of those people to enable them to survive outside hospital. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could answer those queries when he replies.
Baroness Phillips: I wish to put on the record, in connection not only with this Bill but with many
856
others, the marvellous contribution of the two noble Baronesses who sit beside the Hansard Table. They are an inspiration to many other people who suffer disabilities and their courage in coming here on their own, often driving a long way, should be recorded. It is an example to other people outside this House.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I echo that sentiment. I wish to speak on this series of amendments, which seem to me to fall between two stools. There are the generic extra costs of disability which tend to apply to disabled people no matter what their disability. There are also the other specific disadvantages which incur extra costs and which we discussed at great length over 13 amendments at the Committee stage of the Bill.
On the first point, I believe that the Government, in the years since 1979, and, I confess, previous governments have been fairly generous in their treatment of the generic costs. In recent years on many occasions disability benefits have increased by more than the cost of inflation. That could be said to make some contribution to the generic costs as they arise.
On the other hand, the specific costs are a different matter. I shall not go into what I said about the KISS principle during the Committee stage, at risk of shocking some of your Lordships a second time round. I should have thought that the way to deal with these costs would be through the independent living fund. As your Lordships will recall, it was decided in Committee to make it a statutory organisation. Whether or not that decision was right will no doubt become apparent in the wash when the Bill returns from another place. However, the costs of specific disabilities are difficult to frame within the general social security law. I should like to see them treated rather more on a one-off basis, outside the normal social security arrangements.
Amendment No. 24 was specifically referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she talked about the results of research. Nobody could possibly be against the research being carried out in the first place and it being reported to Parliament. Whether that should be done "at least annually", I doubt. I should have thought it was far too short a period. However, I accept that on this amendment the remark is somewhat nitpicking. Perhaps the matter should be dealt with under Clause 1(5), which my noble friend mentioned, at a later stage in the Bill when we could pick up the point.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not feel that now is the time again to argue the case for the extra cost component which we argued at Committee stage. Briefly, I wish to touch on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about diet. I do not accept that there is a major gap in provision in this area. The point that my right honourable friend made in his reply which the noble Lord quoted was that a sizeable proportion of people with dietary needs are receiving help through the new benefits. He has never argued,

857
and nor have I, that every one of the 6.2 million disabled people whom the OPCS report isolated should receive an extra cost benefit.
I accept that the amendment is a new approach to a subject which we have discussed before and in another place. In our earlier debates, various amendments seemed to be designed to extend the new benefit to include additional components by explicitly amending the Bill to include provision for them. The intention behind these amendments is to provide my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with power to add further components to the benefit at some future date.
I hope that noble Lords will not be too disappointed—particularly after the welcome news that I was able to give on the last set of amendments and bearing in mind that I hope that I shall continue to be in an amenable mood on one or two other issues which we are due to discuss later on—if I say that I cannot accept these amendments. Of course, I understand what they are trying to achieve and appreciate that noble Lords are above all concerned that the successful introduction of the disability living allowance should not mean that we then simply close the book on any possible future reform of the benefit system for people with disabilities. I hope, however, to persuade the House that those fears are groundless and that the terms of the amendments brought forward do not achieve anything of practical value.
I must make clear at the outset of my remarks that we do not propose to rest for ever more on the evidence provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, the OPCS reports. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was not particularly complimentary about the service but this was an excellent and extremely thorough piece of work, the most comprehensive survey of this type ever undertaken in this country. The six OPCS reports have helped us to identify the weaknesses of the current extra cost benefits, the attendance allowance and the mobility allowance. The reports have shaped the direction in which we have chosen to move in this Bill.
However, we recognise that the information produced by the OPCS studies is not and cannot be the last word in this area. Clearly, there is always an enormous amount of evidence coming into the Department of Social Security about the current circumstances of people with disabilities.
I know that there have been criticisms of the OPCS mythology, although I feel that these have sometimes been rather overdone. However, it is important to realise that the OPCS survey is on a different scale altogether from anything that could even be attempted under the terms of the amendment before us. I certainly do not intend to criticise the research community in any way when I say that the idea of having to produce an annual report about research carried out in these areas is rather beyond the realms of credibility.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that I am sure that, even were there not a requirement to produce an annual report, the noble Baroness would find ways of initiating at least an
858
annual debate on the subject. That is not least because on a fairly regular basis, to my knowledge, there has been such a debate every year; for example, a social security Bill normally comes before the House each year. The purpose of this research appears to be to provide reliable and soundly based information, which could then be subject to detailed analysis for developing policies in this area. But we have to bear in mind that such research would take a long time to set up and it would take even longer to report back on its findings. The collection of the data for the OPCS studies took some considerable time, as did the collation of the results and the publication of the six detailed reports on which we based the benefits which we have brought forward.
I have no doubt that there will be many interesting research surveys into specific extra costs or disabilities from a wide variety of sources. But this simply would not give us the full spectrum of information about the circumstances of people with disabilities. I really think that for the Government to look at a specific area of extra costs (such as extra expenditure on clothing) in one year, to act upon this and change the benefit and then look at another area of costs (such as additional expenditure on laundry) and then revise the benefit structure again the next year, and so on in succeeding years, would be a haphazard and irresponsible course of action to take. We do not believe that that would be a sensible way for us to proceed. Frankly, I think the various disability organisations would not necessarily want us to commission research with purely social security policy requirements in mind. One of the great merits of the work carried out by the OPCS was its independence, both in terms of the questions which were asked and the mythology which was chosen.
As my right honourable friend the Minister of State has said, we shall monitor closely the success of the new benefits. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), quite rightly referred to my comments in Committee when I said that the success of the benefit must be judged by its operation in practice, by what it achieves and by how many people it reaches. I am prepared to repeat and endorse what I said on that occasion. We shall certainly want to know whether DLA is achieving the objectives we have set for it. If that is not the case, we shall wish to have more information to enable us to put the matter right.
The House need only consider the changes we have made to income support premiums in recent years to appreciate that, when we introduce a new benefit, we do not just abandon it to its fate and move on to the next subject. Anyone who is involved with the social security system will know that it is constantly changing and developing. There are always opportunities to amend legislation where this proves necessary. I repeat that during the past few years social security Bills have been introduced almost on an annual basis. I hope that, in the light of those assurances, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw this group of amendments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for that expected answer, although it is disappointing. I may have misheard the Minister, but I thought that he referred twice to the mythology

859
of the OPCS surveys. I think the Minister meant to refer to the methodology of those surveys. However, that may have been a Freudian slip on the Minister's part.
I am not entirely clear what the Government's view is on the value of the OPCS surveys, as regards the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). The Minister said that the Government do not intend to rely on OPCS information for evermore. However, if that is the case, what action do the Government propose and how do they propose to find out whether the DLA is working? The Minister said that an enormous amount of evidence comes into the department. If that is the case, why do the Government not publish it? We are certainly not asking for an annual OPCS survey. As the Minister said, that would be impossible. However, by means of annual sampling of different sectors of the disabled population, one would be able to discover levels of cost.
I do not think the Minister replied to the excellent point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she referred to the necessity for audits inside the health service. Nor do I think that the Minister answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. The Minister merely said that he did not accept the figures and that there was no major gap in the provision regarding special diets. However, there are 300,000 people in this category who are not covered. I have obtained that information from a Written Answer in another place.
If annual research is considered too onerous, we would accept research conducted at less frequent intervals. However, I do not believe that that is the point here. Although the Government are prepared to acknowledge that there are specific extra costs for disabilities, I believe we are almost back where we started with the mobility allowance for the severely mentally handicapped. It is hard to agree on the numbers and on the definition. I hope that it will not take us four years to change the Government's mind. The only way to resolve this problem is to seek the opinion of the House.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87 Not-Contents, 99 .

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L

Carter, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Attlee, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Banks, L.

Craigavon, V.

Barnett, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. [Teller.]

Bonham-Carter, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bottomley, L.

Falkland, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Fitt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Foot, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

860

Galpern, L.

Monson, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

Ogmore, L.

Halsbury, E.

Parry, L.

Hampton, L.

Phillips, B.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Richard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Russell, E.

Hayter, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hirshfield, L.

Seear, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shannon. E.

John-Mackie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kagan, L.

Stallard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kissin, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Walston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

White, B.

Milverton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Molloy, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Howe, E.

Ampthill, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Auckland, L.

Kitchener, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Knollys, V.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Birdwood, L.

Lucas of Chilworth. L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Manton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Margadale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Norrie, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird. V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renwick, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Faithfull, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selkirk, E.

Flather, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gridley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E.

Terrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

861

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wise, L.

Waddington, L.

Wynford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("satisfies") to end of line 7 and insert ("is resident in Great Britain at the time of claim, and at the time of payment except in such circumstances as shall be prescribed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is to some extent a probing amendment. The amendment was tabled at Committee stage but, although it deals with the presence test for DLA, at that time the discussion centred on armed forces personnel or their families who claim severe disability allowance. The amendment was very ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. At that time we did not have an opportunity to cover the point and I believe that it would be helpful if we discussed it and learnt the Government's response. The arguments regarding the residence test for DLA still apply, despite the fact that we discussed the matter at Committee stage.
The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the current strict presence tests which are applied to attendance allowance—weeks in the past year—not simply copied and carried over into the disability living allowance. There are no such requirements for means-tested or contributory benefits. We feel that they discriminate in particular against people with some family living outside Britain. The six months' presence test seems particularly unfair to claimants who satisfy the terminal illness rule and therefore have their waiting or qualifying period for the DLA care or mobility components waived.
If the amendment were accepted a claimant would still have to be resident in Great Britain. However, we feel that the presence test as proposed superimposes yet another test on top of the residence criterion. There seems to be no reason for the additional stipulation that the claimant should have been physically present in this country for six out of the 12 months prior to the claim.
I should like to ask the Minister what is the function of the retrospective presence test. Is it to prove an established connection with the country? If so, the claimant has already proved that, having satisfied the residence test. The residence test excludes tourists or people who maintain a home elsewhere or whose circumstances indicate that their connection with this country is tenuous. There is no retrospective presence test for the means-tested benefits nor for the contributory benefits. All that is required in those cases is that the claimant is present at the time of claim, decision and payment, with exceptions for short periods spent abroad.
Currently claimants are denied both mobility and attendance allowance, even where they satisfy the terminal illness test, on account of the presence rule. It seems very harsh that that rule will be continued and will be applied to people claiming and otherwise entitled to benefits under the DLA terminal illness rule.
It would be helpful if the Minister would explain the position with regard to nationals from the European Community, whether British or not, who are resident in Britain and claiming the allowance. Will they be denied entitlement on account of the presence rule even where they were present in another EC state for the previously specified period?
Can the Minister also inform the House for what length of time and under what circumstances people who have secured entitlement to and payment of the disability living allowance or attendance allowance will be allowed to travel or stay abroad while retaining payment of their award? I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am puzzled regarding the eligibility of families of Crown servants, and indeed of the Crown servants themselves. At Committee stage the Minister was kind enough to give me an undertaking with regard to the families of Crown servants receiving severe disablement allowance. Will he please tell the House whether Crown servants and the families of Crown servants will he eligible for disability living allowance under the Bill as it is currently drafted? In order to help me make up my mind should the noble Lord, Lord Carter, divide the House on his amendment, will my noble friend also tell the House whether they would be eligible under the amendment if it was included in the Bill?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made clear, in response to amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Swinfen I announced in Committee that the residence conditions for SDA would be amended to avoid problems for members of the armed forces and their families. I can assure my noble friend that this amendment goes very much further and would prevent perfectly reasonable requirements about residence and presence in this country from being applied to DLA.
It has always been accepted for attendance allowance and mobility allowance and for other non-contributory benefits, that a person should be expected to have established some connection with this country in order to receive benefit. As benefit is paid for by the British taxpayer that is hardly unfair. The amendment would go against that wholly unexceptionable principle.
To reply to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, as I explained in Committee, the Government intend that the residence and presence rules for disability living allowance should be the same as those which apply currently for attendance allowance and invalid care allowance. These are that the claimant is ordinarily resident in Great Britain; is currently present in Great Britain and has been present here for 26 weeks out of the last 12 months.
As I said in Committee, applying the attendance allowance rules to DLA is an improvement for people claiming the mobility component because currently mobility allowance requires presence in 52 weeks out of the last 18 months. That shows that the Government are not intent on placing undue restrictions on the entitlement to benefit of people who have been out of the country.

863
The principle effect of the amendment would be to remove the conditions about presence. In the Government's view a requirement that a person should be present in Great Britain and have been present for 26 weeks in the last 12 months is reasonable. I should also emphasise that people who are absent from Great Britain are deemed to be present in certain circumstances—example, where the person is a member of a forces family or has gone abroad temporarily for medical treatment or where the absence is for some other temporary purpose and has not lasted more that six months. Again, the exemptions show that the rules are not intended to be unduly restrictive.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the European dimension. The position is rather complex. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has recently written to me on the subject and I intend to reply to him soon. In those circumstances it may be helpful if I copy the noble Lord, Lord Carter, into that correspondence, hoping by that means to satisfy him. No doubt I can copy others into the correspondence should they make their wishes known to me.
We believe that our rules on residence and presence are appropriate for a benefit like DLA. We have adopted the tests which currently apply to attendance allowance, so there is certainly a gain for those on the mobility component. I cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which goes somewhat too wide. The noble Lord indicated that the amendment was more in the nature of a probing amendment because he felt he had not had an adequate explanation of the provisions at an earlier stage.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. This started as a probing amendment but, having heard the Minister's reply, I am not sure that is still the case. I take the point about having to establish a connection with the amount the British taxpayer has paid, though I do not entirely agree with it. That would apply to contributory benefits, but what about means-tested benefits? The British taxpayer has obviously paid for them, but the person who receives them does not contribute to the means-tested benefits.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the distinction between contributed benefits and income-related benefits is that the latter are benefits of last resort. That is why merely being here should be enough in such cases.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the other point which the noble Lord did not answer concerned those people who would qualify for DLA under the terminal illness rule but would still be caught by the presence requirements. Perhaps the Minister would kindly reply on that point before we decide on the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is Report stage, but if the noble Lord will bear with me, I should like to come back on that point. If he wants to come back to this at a later stage, that may be appropriate but I prefer to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It is important that he deals with that point. I think we all agreed it would be extremely unfair if the presence test meant that somebody who was terminally ill and who would otherwise qualify for DLA should lose benefit on that ground alone.
I heard what the Minister said about returning to the point at a later stage. I shall almost certainly want to do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 41, after ("person") insert:
(", except a child under the age of 16 who at the request of a paediatrician is accompanied or frequently visited by a parent or guardian who provides prolonged or repeated supervision or attention with his bodily functions while in hospital for medical treatment,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and in the absence of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, who I am afraid is unwell, I move Amendment No. 4.
The purpose of the amendment—and I emphasise the wording,
"at the request of a paediatrician"—
is to allow the parents of disabled children who continue to provide care and support on a regular basis while their children are in hospital undergoing medical treatment to keep their attendance allowance. A number of parents have experienced the withdrawal of their attendance allowance once their children have been in hospital for more than a month, despite the fact that they have continued to provide care on a regular basis in line with current health authority good practice of parents spending as much time as possible with their children while they are in hospital. Once a child has been in hospital for more than 28 days the parents can face withdrawal of attendance allowance for the subsequent period that the child stays in hospital.
I should like to emphasise that the amendment applies only to those parents who are already in receipt of attendance allowance and continue to provide significant levels of care while their children remain in hospital. It would be possible for this group of children to be defined by medical professionals who could confirm that that was the case. Obviously the Secretary of State could by regulations ensure that that group of needy parents were correctly described.
The amendment does not seek to alter the condition regarding respite care over and above the 28-day period but to separate hospital care from the regulations, as we feel that the considerations relating to hospital care do not apply to respite care. The parents to whom I am referring are those who continue to provide care and attention to their child throughout the day and who take over many of the essential nursing tasks. That situation is completely different from respite care where the parents are relieved of caring for short periods.
I have had a good deal of briefing on the matter from a number of disability organisations. Some of the cases they describe are quite harrowing. Those of

865
us who have had experience of parents staying in hospital to help nurse their children will be well aware of what it entails. A typical case would involve the parents of a child suffering from cerebral palsy. Such children go into hospital for complex operations to rectify medical conditions arising from that disability. The parents and children in that situation face enough trauma without the burden of having their essential benefits reduced or taken away after 28 days in hospital, especially when they continue to bear the costs of travelling to hospital on top of the other costs associated with having disabled children. From my own experience, when my son was in hospital I can remember the sheer heroism displayed by a number of parents who had to travel very long distances. They were people on low incomes. They spent some part of each day with their children, as the hospital required, in order to help with their care and attention.
The OPC report on disabled children, which we have heard of a number of times and will no doubt hear of again in discussion on this Bill, shows that in the case of severe disablement parents can face extra costs of over £20 per week. In addition, parents of disabled children already face a loss of income, having only 78 per cent. of the average equivalent income of families with children in the general population. We feel that to reduce further the financial support available to those parents at such a difficult time is very harsh indeed.
I would emphasise that the measure we are proposing is modest in terms of current expenditure. We are talking only about the support of parents whose children stay more than 28 days in hospital and are by definition severely disabled. We are not talking about a large group. We are also not talking about giving them more money but simply not removing the money they are usually entitled to.
The amendment does not propose any relaxation of the principle involved. At Committee stage the Minister said he would not favour a general relaxation of the rules on the payment of attendance allowance or DLA to people staying in hospital for protracted periods. We are not proposing any general relaxation. The whole amendment is hedged around with qualifications to ensure that the general principle is not challenged. To take account of that debate at Committee stage we have redrafted the amendment to make clear that the continued payment of attendance allowance or DLA would be considered only if the hospital paediatrician or specialist certified it as being necessary. That would also allow the Government in subsequent regulations to prescribe the evidence which the adjudication officer feels is needed to ensure that parents are carrying out the requisite care.
As I have said, the amendment is well targeted on a small group of disabled children who are in hospital for medical care and whose parents continue to provide the bulk of that care. Therefore, it addresses the principle of the benefit and fulfils the necessary conditions that the Government seemed to imply at Committee stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the amendment seems to be a very reasonable one. I am a trustee of the Yorkshire Children's Hospital Trust.
866
That trust was founded to provide specialised equipment for children's hospital needs. I give an example. A blind sick child had to be sent from Leeds to Birmingham. The mother had no funds to get to the hospital to be with her child. A Leeds social worker applied to the trust and, happily, we were able to supply the money. The mother stayed with the child. Unfortunately, the child died. We were very pleased to be able to help. There are many families on low incomes. When a child is in hospital it needs its parents or mother.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for her kind words to my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and myself which were quite unnecessary but much appreciated. The noble Baroness understands severe disability because she was knocked over by a motorbike. Happily, she did not become disabled.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. It is now generally agreed that for younger children it is extremely desirable that parents should be at the hospital and taking a full part. That being so, surely they should be encouraged rather than discouraged from doing so through financial reasons.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I support the arguments that have been advanced so far. There is another one that often appeals to governments. I did a lot of work on the earnings rule which applied originally to widows and pensioners before this Government, happily, removed it. It was shown that when benefits were given and then taken back for a short period before being given again, the cost of the bookwork was far greater than the amount of money required to continue to pay the benefit. That has never been more true than it is now. It seems that it will cost far more to change the poll tax than to collect had it been left alone. I am sure that the same argument would apply in the case of a child who had been in hospital for six weeks and then had the matter dealt with. We are not talking about long-term patients. Perhaps that argument will appeal to the Government. I have found in my lifetime that people are usually much more moved by economics than by morals. I suggest that the Government bear that argument in mind.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment. The provision is so well hedged around with restrictions that it does not seem to me that it could be abused. I hope that when he answers this amendment the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of the Government will say how much he considers that this measure would cost. I do not suspect that it would cost a great deal, taking into account the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I should not have thought that it was worth resisting this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, made my point for me. I intended to ask my noble friend what it would cost to switch on these benefits and to switch them off. How long does it take to reinstate the benefit after it has been removed?

867
When the time comes for the child to go home and for the benefit to go on again, how long will the parents have to wait? Delay can cause considerable hardship to families. In addition, one has to bear in mind that we are not just thinking of the child in hospital but also of other small children at home. Parents of a child in hospital who are required to visit and help that child, may well have to pay for care of children at home at considerably greater cost than is covered by the benefit that they will be losing.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope that this will be an occasion on which my noble friend Lord Henley has some good news for the House. There is no doubt that help is required by some parents when their child is in hospital, especially in those cases, about which my noble friend has just told us, in which there are other small children at home. However, I doubt that this Bill is the way to cope with that problem.
Having said that, I observe that subsection (10) of this clause states:
"Regulations may provide that a person shall not be paid any amount in respect of a disability living allowance which is attributable to entitlement to the care component for a period when he is a person for whom accommodation is provided".
That includes in hospital and other forms of material state support. It would be helpful to the House to know how far my noble friend and his department have gone in their thinking.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given way. I missed the reference to the clause in question. Would he repeat it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is Clause 1(10), line 41 on page 4 of the Bill. I said that it would be helpful to know how far my noble friend and his department have gone in laying out these regulations. As he said in Committee, there is a great difficulty. There is a long-established principle in social security and national assistance law to the effect that two sources of support should not be available for the same need from the state.
Having said that, it occurs to me that subsection (10) may, if the regulations were framed correctly, be a way of getting round this problem. I should therefore be grateful if my noble friend could inform us of his department's thinking on that point.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, about the abolition of the earnings rule. I am glad that she recognised it for what it was; namely, a fine act by this Government. I look forward to seeing her come over to join us on these Benches and lend her support on many further occasions.
I understand and have some sympathy with the case put forward by the noble Lord on behalf of his noble friend. I recognise that in tabling the amendment the noble Baroness has gone some way to meet some of the anxieties that I expressed in Committee, particularly in her revised lines requiring that the parent's contribution to the care must specifically be requested by the paediatrician. I am most grateful for that.
868
I shall not weary the House with the arguments that I put forward in Committee. I shall just say that in the generality of cases we are quite sure that the policy of withdrawing DLA after some weeks have been spent in hospital is the right one. The very fact that attendance allowance is payable for the first four weeks of a hospital stay is an indication of the Government's preparedness to be flexible. That was a very valuable easement that we introduced in 1983.
I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and other noble Lords. Quite rightly, there is a valid point of principle that must be borne in mind in our consideration of these matters. There is also the question of cost, a point which was also raised. At this stage I should not like to quantify the cost. It would depend on how many children are involved. I should need to look at the point. I should also like to examine the matter of administrative cost, which was again a very valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips.
I do not argue that the costs would be very great. I should not ever want to argue the cost line to resist this amendment. It is quite right that where costs are great, excessive or even substantial it is our duty to make clear to the House that such and such an amendment would have a considerable cost. The Government should exercise some responsibility over how they spend taxpayers' money. However, as I said, today I do not in any way want to argue the case of cost.
I do not advocate the adoption of this amendment but it is an issue at which I am prepared to have another look. I should be happy to explore it further. The noble Lord may wish to come to see me or perhaps send his noble friend Lady Hollis—it might be better. If they want to come to see me and discuss the matter I shall certainly take the issue on board. I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, his noble friend and certainly anybody else that they wish to accompany them.
I do not want to minimise the difficulties or raise any false hopes, but my understanding is that this is not an area in which we need primary legislation. Should it prove to be so there is anyway some time before this Bill has its Third Reading. I am convinced that on this occasion there would be more sense in exploring the issue outside the Chamber on a more informal basis.
With the assurance that I shall look very seriously at this matter to consider whether something sensible can be devised, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I am not sure why he feels that he should see my noble friend Lady Hollis instead of me, but if that will help to convince him, I shall certainly send her along. As he said, we tried to go some way to meet the anxieties of the Government.
Perhaps I may make just one point. The noble Lord referred to the generality of cases. This is not the generality of cases. We are talking about a small group. The noble Lord recognised that it is not an argument about the cost. That is extremely helpful, and on those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) A payment to or in respect of any person which is attributable to his entitlement to the care component and the right to receive such a payment shall (except in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed purposes) be disregarded in applying any enactment or instrument under which regard is to be had to a person's means.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment may I also join with my noble friend in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for her kind remarks. They were, as my noble friend said, unnecessary. I am sure that the Minister will realise that I cannot resist making the point that it is relatively easy for my noble friend and I to be reasonably effective because we are able to meet our extra costs, which are so crucial to effective disabled living. But there we are, I shall rapidly move on to Amendment No. 5.
This is an amendment that I moved and withdrew in Committee. Its purpose is to ensure that disabled people in receipt of a care component are not expected to contribute it to services provided by a local authority or health authority. The Spinal Injuries Association says that this has been a growing problem for its members, who are expected to contribute AA to personal and home help services, and also, for example, for the supply of incontinence pads.
I have tabled the amendment again to pursue some of the points raised in discussion in Committee. There are three main points. First, the Department of Health intends to issue guidance to local authorities and health authorities on income assessment for community care. In Committee I asked if disability organisations could be consulted to put the consumer's viewpoint. The Minister replied on 7th March at col. 1572 that he was not in a position to make a promise about guidance issued by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. I accept that, but will the Minister accept that there is a strong overlap between the two departments and agree to ask his right honourable friend to consult formally with the disability organisations?
For my next point I return to remarks made by the Minister on 14th June 1990 at the Report stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill about using the attendance allowance for local authority services. He did not expand on his remarks when I asked him to in Committee, so I am giving him the opportunity to do so now. On 14th June 1990, at col. 466 of Hansard, the Minister said that,
"the local authority would be right not to take it"—
that is, attendance allowance, now the care component—
"into account if it was being spent on attendance needs not covered by the services the local authority was providing".
If the recipient is having to buy extra services elsewhere can we take it that he will not be asked to pay his attendance allowance? I gave the Minister notice of those two questions, so I hope he will be able to give me a positive response.
I did not warn the noble Lord about a third question, which is crucial to this whole issue. The Minister said twice in Committee on 7th March, at cols. 1571 and 1573, that,
"where a benefit is designed to pay for services which a local authority provides it is quite proper for that local authority to take the benefit into account in calculating charges for these services".
I argued twice—cols. 1570 and 1573—that attendance allowance was not designed specifically to pay for care but to help meet the general extra costs of a disabled person's daily living. DIG—the Disablement Income Group—has always stated that firmly, and the group was around at the time.
Research carried out by Professor Sally Baldwin as part of a PhD thesis at the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at York University shows the following points. Attendance allowance was introduced in response to Amelia Harris's first survey on disability. It was intended as a means of raising the incomes of disabled people and in particular to focus on those people who were most severely disabled. Attendance was used as a criterion for assessing and identifying those people. It was up to those entitled to the benefit to decide how to spend it. Since its introduction its title has led to confusion about the allowance. It is most important to recognise that it is not specifically intended for attendance, but that attendance is the criterion used for entitlement to it.
I hope that is enough to demonstrate that attendance allowance is not a specific benefit to be charged in return for personal services. It is an important benefit for the total income of a household that has a severely disabled member and therefore considerable additional costs. As many severely disabled people rely on hours of unpaid care from a relative or close friend, local authorities who take this money out of the household are taking it from those unpaid carers.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, but if he cannot reply now—and, as I say, I did not warn him that I would be pursuing that issue—perhaps he will write to me; and I hope that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will take the point into account when he is issuing the guidance. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to this amendment. It has been well argued by the noble Baroness. Perhaps the best thing I can do is to quote from a brief I received from the Disablement Income Group just before the debate. It states that its,
"Advisory Service has seen over the past year a great increase in the number of inquiries about home help services".
The group adds:
"Introduction of and an increase in charges made for home help and home care services. There is a worrying trend for charges being made where attendance allowance is received".
The DIG quotes the example of Hertfordshire where the client is receiving no benefit except attendance allowance. There is a charge of £15 per week. The group states:
"These are flat rate weekly charges and are not based on hours needed, so someone needing two hours per week pays the same as someone needing eight. The charges are to be paid 52 weeks a year regardless of whether or not you are there to receive the service (spells in hospital or holidays)".

871
The group continues, referring to a lady in Hertfordshire who,
"tells us that people getting attendance allowance are 'up in arms' about the charges. She uses her attendance allowance to cover her high heating bills incurred as a result of rheumatoid arthritis and has difficulty in scraping together the money for the service. She will have to pay the highest charge of £15. The attendance allowance will only be ignored if you are already using it all to pay for attendance".
Then there is the example of Cheshire:
"They are considering making an automatic charge where attendance allowance is paid, even if the client is receiving income support".
Those two counties are interpreting the rules differently. The DIG further states that Essex,
"also considers attendance allowance to be available to pay for care and again the highest charges are levied on attendance allowance recipients".
This is a worrying situation not only because of the general principle, well enunciated by the noble Baroness when she moved the amendment, but to show that different parts of the country and different local authorities are interpreting the situation in different ways. In principle, they are surely wrong to regard attendance allowance as being available for the provision of local authority services.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I add just a few more of the extra expenses incurred by disabled people and the worrying situation of the privatisation of certain facilities? If there is incontinence—and sometimes there is double incontinence—there is a lot of extra washing and the extra cost of water which is an essential of life. This is very worrying to severely disabled people. There is the extra cost of electricity for drying things and the extra cost if items are sent to a laundry.
Now I find that there is a new extra cost; and this is absolutely vital. In London I used to be able to get some deliveries of food. I could ring up the Army and Navy stores and the store would deliver to my flat. However, the store now charges £6 for delivery of essential items such as food. That is difficult for disabled people who cannot get out of their houses. If they are able to get out, sometimes they cannot park the car, or cannot get out of the car unaided. If you can get a good, reliable carer—and that is getting more difficult—there is the extra expense. We must remember that we now have more elderly people in our population than younger people, and the situation is developing all the time. Therefore, the problems are going to get worse, not better.
I have taken up the matter of incontinence with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. There are some awful stories of people having to wash out incontinence pads and dry them out on the line, and so on. In a society such as ours people should not have to do that. Therefore, in mentioning these extra costs which are happening all the time—there seem to be extra costs every week—I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to this amendment.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, some very good points have been brought out by the two noble Baronesses. I am fascinated too, because there is one small point that I am sure a lot of noble Lords are aware of, certainly those who wear glasses. Should
872
you take your glasses off, you say, "Damn it, I can't see what that thing is saying. Is the sign saying 'on' or 'off'.
There is a specific point about home help. Noble Baronesses will know better than noble Lords that one must hoover a home. A hoover has an electric lead which can be dangerous to people who are blind or partially sighted. One can trip up on the lead. You can laugh until it happens to you; you can laugh until you are in a single storey house and trip over the lead near the stairs; you can laugh until you consider that the partially sighted person using the hoover lives on his or her own and is trying to clean the house.
I wished to add those points to the excellent points raised by the two noble Baronesses. I also agree with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. If it were not for the likes of the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Masham, people in wheelchairs would not be correctly represented. They know how awkward it can be to do the normal things that others usually do after breakfast, for instance. It is difficult to operate in a wheelchair and one needs help. I agree entirely with the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, when the same amendment was moved in Committee I explained that it would create difficulties for local authorities by restricting their ability to charge for services. I must again advise your Lordships against amending a social security Bill in a way that could have far-reaching consequences outside the social security system.
In the Government's view the only sensible approach is to maintain the status quo. I emphasise that this is all the Bill seeks to achieve. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out that maintaining the status quo results in one rule for the mobility component and another for the care component. I agree that that looks a little untidy. But the fact is that different considerations apply to the two components. While I believe that it is acceptable to continue to provide for a general disregard of the mobility component I do not accept that it is wrong to leave local authorities with the discretion to take the care component or attendance allowance into account in deciding what to charge for certain services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said that the Department of Health had in the past asked local authorities to disregard attendance allowance in deciding home help charges. Certainly there was a circular to that effect published in 1971, but events have moved on. In particular the 1983 Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication Act gave local authorities discretion to charge for welfare services, including day and domiciliary care. But perhaps more important, in the years since 1971 local authorities have more and more been developing services which are particularly designed to meet at least some of the personal care needs for which attendance allowance is intended. In many places home help has changed to home care, which includes personal care. Day centres and other local authority services may also cater for personal care needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said that attendance allowance was not intended to pay for

873
care. A person can hardly expect to be provided at public expense with both cash and services to meet the same need. Where the local authority is providing personal care it is surely perfectly reasonable for it to have the discretion—it is only a discretion—to take attendance allowance into account when deciding what to charge.
I can confirm that as part of the preparations for community care the Department of Health intends to issue new guidance on charging by local authorities. The local authority associations will be consulted before the guidance is issued. I understand that the Department of Health will also be happy to receive representations from disability organisations on the subject, although formal consultation is not planned.
I emphasise that in the White Paper Caring for People the Government made it clear that they had no intention of changing the current deliberately very flexible arrangements under which local authorities can charge whatever is reasonable in the circumstances for day and domiciliary care. If a user represents that he cannot afford to pay a charge the local authority is statutorily required to reduce the charge to such amount, if any, as appears reasonable. These arrangements are longstanding and I am not aware that they lead to any significant problems. In particular I do not believe that local authorities make excessive charges or that the provision of necessary services is made dependent on a person's ability to pay.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. It would be wrong to use a social security Bill to make changes which have no effect at all on social security but cause unnecessary and undesirable disruption for local authorities. I hope that the noble Baroness has noted that the department will be happy to receive representations on the subject and that therefore she will make such representations.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to ask the Minister a question about the home help service. He said that the helpers, now called home carers, carried out a personal service. They no longer clean people's houses and, therefore, if disabled people do not wish to live in dirty houses they must pay for somebody to clean their houses. That is one more extra expense.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was trying to point out that if home helps are providing personal care, surely it is reasonable for the authority to have the discretion to take into account the attendance allowance, which is provided for personal care, when deciding what to charge.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister address the point that I made about the three counties which I mentioned, all of which are interpreting the situation differently? I am sure that if he carried out a survey over the whole country he would discover that many local authorities and social services departments are
874
handling the matter in different ways. Will the drafting of the regulations that he mentioned have any effect on the situation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is obvious that if local authorities are given a discretion they will use it in different ways. We have had this argument on many occasions. Is the noble Lord suggesting that on no occasion should we give local authorities discretion?
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am sure he will realise that I am not totally overjoyed by it. I am glad to hear that the disability organisations can make representations to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, I should prefer the organisations to be consulted formally. I am far less happy about the rest of his reply. The crucial matter is the intention of the attendance allowance. On several occasions the Minister said that in 1983 a discretion was given to local authorities to charge for services. However, did the purpose for which the attendance allowance was intended also change? On three occasions in his reply the Minister said that it was right to charge attendance allowance because that was given to provide for personal care. I still wish to query that statement. Is the Minister willing to investigate the matter and write to me about it?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to clarify a point which if it stays on the record unclarified might lead to misunderstanding. I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to say that the local authorities no longer provide the kind of home helps who clean the floor. I know that some local authorities do not do so as frequently, but surely it is not correct to say that they are not providing such vital help. Can that matter be clarified for the record because many people may be confused?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is nothing to prevent a local authority providing that sort of' help if it so wishes. I thought that I had made clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), that it is for the recipient to decide how the benefit is spent but it is paid in respect of personal care needs. If the noble Baroness is not happy with that response, I shall have another look at the matter and write to her. However, I understand that that is the purpose behind the attendance allowance.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should be grateful to the Minister if he would pursue that and write to me. He said that it is for the recipient to decide how to spend the allowance. That is not necessarily the same as spending on personal care as the DIG has always said and as Professor Sally Baldwin found in her PhD thesis. However, I am grateful to the Minister and if he does not write to me I shall pursue the matter by way of Written Questions and other means. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 10, leave out "5" and insert "2".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the mobility component to

875
children over the age of two with disabilities who require much more help with mobility than children of the same age without disability.
We discussed the matter in Committee but I do not apologise for bringing it again to the attention of the House. It is very important. The lower age limit of five years for the mobility component of the DLA has been carried over from the existing rules on mobility allowance. The argument for having a lower age limit is that all children under five, whether or not they are disabled, could be considered to have mobility problems. Organisations representing disabled children have argued that specific mobility problems can be distinguished well before the age of five in most cases.
The proposed new Section 37ZC(2) specifies already that children under the age of 16 must satisfy an additional test of requiring,
"substantially more guidance or supervision from another person than persons of his age in normal physical and mental health would require".
I see no reason why that condition should not be used equally for children over the age of two to ensure that only those with substantially greater needs receive the allowance.
The first few years in the life of a disabled child can be very expensive for families. On a previous amendment we referred to an OPCS survey which showed that the standard of living is likely to be squeezed by a parent's loss of, or reduction in, earnings as well as the extra costs of a disability. Where spare money is available, the OPCS and other studies show that more is spent on relieving the extra needs of the disabled child. However, many families must go without and the disabled child's health and wellbeing being may suffer as a result.
The OPCS survey showed—and this is not surprising—that travel is the most expensive additional cost experienced by families with a disabled child. One can quote from one' own experience. Parents may need to purchase a car or a second car specifically because of the child's special needs. It may be necessary also to hire taxis or pay for lifts where it is difficult or impossible to use public transport.
The matter was raised in Committee in another place and here. I do not apologise for returning to it because I do not believe that we were given a satisfactory answer. In another place the Minister, Miss Widdecombe, argued that there had to he a lower age limit and, given that there must be an arbitrary line, it was sensible to draw that line at the age of five. She referred to that age as the statutory age at which a child is entitled to education. Therefore, she thought it sensible to set the lower age limit for the mobility component at the age of five on the same grounds. She said that if the age limit for education was lowered, the Government would need to look again at that. However, we know that the age from which a disabled child can be assessed for education is two years. Therefore, if the logic of the Minister's argument is followed, the limit for the mobility component should also be two years.
As I said, the other conditions for the component ensure that only disabled children with significantly greater mobility problems than non-disabled children
876
of the same age would qualify were the amendment to be accepted. The point was put extremely well by Mr. Dafydd Wigley in another place when he said that,
"where there is an identifiable additional need for mobility costs, as there is for many profoundly handicapped children of 3 or 4, there must be some way of responding. It is nonsense to close the door on even the most profoundly handicapped child who needs considerable assistance to get about and say that he is in the same category as an able bodied child who simply needs someone to supervise him while he runs about".
That is just not sensible. Many disabled children will have care needs but no mobility needs. Therefore, we are speaking of a small number of children whose disabilities are so severe that they have expensive mobility needs as well as expensive care needs which are distinguishable from a very early age. The Minister cannot assume that those families who receive a care component will necessarily receive sufficient money to cover care needs let alone have any spare money to meet mobility needs.
There is an immense difference between supervising a non-disabled child who is able to walk and climb on and off a bus and having to travel by taxi or private care with a child who suffers from cerebral palsy, who is mentally handicapped, who has violent and involuntary movements or epileptic fits or who may scream constantly and require to be accompanied by two adults.
The Government have estimated that the amendment may cost £30 million per year. If that is the case and the problem is the question of cost rather than principle, implementation could take place in stages. For example, perhaps the Minister will be prepared to say that the Government will consider an immediate reduction to the age of four to be followed by further reductions over time as funds become available. Something should be done for these families.
This is an important amendment. It does not affect a large number of children although the cost may seem high. The Minister was extremely helpful on this matter when I moved an amendment in Committee as regards severely disabled children in hospital. I hope that he will respond in the same way to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I support the amendment with which my noble friend Lord Winstanley is also associated. It was moved very competently by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I endorse all that he said.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he remained convinced that the right age limit is five. However, he stressed that the cost would be £30 million. Either it is not the right age limit, or it is the right age limit but the cost is prohibitive. The Minister referred to the last Labour Government fixing the limit for this benefit at age five. We have now had some time to experience that age limit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed out in Committee, we now see that there are strong arguments for lowering the age limit to the age of two. If, on reflection, the Minister is impressed by the argument of his two noble friends, then he must fall back on the cost ground. It does not seem to me, mindful as I am of the need to take care in this area of expenditure, that £30 million is too costly for the extension of the benefit.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that I am precluded from arguing on grounds of cost and other grounds. I emphasise the cost of such an amendment. In Committee I said that to lower the age to two would cost £30 million. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, pressed me to do some "salami slicing", if I may use that phrase, and calculate costs for different ages. I assure the noble Lord that the costs are still very expensive. Reduction to the age of four would cost £15 million, reduction to the age of three would cost £25 million and, as I said, reduction to the age of two would cost £30 million.
Although I emphasise the problem of cost, I do not say that that must be the prime consideration. The other consideration must be the Government's principal anxiety to set the level at the most appropriate point, having regard to all relevant factors. The most important is the age at which the generality of disabled children begin to have markedly greater needs than the generality of those who are not disabled. We are convinced, as were the previous Labour Government, that the most appropriate point for the age limit remains at five years—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. In passing I may say that I do not know what the attitude of the previous Liberal Government was.
Some noble Lords may say that the Government believe the age of five is right because that is what it has always been. But I can assure your Lordships that the Government do not have a closed mind on these matters. The fact that the lower age limit for attendance allowance was abolished last year shows clearly that the Government are prepared to make changes when changes are justified.
As I said in Committee, in the case of the lower age limit for attendance allowance the Government were persuaded by strong evidence from paediatricians and others that abolition was appropriate because it is now clear that some young babies require substantially more care than others. But for the mobility component the arguments in favour of retaining a lower age limit of five are as strong today as they were when the then Labour Government first introduced it. No one is denying that it may be apparent before the age of five that a child is unlikely ever to be able to walk. The question is whether that disability causes extra costs over and above those incurred by parents looking after children of the same age who are not disabled
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, perhaps I could say in passing that any child between the ages of two and five who was so severely disabled as to benefit from the amendment would most likely be entitled to one of the three rates of care component, and probably one of the higher of those three rates.
The fact is that, as I said in Committee, below the age of five we all have some mobility needs. No child under five can be expected to walk any great distance. Nor can any child under five be expected to go far from its home without guidance and supervision. True, some people may be less able to make use of public transport if their children are disabled. But that will not always be the case and there are other reasons than disability why public transport may be difficult to
878
use—as any mother trying to get on a bus with two small children and a week's shopping will know and as my noble friend Lord Swinfen said at Committee stage.
I hope noble Lords will agree that it is not really possible to talk of any child under the age of five as being independently mobile. For all parents, taking young children out presents problems and can be costly. Disability may present different problems but it has not been demonstrated that in general the mobility needs of disabled children under the age of five create significant extra costs. It is possible to point to exceptional cases. But as with any dividing line a case can always be made for including some of those who fall on the wrong side of it.
As I said in Committee, it is at the age of five that most children start school and in many cases begin making journeys on their own. The Government remain convinced that this is the most sensible point at which to start distinguishing between the mobility needs of children with and without disabilities. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I see the point the noble Lord makes regarding children under the age of five needing to be accompanied. However, it is common in many areas for children to attend play school before the age of five. If that is so, then the case for the allowance is surely much stronger because the children need to attend regularly. Is it possible that, if a child were to be accepted into such a school before compulsory schooling age, then the question of the mobility allowance could be considered?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I do not believe that the noble Baroness's suggestion would be an easy change to introduce into social security legislation without matters becoming endlessly complicated. Even if a child attended school before the age of five, as many children do, as likely as not the child would still be accompanied, disabled or not. Children of that age are not independently mobile.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for his response, if not awfully happy about it. Perhaps I may deal with the point concerning the previous Labour Government, to which the noble Lord referred twice—he referred to it also in Committee. That was 12 years ago and from experience it was wrong. I am perfectly prepared to have that on the record.
Lord Henley; My Lords, the noble Lord said that the previous Labour Government were wrong. Is he speaking of all the policies of the previous Labour Government or just this one specific matter?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is a remarkable display of forensic skill. I was referring to the decision of the previous Labour Government regarding the age limit of five, as the noble Lord is well aware. From experience we now know that that was wrong.
I could not entirely understand from the noble Lord's answer whether he was referring to cost or

879
other grounds, or both; he seemed to switch from one to the other. In Committee he gave the answer that children in this condition would be receiving the care component. That is so. But that is for care, not mobility. That is why it is called the care component. We are discussing the mobility allowance and the exceptional cases where extra costs of mobility are incurred.
The noble Lord's answer—I do not mean this in any personal sense—was rather detached from the reality of having to bring up disabled or severely handicapped children and the problems involved. No attempt was made to rest on the argument which the Government appeared to use in another place—that because five was the age for ordinary education needs, that was the age to use. We said, and the point has not been answered, that the education age of children requiring special needs is two. If the education age of five is right for non-disabled children, because that is the age at which they must attend school, obviously two is the correct age for children with special needs.
We offered to try to reduce the age to four and then three. The Minister did not seem to be prepared to accept that. The best we can do is to ask the opinion of the House.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 96.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hughes, L.

Attlee, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Kagan, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilhracken, L.

Boston of Faversham. L.

Kissin. L.

Bottomley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Harteliffe. L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon. V.

Ogmore, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

880

Turner of Camden, B.

White, B.

Underhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Joseph, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Knollys, V.

Astor, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein. V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norrie, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cross, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pennock, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pym, L.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selkirk, E.

Flather, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Greenway, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gridley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Waddington, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 13, at end insert:
("(aa) he falls within subsection (1A) below; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in discussing Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 13, at end insert:
("(ab) he falls within subsection (1B) below; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert:

881
("(1A) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is both blind and deaf; and

(b) he satisfies such other conditions as may be prescribed.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert:
("(1B) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is severely mentally impaired; and

(b) he displays severe behavioural problems; and

(c) he satisfies both the conditions mentioned in section 37ZB(1) (b) and (c) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15:
Page 5, line 35, after ("(b)") insert ("or subsection (1A) (a)").
Page 5, line 35, at end insert:
"(3A) Regulations shall specify the cases which fall within subsection (1B) (a) and (b) above.
(3B) A person who is to be taken for the purposes of section 37ZB above to satisfy or not to satisfy a condition mentioned in subsection (1) (b) or (c) of that section is to be taken to satisfy or not to satisfy it for the purposes of subsection (1B)(c) above.").
Page 5, line 49, leave out ("(1) (a) and (b)") and insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("the condition mentioned in subsection (1) (a)") and insert ("one or other of the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) (a), (aa) and (ab)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("either") and insert ("the mobility").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will allow people who become disabled after the age of 65 to apply for all three rates of the care component of DLA. That is an important step towards redressing the discrimination which older people face in disability benefits. We debated this matter in Committee. We read the Minister's answer with some care and we now return to the matter. The cost of the amendment would relate only to the lowest £10 rate of DLA as the two higher rates are equivalent to the two levels of the attendance allowance.
The Government have estimated the cost to be £165 million, which is considerably less than the cost of removing the upper age limit completely for entitlement to DLA. I am not sure whether the Minister has looked at Hansard for 7th March, col. 1584, and our debate in Committee. The Minister referred to the cost as £165 million. In reply to me the Minister said:
"I am sure that even the noble Lord will accept that that is not an inconsiderate sum".
I think that that is a Freudian slip on the part of the Hansard writer. In Committee the Government again argued the need to target extra help at younger
882
disabled people. They stated, not for the first time, that the OPCS surveys considered the levels of income of disabled and non-disabled people below pension age. Above pension age there is not the disparity of income which exists below pension age. As the surveys indicated, the differences in income between disabled and non-disabled pensioners are small because the pensioners are largely dependent on state benefits. On average they have lower incomes than non-pensioners. The majority of pensioners rely on state benefits for at least three-quarters of their income. The OPCS surveys clearly show that disabled pensioners are no better off financially than younger disabled people. We hope that the Minister will not argue that somehow they should be able to bear the cost of the disability because in some way they are better off.
There is also the tendency to see disability as a normal part of ageing. Discrimination solely on the grounds of age helps to fuel the assumption that older people should accept a level of disability which would be unacceptable to younger people. It serves to increase dependence on others for everyday tasks. The Bill attempts to recognise the needs of the less severely disabled people by introducing the new and lowest £10 rate for people over the age of 65. We have to congratulate the Government on that. People over 65 may have identical needs—for example, help with bodily functions for part of the day, or help with preparing a main meal—but are not able to claim the lowest rate.
Therefore, we can see no justification for excluding people over the age of 65 from benefits which aim to help with the costs of disability. For the minority who are disabled, their special needs and extra expenses do not decrease as they grow older. The Government have argued that pensioners have been enjoying large increases in average incomes. The implication was that people who become disabled after 65 should have had the opportunity to build up a sufficient income to be able to afford the extra costs of disability. This is not the place to go into the argument of whether the extra costs of disability should be met by a comprehensive disability cost allowance irrespective of means.
Many older people did not have the opportunity to benefit from SERPS or from occupational and personal pension schemes. There will always be people who, because of unemployment, low pay, their caring responsibilities or illness, are not able to build up significant entitlements for their retirement. Pensioners' incomes on average are considerably lower than the incomes of people of below pension age. We explored this ground at the Committee stage. We were not satisfied with the Minister's answer. I hope that this time he will be able to be more helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot take the noble Lord any further other than to assure him that when I said it was not an "inconsiderate sum" I meant to say "a not inconsiderable sum". I think that even the noble Lord, in his wildest whatevers, would accept that £165 million is a very large sum of money.
In framing the measures contained in this Bill, and indeed in the whole package of changes which started last year to restructure and improve provision for

883
people with disabilities, the Government took a conscious decision to target additional resources on disabled people under pension age. That decision does not imply any lack of regard for the needs of elderly people. The Government have, through other means to which I shall refer later, done a great deal to help pensioners, including those with disabilities, and have paid particular attention to the needs of those who depend primarily or solely on state benefits. I should also emphasise that no pensioner will get less help with the extra costs of disability as a result of the Bill.
Very many pensioners receive disability benefits and will continue to do so. As I pointed out in Committee, 543,000 attendance allowance recipients—64 per cent. of the total—are over pension age. Twenty-eight per cent. of those on mobility allowance are pensioners too. For the latter group this Bill is especially significant because the current upper age limit of 80 for receiving mobility allowance has not been carried forward into DLA. Once awarded, all rates of DLA will continue to be payable regardless of age, so long as the qualifying conditions are met.
Again, as I explained in Committee, the Government understand the desire of noble Lords to try to take the opportunity of this Bill to provide further help to people who are both disabled and pensioners. As I said then and as I have just repeated, the amendment would cost £165 million. It is the task of this Government—and for that matter any government—to weigh up competing priorities and find ways of directing help most effectively to those who need it. Our judgment has been that our main priorities over the past couple of years should be poorer pensioners, who received an extra £280 million in those past couple of years by way of improvements to income support premiums; younger disabled people, who will get an extra £300 million by 1993-94 through The Way Ahead package; and families with children, particularly lone parents, whom we are seeking to help through the Child Support Bill. All told, that adds up to nearly £650 million extra over the past couple of years. That is additional to the excellent record of provision for the long-term sick and disabled and all recipients of benefits in the social security system.
I do not apologise for the Government's record. In fact, I am very proud of it. Nor do I apologise for their choice of priorities. A great deal has been done and will continue to be done to meet the needs of pensioners. This Bill, however, is intended to give extra help to the younger disabled people. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment. I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister made a great deal of the £165 million, which I can well understand. According to The Times this morning, that is rather less than the cost of reissuing the poll tax bills. There is no attempt to suggest perhaps a higher age for eligibility at, say, 75, which would at least help. It is obvious that the Government are not prepared to move on this matter. As I said in Committee—I do not apologise for repeating it—we have different criteria for the care and mobility components. The care and
884
mobility allowances have been converted into one allowance but the two components have different criteria. I do not propose to carry the argument further. It is obvious that the Government will not change their mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, I should mention that if Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 21.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert:
("( ) Claims for the disability living allowance must be made within the prescribed time.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis, who is absent through illness. We discussed this matter in Committee but we did not feel that we received a convincing answer. We should therefore like to try once more to change the Government's mind.
The basic objective of the amendment is to provide greater flexibility in the time limits for claiming DLA. Under the amendment a person would be able to have his benefit backdated provided he could show good cause for failing to claim earlier. As they presently stand the rules are harsher than for most other benefits. The fact of a disability itself provides the strongest case for greater rather than less flexibility in the rules attached to the benefit. We know that the principle of good cause exists in social security law to allow justice to be done in individual cases, where, for example, an applicant was misled by incorrect official advice and so delayed his or her claim. It is by no means a lenient area of case law. Ignorance does not count as good cause and the burden of proof is always on the claimant. Noble Lords are perhaps aware of the case that has been started in County Durham which is leading the department to look very hard indeed at this whole area of case law.
There is at the moment no backdating of either attendance or mobility allowance on the grounds of good cause. Obviously the Government are carrying this over into DLA. The provision for backdating is common to most benefits. It was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hollis in Committee. Applicants for unemployment benefit, invalidity benefit, disablement benefit, reduced earnings allowance, community charge benefit, sickness benefit, income support, housing benefit, family credit and the social fund all have the right to backdate claims. The Minister may well respond that in some of these cases it is allowable because of the nature of the benefit and because there is a clear point at which one becomes unemployed or requires income support or family credit. This is not the case with sickness benefit, invalidity benefit or disablement benefit, all of which can have a variable and arguable date of commencement. I hope therefore that the Minister will not use that argument.
We feel that it is inconsistent to penalise people with the restrictions imposed on them by the very disability that entitled them to the benefit in the first place. The Minister said in Committee:
"The questions of whether a person has care or mobility needs, at what level, when the needs first arose and whether they have become more serious require more sophisticated judgments. To attempt to make such retrospective judgments the adjudication officer would need much more evidence than we plan to collect under the new self-assessment procedures".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1587.]
I have already made the point that, in the case of the three benefits where there is already backdating and where there is an indeterminate starting point, this has to be argued and proved. We accept that providing retrospective proof to meet the mobility and care criteria will not be easy. But the same is true of other disability benefits where backdating is allowed. There is no reason why DLA should present any greater problems. The proof of eligibility for a benefit will always depend on the claimant with respect to all benefits. There is no reason why the self-assessment procedure should present any greater problem in deciding such claims. If the proof of prior eligibility cannot be provided, the backdating rule can simply be refused, as applies to all the other benefits.
The case is a good one. Disabled people will be under a disadvantage if the Government do not accept the thrust of the argument. We are quite prepared to redraft the amendment for Third Reading if the Minister accepts the argument behind it but feels that the wording is not quite right. I hope that he will be able to give us a better answer than he was able to give us in Committee. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe I can safely suppose that the House and the noble Lord will generally welcome the new adjudication and assessment arrangements which we propose to introduce for DLA and AA. The noble Lord will know that there are government amendments to follow which deal with that issue. He will also know that our aims as regards adjudication and assessment are very clear: fewer medical examinations, more reliance on self-assessment, speedier clearance of claims and reviews. If one phrase is needed to summarise our approach as regards the service to our customers, if I may so call them, then it must be the one already coined in another place. I refer to that rather awful expression, "less hassle".
I am afraid that the amendments proposed would not comply with those objectives. To introduce a provision for backdating would endanger all that we are aiming to achieve. That is as true whether there is a specific time limit or an open-ended and extremely generous "good cause" provision allowing unlimited backdating, possibly for many years. I believe that the noble Lord referred to the cases in Durham which relate to claims for additional requirements under the old supplementary benefit, and its predecessors, going back to 1948. Those cases clearly show how necessary it was to change to the much simpler provisions of income support with the disability premium which goes automatically to anyone receiving attendance allowance, mobility allowance or DLA.
The noble Lord pointed out, as the noble Baroness argued in Committee, that many other benefits have self-assessment but that they also have backdating
886
provisions. I accept that fact. However, other benefits do not require the levels of judgment which are needed to determine entitlement to DLA. Take, for example, invalidity benefit, to which the noble Lord referred. That benefit is payable where a person is incapable of work. Incapacity is determined by a doctor who provides a medical certificate. If the claimant can provide such a certificate from a doctor, the adjudicating officer can consider backdating the period of the award.
However, doctors simply cannot play anything like such a central role in DLA assessment. I believe that that factor is generally accepted. I think that we are all agreed that doctors are not always best-placed to judge the effects that a person's disability may have upon his life, which is what is needed for DLA. I am sure that the only way in which we could devise a system which would be susceptible to decisions about backdating would be if we were to link entitlement to diagnosis. Yet we are constantly being exhorted, quite rightly, not to focus on the diagnosis but on the effect of the person's condition. That is where self-assessment comes in. But self-assessment would become extremely difficult if we had not only to establish the current situation of a disabled person, but also precisely how long he had satisfied the conditions of entitlement, bearing in mind that where a progressive disorder is concerned the person may have satisfied different qualifying conditions for different periods. That means much more lengthy claim forms. I believe that the noble Lord commented on the length of some claim forms. It will also mean more exchanges of correspondence and, in practically every case, medical examinations.
Yet again I must emphasise that we believe that prevention is the best cure. That means that we must ensure that the new benefits are well publicised so that people can claim them on time. I believe that our record on the threefold increase in attendance allowance recipients and the sixfold increase in mobility allowance for recipients over the past 11 to 12 years is something of which we can be proud. It shows that we are concerned to reach as many people as possible. In the circumstances, I cannot support the amendment.
I share with the noble Lord a desire to improve the administrative arrangements for disability benefits. Nevertheless, these amendments would seriously endanger our chances of making those improvements. I trust that, when we debate other aspects of administrative arrangements later today, I shall be able to be more helpful. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should first apologise to the House that when I moved Amendment No. 20 I should have stressed the fact that I was speaking also to Amendment No. 23.
I cannot help wondering whether the Government's attitude on this occasion is affected by the Durham case. That will have considerable repercussions. I can understand their concern as regards the principle of backdating and its likely outcome. Nevertheless, I take the point made by the Minister.

887
If the debate has done nothing else, it has at least emphasised the fact that the publicity for the new allowances must be effective. We should not, therefore, have the same problem which arose with other benefits; namely, a very slow take-up rate, after which the Government publicised the allowances in order to increase the take-up. I shall be pressing very hard to ensure that the Government publicise the new allowances so that the problem of backdating does not arise. It is obvious that the Government are not prepared to accept our arguments. I do not, however, intend to divide the House on the issue. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("or treated as made").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 32. In Committee I confirmed that the Government had willingly decided to adopt the very sensible suggestion made by the Disability Alliance for dealing with claims for DLA.
The amendments to Clause I provide the power to treat claims for DLA as having been made from the date the department receives a simple tear-off slip. I believe that I mentioned that fact in Committee. Disabled people will send in the tear-off slip and then take the time they need to complete their self-assessment statement and to marshal evidence about the effect that their disability has on their lives. Amendment No. 32 is a consequential amendment to Schedule 2. It will allow the same system to be introduced for attendance allowance. These are entirely beneficial amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 30, after ("made") insert ("or treated as made").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Management of disability living allowance and attendance allowance]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 19, line 10, at end insert:
(" . In section 98 of the 1975 Act, after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(4) Where a claim for disability living allowance or attendance allowance is submitted, by or on behalf of a person, and the adjudication officer is unable to ascertain entitlement, he shall direct that the claimant be interviewed by an advisory visiting officer.
(4A) The role of such visiting officers shall be to advise claimants on the criteria for entitlement, elicit the relevant information and assist claimants in presenting relevant particulars in furtherance of their claim.
(4B) Such an adviser shall be specially trained in the circumstances and needs of people with disabilities; in the conditions of entitlement for these benefits; and in interviewing skills.
(4C) The Secretary of State shall ensure the adequate resourcing, and monitoring of the work of such advisers and shall report annually to Parliament on their activities, performance and standards." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that claimants will be provided with the necessary information. As I am sure everyone appreciates, the current system of social security benefits is extremely complicated. For example, I find great difficulty in unravelling all the provisions and have to make frequent reference to the appropriate manuals to find out the true meaning.
The system has become complicated for many reasons. That has emerged in a piecemeal fashion over the years, stemming from the original Beveridge blueprint. Successive governments have added to it and, indeed, have sometimes taken away parts of it. Moreover, there has been a new Social Security Act for at least each of the past four years. Many of those Acts provide for benefits to be amended or altered by way of regulation, rather than in primary legislation. Further, some benefits are paid only as a result of means testing. As we know, this Government have specifically espoused targeting, which of course is means testing, as a way, as they see it, of putting resources in the direction of those whom they believe to be the most needy.
We heard in Committee about the types of form which now have to he completed; indeed, great reference was made on that occasion to the notorious AG1 form. We were told that it often takes a skilled professional over half an hour to complete it. Moreover, the names of the benefits are confusing. For example, even the DLA is confusing as it bears no relationship to the cost of living of a disabled person—though a disabled person may think from the title that it does. In particular, older people have doubts about the benefit system, especially where means testing is involved. That is one of the reasons for the much lower take-up of means-tested benefits.
For all those reasons there are grounds for doing something to remedy the situation and the introduction of benefits said to be new seems to us an appropriate occasion. At present, the department has no responsibility to provide information on social security benefits. Indeed, when a person discovers that he should have been receiving a benefit for a past period, he may be denied that backdating if the only reason for it is that he did not know about his entitlement.
Welfare rights organisations have taken on the task of informing claimants, as have CABs of course, but they are squeezed for funds. Furthermore, many disabled people may not have the funds or means of transport to travel to such centres if they are some way from where they live. It is our view that the department should be responsible for ensuring that prospective claimants are aware of their entitlements.
The amendment makes the point that an adviser of the type envisaged should have special training in the circumstances and needs of disabled people and of course in conditions for entitlement. Adequate resourcing of the service should be provided by the department and monitored by the Secretary of State. We believe that that provision is reasonable and

889
sensible and a way of ensuring that disabled people are not merely aware of their rights but are given help with their enforcement. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support the amendment, especially that part of it which deals with the need for people to have proper training to do this type of work. It is all too often assumed—we see this in the way that the services are administered—that it is easy for a person who has just read through the regulations to give the advice necessary. It is a skilled job if the advice is not just to be given but is to be heard and understood by the person to whom it is given. That will not happen unless a real effort is made to give proper training to the people who are to do the job. We often forget how important is the role of the people who have face-to-face contact with the claimants. Often the people with the better qualifications are far removed from the people who have to apply for benefit. It is the people who have face-to-face contact who need to be of good quality and well trained.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too support the amendment. We must remember that many disabled people, especially those who have been severely disabled from birth, do not have the same level of education as others. I always believed naively that they did. The organisation for which I work, which looks after disabled people and trains them for independence, finds it surprising that some of them need to be taught to read and write before it can go on with the rest of their training. We must also remember that coupled with physical disabilities there is often a degree of mental disability. At the same time, their relatives may not he well educated and may not understand the forms that have to be filled in. They can often be frightened of the forms and of officialdom.
It is right, as the noble Baroness proposes in the amendment, that the advisers should be specially trained not just in the nitty-gritty and the details of the law and regulations, but in the needs and problems of disabled people and how to explain to disabled claimants the best way of tackling the problem.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that what I have to say will make clear our commitment to making the best possible use of ways of collecting evidence and advising disabled people. I do not rule out the possibility of visiting officers being used in relation to DLA and AA. I am aware that as a result of the debate in another place the benefits agency which will shortly come into operation is considering with the office of the Chief Adjudication Officer what instructions and/or guidance on the subject can be provided.
There is no need to legislate for the use of visiting officers along the lines of the amendment, which appears prescriptive. Let me reassure the noble Baroness and the House that we do not see the administrative arrangements that we are proposing to introduce from 1992 as the final word on the matter. It is our intention closely to monitor the operation of the new system for assessing disability benefits. We shall not stand still if we find there is a need to make
890
further changes. It is too premature to make precise judgments now about whether and to what extent we might need to turn to visiting officers as set out in the amendment.
I appreciate that the sentiments behind the amendment go further than the process after a person has claimed. There is the claiming process itself and the advice which may be needed about possible entitlements. Here we feel that we have an excellent track record not just in terms of the general take-up of benefits—which in itself must say something about the effectiveness of our advice and publicity work—but in the introduction of innovative methods such as the Benefit Enquiry Line (BEL). That freeline system, specifically for people with disabilities, provides advice on social security benefits and related matters. In addition, and this is perhaps the most important and innovative feature, the BEL operators can take claim details over the telephone and then send a completed claim form to the claimant for him to check the details, sign and return.
The BEL has operated successfully in a pilot scheme in the South of England and we hope that a nationwide service will be available by the summer. While there is much preparatory work to do before we know exactly how far BEL operators can go in taking claim and self-assessment details for DLA and AA, the potential is clearly enormous.
But the BEL itself is just part of the story. The creation of the benefits agency, with customer care as one of its core values, provides the impetus for further developments to meet the needs of all claimants. Annual national customer surveys will give the agency important feedback on whether improvements are needed to administration. Clearly at the heart of all this is the claim form itself. It is crucial that we get the design of this form right. To that end we are presently testing drafts on disabled people and their carers. Initial reactions have been extremely encouraging and I hope before too long that we shall be in a position to consult more widely among disability organisations.
I hope that I have responded helpfully to the noble Baroness and that she will not feel the need to press the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of what is being done. I am glad to note that some innovative steps are being taken, especially with regard to the telephone service. It must be appreciated that if one is dealing with elderly disabled people it is important to have personal visits and contact. Many older people feel inhibited about dealing with matters over the telephone.
I hope that the whole system will, as the Minister explained, continue to be monitored, because it is important to understand that in some instances we are dealing with people who are somewhat loath to explain precisely their circumstances unless they have a sympathetic and trained listener. The idea of the visiting officer is that such a person would be trained and would be able to visit people and assist them.

891
I am glad to note that the intention is to consult the organisations catering for the disabled. The amendment is one which we tabled as a result of discussions with them. They feel, as we do, that it is important to have a sympathetic approach. However it is not my intention to divide the House. We shall note carefully what the Minister has said, as will the organisations looking after the disabled. I note that there is an intention to consult them over monitoring and ensuring that the service operates compassionately, reasonably and sensibly. I do not believe that we can be proud of the take-up of targeted or means-tested benefits. It is in that area that we have some anxiety. However, as I said, it is not my intention to divide the House. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 20, line 1, at end insert ("or

(e) the decision was to make an award for a period wholly or partly after the date on which the claim was made or treated as made but subject to a condition being fulfilled and that condition has not been fulfilled,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 54. These amendments draw directly into the new adjudication arrangements for DLA and AA the existing powers of review relating to cases where benefit is awarded before the claimant has satisfied all the conditions of entitlement, such as the qualifying period. They are purely consequential amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 24, line 23, at end insert ("or

(e) the decision was to make an award for a period wholly or partly after the date on which the claim was made or treated as made but subject to a condition being fulfilled and that condition has not been fulfilled,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 25, line 21, leave out first ("section") and insert ("sections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 29 and 50. The House will be aware that the Bill contains provisions for important new adjudication arrangements for disability living allowance, attendance allowance and disability working allowance. Among the most widely applauded are the provisions for an independent right of appeal to a new form of tribunal—a disability appeal tribunal.
However, some concern has been voiced about the role of the medical practitioner on the DAT. Much of this concern stems from the medical examinations and walking tests which are currently conducted by medical appeal tribunals. There is a perception that too much depends on how the disabled performs on the day. There is also anecdotal evidence to suggest that some people find the experience very distressing.
In Committee I said that I would look at whether I could bring forward amendments which would prevent routine medical examinations and walking tests at DAT hearings while at the same time preventing any inconvenience to the claimant through unnecessary adjournments and administrative delays if further evidence were required by the tribunal. I am glad, therefore, to be able to commend these amendments. They provide that, except in prescribed circumstances, physical examinations will not be conducted by tribunal members and that the tribunal will not be able to subject claimants to physical tests to demonstrate that they are unable or virtually unable to walk. Instead the new Section 115D(1) will allow a chairman of a DAT to identify the cases which are most likely to require an examination and refer them for a report.
I would like to reassure the House about the words "except in prescribed circumstances" in new Section 115D(2). We do not intend to make regulations which reintroduce widespread examinations at hearings. But we do consider it sensible to retain some flexibility to cater for the possibility, which may emerge through our monitoring of the new system, that in particular categories of cases it might be in the claimant's best interests for an examination to be conducted.
I believe that these amendments demonstrate yet again the Government's willingness to listen and respond to representations made for genuine improvements in the administration of benefits for disabled people. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I did not understand the Minister correctly. Was there any significance in the fact that he gave the example of prescribed conditions under subsection (2) but not of prescribed conditions under subsection (1)? Are they the same, or can the Minister give an example of the prescribed conditions under subsection (1)? If he does not have the answer but will write to me, that is acceptable.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know whether or not my noble friend has the answer. I wish very much to congratulate him on coming up with at least an amelioration, at best a cure for the problem of medical examinations for people who are virtually or totally unable to walk. There have been complaints about it for many a long year. I am pleased that the Government have taken the opportunity to deal with it as best they may. I hope that my noble friend will continue to listen to the views of the organisations for the disabled and will keep the matter under review. I have a nasty, sneaking suspicion every now and again that the Government have not yet heard the end of the matter.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I welcome the amendments most warmly. I was grateful to the Minister for meeting myself and some members of disabled organisations at Richmond House to discuss the amendments on DATs. I confirm that facilities there are accessible. I am particularly grateful to him

893
for allowing me to see the amendments since my post did not arrive on Saturday. That was enormously helpful.
The amendments are welcome. They avoid too much reliance on snap-shot examinations. The Minister said in Committee that,
"the emphasis must be put on the evidence supplied by the claimant and those best placed to know the continuing effect that his condition has upon his life".—[Official Report, 7/3/91; col. 1595.]
The amendments represent a down-to-earth, practical approach which is most welcome.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to know that the noble Baroness welcomes the amendments. It was delightful to see her at Richmond House last week. I apologise for the post having failed to reach her; I am not sure that it is for me to do so, but it seems to have been my lot on various occasions with social security Bills to have to apologise for amendments failing to reach noble Lords.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. We need to ensure that appeals are not delayed unnecessarily because of these new provisions. The proposed new Section 115D(1) would enable a chairman of a DAT to call for an examiner's report in circumstances where one would clearly be helpful. Such situations are likely to include cases where there is a conflict of medical opinion or where the claimant disputes a medical report, or, indeed, where the claimant specifically requests that an examination be arranged before the hearing.
The important point is that in these cases the tribunal members will not conduct the examination. Instead, they will look objectively at the report of a medical examiner, together with all the other evidence. In addition, I stress that there is no intention that these examinations will in any way be routine. With that assurance, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 26, line 23, at end insert:
("Medical examination etc. in relation to appeals to disability appeal tribunals.
115D.—(1) Where an appeal has been brought under section 100D(1) (a) above, a person who may be nominated as chairman of a disability appeal tribunal may, if prescribed conditions are satisfied, refer the claimant to a medical practitioner for such examination and report as appears to him to be necessary for the purpose of providing a disability appeal tribunal with information for use in determining the appeal.
(2) At a hearing before a disability appeal tribunal, except in prescribed circumstances, the tribunal—

(a) may not carry out a physical examination of the claimant; and

(b) may not require the claimant to undergo any physical test for the purpose of determining whether he satisfies the condition mentioned in section 37ZC(l) (a) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 27, line 31, after ("shall") insert ("ensure that at least one of the members of the tribunal has an understanding of the needs of disabled persons and shall").
The noble Baroness said The noble Baroness said: My Lords, ever optimistic. I hope that the Minister will feel that
894
Amendment No. 30 also has a practical approach, similar to that in his amendment which has just been accepted. I was not holding him responsible for the post; the documents came from the Printed Paper Office. However, I was most grateful to him for giving me the amendment at Richmond House.
In Committee I moved and spoke to a group of amendments designed to ensure that members of the tribunal were experienced in dealing with the needs of disabled people. The Minister said that as drafted the amendments were too prescriptive. I feel that his amendment is helpful as regards medical decisions. I welcome his statement in Committee at col. 1594 of Hansard of 7th March 1991 regarding the important role that physios and occupational therapists will have to play on DATs. That is all reassuring and I accept that the schedule refers three times to membership of disabled people.
I am not totally convinced that it is not practicable to ensure that one member of the tribunal has a disability, but I am prepared to let that matter pass. However, we must sort out one other point. It is still possible as the Bill stands to have a chairman who knows nothing about disability, a medical practitioner who knows nothing of the day-to-day effects of a disability, and a member from the lay panel who has no experience of dealing with the needs of disabled people. This amendment would ensure that at least one member of the tribunal has an understanding of the needs of disabled people. That must be a minimum requirement. As the Bill is drafted, in most cases the tribunal should end up with two people with such an understanding, one of them being disabled. It is important to have this safety net to safeguard the minimum. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. As the noble Baroness said in moving it, the aim is simple: it is to guarantee that at least one member of the new tribunal body is familiar with the needs, the lives and the issues of people with disabilities. Some experience and understanding of the practical problems of disability involve such questions as whether a person requires help with dressing three times a day, whether they fall about in the home and whether they are in danger when crossing the road. Some may also have behavioural difficulties. Many problems could be dramatically resolved by appointing people with personal experience of disability.
People with disabilities will at the very least understand the practical difficulties resulting from care needs or mobility limitations. That is not to say that one would expect across the board that those who have a disability would automatically understand the situation of a person with a different disability. However, there is a greater chance such people will understand the consequences of the disabling condition and its effects on the functional activities of daily living, simply through their own personal experience. It is that element of insight and willingness to understand which has to some extent been missing from the adjudication of attendance allowance and mobility allowance. However, we have welcomed all the Government's moves on self-assessment in this

895
regard. We feel that the appointment of people with disabilities should be guaranteed rather than be considered either as a luxury or as a requirement to be easily circumvented by an explanation that it is not practicable. I hope the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords I too wish to support this amendment strongly. There is a lurking feeling in many quarters that this is all a matter of common sense and that the people on the tribunal will have the common sense to apply this measure. Leaving on one side the fact that common sense is an extremely uncommon attribute - that is well known—it is easy for people with normal intelligence and good will, and even those with medical experience, not to appreciate many of the detailed complications of living which are not directly medical factors but are a consequence of a medical situation. It is easy for those factors not to be taken adequately into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), is not now insisting that one of the people on the tribunal should be a disabled person, but only that the person should have,
"an understanding of the needs of disabled persons."
That surely is not too much to ask. One cannot rely on the certainty that any three sensible people put together will have the insight that is needed to make proper decisions.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, most of what needs to be said as regards this provision has already been said. I added my name to a similar amendment in Committee. I had intended to add my name to this amendment but, through idleness I suspect, I never got round to doing so. I merely wish noble Lords to note that I support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I cannot see how the Minister can refuse to accept the amendment. Information on each disability could be given to the people on the tribunal. Those people must be responsible people if they have been selected to serve on the tribunal. This provision is easy to administer. I cannot see how the Minister can refuse to accept it.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, the points that were originally made are correct. It is impossible for a person who, like myself, has a visual disability to discuss the needs of people in wheelchairs. However, the people on the tribunal must understand the difficulties of disability. Therefore I feel that a person who is trained to help disabled people must be represented on the tribunal and, if possible, someone who is disabled should also be represented on the tribunal. I thoroughly support the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, on an earlier amendment the Minister said he had some good things in store for us. I had earmarked this amendment as one such provision. I still have hopes in that regard. I have not added my name to this amendment, but it appears to be such a widely drawn
896
provision that it does not attract the objections which the Minister adduced in Committee. For that reason I wish to support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, how on earth can I resist the amendment after those contributions? Nevertheless I shall resist it. However, I hope that I shall do so in such a manner that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
As I explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), when she came to see me last week, I have very considerable sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendment which is designed to ensure that appeals from disabled people are dealt with in an informed and understanding manner. That was clearly our objective also in providing in the Bill that one member of the DAT must be drawn from a panel which is as far as is practicable made up of people who have experience of dealing with the needs of disabled people either in a voluntary or professional capacity or as a disabled person.
As I understand it, the amendment seeks to ensure that every DAT has at least one member who has an understanding of the needs of disabled people. But I am not convinced that the amendment, as it stands, does much to achieve this wholly desirable outcome. First, I must remind your Lordships that every tribunal will include a doctor, who by definition will be knowledgeable about the medical side of the needs of disabled people.
Secondly, each tribunal will have a member drawn from a panel of people who will be expressly chosen, so far as practicable, for their knowledge of the non-medical side of the needs of disabled people. I am extremely sympathetic with the sentiments behind this amendment. I recognise the concern that some tribunals might not have a member, other than the doctor, with experience of dealing with the needs of disabled people. That is something which concerns me also.
I cannot support the amendment as it stands. However, I hope to persuade the noble Baroness not to press her amendment as I am willing to consider the matter further between now and Third Reading, which will occur some time after Easter, with a view to tabling a government amendment which will, I hope, allay concerns in this regard. Given that commitment, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. Many other noble Lords expressed the wish to add their support to the amendment and add their names to it. However, an amendment can be tabled only in a maximum of four names. I repeat that I am only resisting the amendment because the Government are aware of the concerns that have been expressed and we shall try to allay those concerns by tabling a provision at a later stage.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to thank all those who have supported the amendment. There has been overwhelming support for it and I am glad that the Minister was overwhelmed by the support also. I appreciate what the Minister said about doctors on the medical panel and the fact that they would be expected to have medical knowledge of

897
disability, but the stumbling block may arise with the lay panel. However, on the understanding that the Minister has given a commitment to bring forward a provision on Third Reading which would achieve the desired effect, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. I believe the Third Reading will take place on the first day after the Recess. I hope the Minister will discuss the matter with me before then just in case the post from the Printed Paper Office fails again.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my understanding is that the post is somewhat more reliable over Easter than it is over Christmas. I am sure the noble Baroness will have no difficulty in getting in touch with me. I believe there is a total of three weeks between now and Third Reading. That includes this week and the two weeks of the Easter Recess. I am sure we can come to some arrangement between now and then.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I take it that is an offer to get in touch with the Minister. In this case I find his resistance irresistible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 27, line 42, leave out (":37ZE(3)") and insert ("37ZB(5) or 37ZC(8)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is merely a technical amendment to correct an inaccurate cross-reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Disability living allowance and attendance allowance: amendments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 28, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) The words "or is treated as making" shall be inserted after the word "makes" in subsections (4) and (4A).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 28, line 38, at beginning insert:
("(1) In section 37(1) of that Act (invalid care allowance) after the words "severely disabled person" shall be added the words "or persons" and after the words "that person" shall be added the words "or persons".
(2)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand from the groupings list that in moving this amendment I should speak also to Amendment No. 33A. However, there does not appear to be an Amendment No. 33A on the Marshalled List.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may help the noble Baroness if I point out that the next amendment on the Marshalled List is Amendment No. 33A.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I understand that Amendment No. 33A is the next amendment on the Marshalled List although it is not numbered.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the next amendment should be numbered Amendment No. 33A.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is what I have said. Up until now we have been talking, quite properly, about the issues of the disabled person. However, the whole issue of disabled living is not confined to the disabled person. As your Lordships are aware, there are no fewer than 6 million informal carers in this country looking after people with varying degrees of disability. With the increased emphasis on community care and with the in many ways welcome reduction in the number of people in institutions, there can be no doubt that the burden on informal carers, such as members of the Family, close friends and others, will certainly not diminish and will probably increase. The amendments concern the position of the people who do the caring. They are an essential part of the whole issue of disabled living.
There is and has been for some considerable time an invalid care allowance which is paid to the person who does the caring. It is the one resource of that person. Caring for the disabled can be an extremely lonely job and one which leaves the carer poverty stricken. Many carers at first try to continue working and then they cut down from working full-time work to working part time. At the end of the day, or sometimes long before the end of the day, they have to give up work altogether.
When people have to give so much of their time to the job of caring they are immensely dependent on the invalid care allowance, small though it is, for money of their own; otherwise they have to rely on what the person for whom they are caring is prepared to give them. Although many of the people who need care are sweet, kind and gentle old things, some are not. Some carers have an extremely rough ride, not to put too fine a point on it, in looking after people. The one power that remains to the person who is disabled or very frail and housebound is power over the person who is caring for him or her and in the same house. There is a temptation for that power to be exploited, and not infrequently it is exploited to a serious degree.
In the two amendments I plead that no restrictions should be placed on payment of the invalid care allowance such as those in the Bill. The first restriction, referred to in Amendment No. 33, applies where the person being cared for has a lower level of need and receives the lower level of the allowance. It is not the extent of the disability of the person being cared for that affects the carer but the amount of the carer's time that is taken up. In asking that the invalid care allowance should be made available to people in the lower category I remind your Lordships that that will apply only if the carer is providing care for more than 35 hours a week and is earning less than the agreed limit.
The 35 hours a week is the important point, not the degree of disability of the person being tended. If it requires 35 hours a week, that represents an enormous chunk out of the daily life of the person doing the caring. That is why carers need the financial resources just as much as if they spend the same amount of time looking after someone who is more seriously disabled.

899
The second amendment concerns the curious requirement in the Bill that one can only receive invalid care allowance if one spends 35 hours a week looking after one person. Increasingly there are couples—elderly parents—who have to be looked after. Neither of them may individually need 35 hours of care, but together they require a great deal more than 35 hours of care. As the Bill now stands, because neither of them needs 35 hours of care the unfortunate carer, who still has to do the work which will take her—it is usually a woman but it may be a man, and perhaps more often than your Lordships realize—far more than 35 hours, will receive no invalid care allowance.
I repeat that it is the amount of time that the carer has to give and the inevitable loss of earnings which should qualify the carer for invalid care allowance and not the condition of the person being cared for or the number of people being cared for. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. When we discussed the matter in Committee we did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister and I am delighted that the noble Baroness has returned to the point.
I should like to put the matter in context. In 1985 a general household survey estimated that there are about 6 million carers of whom 1.4 million provide care for a disabled person for at least 20 hours a week. However, only 130,000 people receive invalid care allowance.
Amendment No. 33 would allow a carer to qualify for invalid care allowance if the carer is caring for more than one seriously disabled person in receipt of the higher or middle rate care component for a total of 35 hours a week even if, as the noble Baroness said, the carer is not caring for one person for 35 hours. As a result of the strict rules which are being applied only 130,000 carers receive invalid care allowance. That means that 98 per cent. of carers do not receive it.
We believe that the Government should accept the amendment in respect of the carer providing care to more than one person on the lower £10 rate of DLA where the care provided to each is less than 35 hours a week. If a carer is caring for two people who each require 35 hours of care the carer will still receive only one payment of ICA as the Bill is presently drafted. Under those proposals a carer looking after a disabled person who receives the disability living allowance will be denied ICA regardless of the number of hours spent providing care each week if the person being cared for receives only the lowest rate of DLA—the £10 rate. It ignores the fact that the person on the £10 rate of DLA could easily require 35 hours of care a week. It denies the benefit to carers who are out of work because of their full-time caring commitment.
People on the lowest £10 rate will not be treated as being severely disabled for the purposes of invalid care allowance, regardless of their circumstances, the amount of care they need and receive and the criteria for the £10 rate. We feel that that is inconsistent. Under Section 37ZB(1) the £10 rate of DLA is payable
900
only to people who are severely disabled, physically or mentally. In order to receive the £10 lowest rate of the care component a person must be severely disabled, but once the carer attempts to claim ICA in respect of that person he or she no longer counts as being severely disabled. That is a contradiction which confounds both logic and legal interpretation. We should be grateful if the Minister would explain the inconsistency.
At present only 2 per cent. of the country's 6 million carers receive ICA. If that proportion persists after 1992, which is likely in the absence of other major changes, it seems that 1,450 carers who are caring for someone receiving the £10 care component will receive ICA. That would represent a minor increase both in the number of ICA recipients and in the costs. It is estimated that overall the cost would be £2 million per annum compared with total expenditure on ICA of £300 million.
If a carer spends 36 hours a week caring for a person who receives the lowest care component of DLA why should that in itself debar the carer from receiving the invalid care allowance? The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the substantial care requirement of the severely disabled person who receives the lowest rate of DLA helps the carer to qualify for ICA if 35 hours or more of care are provided a week. We feel that carers who otherwise satisfy all the rules of entitlement to ICA, including the rule that they must provide substantial care—35 hours a week—to a severely disabled person should not be unfairly denied their benefit entitlement.
Finally, I refer to a number of remarks which the Minister made at Committee when we discussed a similar amendment. He said on 7th March, at col. 1601 of Hansard:
"This amendment would bring people for whom caring is a more informal occupation into entitlement"
I do not know know what type of care of disabled people is a "more informal occupation". He seemed to devalue the work of those who care for people on the lowest rate. He said:
"Generally speaking, caring for people receiving the lowest rate, for however many hours a week, will be a much less onerous task than looking after a very severely disabled person".
I refer the Minister to the fact that the requirements for receipt of the lowest rate of the care component relate to a severely disabled person. He continued:
"It is likely to involve lighter tasks, such as helping a person in or out of bed".
I do not whether the noble Lord regards that as a light task. Helping with bathing is not a light task. One is also talking about helping with a course of medicine and the abstract test of preparing a meal.
In regard to the question of a carer receiving invalid care allowance if he or she is caring for more than two people, I will not repeat all that the noble Lord said in Committee, but he undertook to look at the problem. I think the Government recognise that the present situation makes no sense. He recognised there was a genuine point and undertook to see if anything could be done to resolve the difficulty. I hope that at least on that amendment the Minister will have some good news for us.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I would like to support the amendments warmly but very briefly. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has put the case so compellingly and clearly that there is nothing I can add to it. Speaking from the other side of the fence, as it were, though I am lucky enough at present not to need a carer, I should like to say how important these amendments are.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure I can take the House much further than we got in Committee. There are two questions here. The first question is why invalid care allowance is payable where one person requires 35 or more hours of care but is not payable where two people need care and that amounts in aggregate to more than 35 hours. The second question is why invalid care allowance should not be payable where the severely disabled person is on the lower rate of DLA care. I have explained that we recognise that there is a need to look further at the first question. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Miss Widdecombe, said in another place that we would look at it again. I repeated that commitment in Committee and I do so again this evening. However, I do not think I can take the matter any further.
The point I should like to emphasise is that the 35-hour rule is closely bound up with the requirement for the person cared for to be getting attendance allowance. Anyone on attendance allowance will necessarily he in need of virtually full-time care, so his or her carer would have no difficulty in showing that he or she spent 35 hours a week in caring for that disabled person. That would not be true if we extended invalid care allowance to people caring for someone on the new lower rate of DLA care. That brings us to the second question: whether or not it should be extended where the severely disabled person is on the new lower rate. No one on the new lower rate of DLA care should need looking after for more than 35 hours a week. If the disabled person needed that amount of care he or she would most likely be getting the middle or higher rate, not the lower rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that even people on the lower rate were severely disabled. But the point about the new lower rate of DLA that the noble Lord misses is that it is provided expressly for severely disabled people who have lesser care needs, perhaps only an hour a day. I refer to the examples which I gave in Committee. Thus, the essential point in answer to both questions raised by the amendments is that the lower rate of DLA care will not in a single case give rise to the level of care needs that warrants payment of invalid care allowance to the carer.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if I may ask a question for information, is the Minister saying that if anybody requires more than 35 hours a week of care he or she will automatically qualify for the two higher rates?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it would be wrong to say that the person would qualify automatically. If someone required that amount of care it is almost
902
certain, or very likely, that he or she would be entitled to the middle or higher rate of the care component of DLA.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must challenge the Minister on what he has said. We are referring to a person,
"so severely disabled physically or mentally that … he requires in connection with his bodily functions attention from another person for a significant portion of the day (whether during a single period or a number of periods); or … he cannot prepare a cooked main meal for himself if he has the ingredients",
etc. Surely, that can easily add up to 35 hours a week.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Baroness is saying. At an earlier stage we discussed the abstract test for a meal, and so on. What I am saying is that if they were in need of more than 35 hours a week they would almost certainly be beyond the test that is imposed for the new lower rate and therefore would be entitled to the higher rate.
We accept that it may be possible for two or more people on the lower rate to require in aggregate 35 hours or more of care. That is precisely the point my honourable friend has agreed we will look into, and I repeat that assurance. But I have to say to the noble Baroness that we are no further on from the point we had reached at the previous stage.
It is always very difficult to deal with two issues of this kind when they are interconnected in this way. I hope I have provided an explanation of our views and that, given the commitment to look into the point about multiple carees, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment on this occasion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, to get the position absolutely clear, if a carer is caring for one disabled person who requires 35 hours of care or more per week, he or she will receive DLA. However, if he or she is caring for two disabled people, one receiving 18 hours of care and the other only 17 hours of care, making 35 hours of care in all, the carer does not receive ICA. Is that right?
Lord Henley: My Lord, I think the noble Lord should have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. That is the point of the amendment, and that is the problem. I accept that there is a problem, in that, where somebody is looking after two carees but in aggregate for less than the full 35 hours a week (I suspect it would not happen all that often), the position would not be covered. However, I and my honourable friend have given an assurance that it is something we shall look into. I have to tell the noble Baroness that we have not got any further than the point we had reached at Committee stage.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, since these amendments should be Amendments Nos. 33 and 33A, I should like them to be called separately. They are two separate amendments, although the numbering is not properly indicated. If that is acceptable, I shall move them separately.
I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept that if in your home there are two people in the lower category, both of whom in the definition given in Section 37ZB require,

903
"in connection with [their] bodily functions attention from another person for a signficant portion of the day",
and they have to have that seven days a week, it will not take more than 35 hours. I cannot see how it can possibly add up to anything less. I would have thought that the argument that on the basis of two people the provision could be justified, even at the lower level, would be extraordinarily difficult to answer. However, as the noble Lord has said that the Government are still looking at Amendment No. 33, which relates to two persons, I shall beg leave to withdraw that amendment at this time. On the other hand, I would not wish to withdraw Amendment No. 33A, which relates to the lower rate, and on that I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 28, line 40, leave out ("at the highest or middle rate.").
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

McNair, L.

Ardwick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blease, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Nathan, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Parry, L.

Cross, V.

Richard, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Arran, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Astor, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bessborough, E.

Coleraine, L.

Blatch, B.

Colwyn, L.

Boardman, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brigstocke, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Caithness, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Faithfull, B.

Carnock, L.

Flather, B.

904

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Greenway, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hesketh, L.

Prior, L.

Hooper, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Reay, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Renwick, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Margadale, L.

Tryon, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Milverton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Montgomery of Alamein. V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wise, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Munster, E.

Wynford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young, B.

Nelson, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.37 p.m.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Regulations supplementary to ss. 1 to 4]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 10, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Notwithstanding provisions made under subsection (2) above a review of entitlement of either the care or mobility component shall not result in a reduction of benefit or period of award unless there has been a relevant change of circumstances, or the original decision was made in error or ignorance as to a material fact.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as it stands Clause 5 gives the Secretary of State almost unlimited powers for the transition of current attendance and mobility allowances to the DLA. However, the aim of this amendment is to make sure that no recipient will be worse off as a result of the changeover either by total withdrawal or by a reduction in the rate or period of entitlement unless there has been a change of circumstances or the original decision was made in error or ignorance as to a material fact.
We are anxious to ensure that shifting people on to what is, after all, a renaming of their existing benefit should not result in their being worse off than they would have been. The intention of the amendment is to limit reviews only to where there has been the change of circumstances to which I referred—for example, where a person's need for attention or supervision or walking limitations have substantially changed. In such circumstances the adjudication officer under the amendment is given powers to review the claimant's entitlement and perhaps change or remove the award.
Without an amendment of this kind the onus is placed on the claimant to appeal against the withdrawal and to prove entitlement. We should like this amendment to be accepted. It would show simply and clearly on the face of the Bill that claimants will be protected unless there has been a significant change in their care or mobility circumstances and that change warrants a change in the award. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support this amendment. Surely it gives an incentive to people to work. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell me whether I am correct in saying that, if her amendment is accepted, it would not be necessary to move the later amendment to which I have added my name, Amendment No. 51.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Baroness. I believe that Amendment No. 51 is on a somewhat different subject from that of Amendment No. 35. I am afraid, therefore, that she will have to wait until we reach Amendment No. 51.
I understand the concerns that have led the noble Baroness to table this amendment. I am sorry that she feels it necessary to do so in the light of the explanation of our intentions that I gave in Committee. Let me re-state why I think the solution that we have adopted is much the better of the two principal alternatives on offer. Briefly, with a two-component benefit one could decide to treat entitlement to each of the separate components as entirely separate decisions. That is basically what this amendment would have us do. As an aside, I would be interested to know how this would work if there were some 10 different components, as was at times suggested in Committee.
The other approach is to align the award periods, so that the benefits of having a single claim, a single adjudication process and, at most, a single medical examination, are repeated when someone applies for a review or makes a renewal claim. That is the route we have gone down in this Bill, although—and I must stress this—the vast majority of claimants who have awards of both components in practice have a life award of one or the other, and so are completely unaffected by the alignment. Life awards are not shortened by this Bill. And our experience—sadly, I must say—of very many of the people who have fixed period awards of both existing benefits suggests that when they make renewal claims they will often at that stage be given life awards.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness approaches this from another angle and is saying that it will come as unwelcome news to the few people who are on different fixed period awards of both the existing benefits to find that one of these awards has been reduced in length. But I stand by the judgment that we took that it was better if we kept to a minimum the number of times the beneficiary was "put through the hoops" of applying for benefit. If we adopt the proposal in this amendment, we have the genuine fear that many of the advantages to claimants of the new assessment process will be compromised or at least severely diminished.
The noble Baroness's greater concern was that some claimants would find that when their entitlement does come up for an early review, they then had their benefit reduced despite having experienced no change of circumstances. I hope it offers some reassurance to the noble Baroness to say that that is certainly not what we would want to see. If the claimant's circumstances have not changed since the original decision was made, there is clearly no intention that they should end up receiving a lower rate of benefit.
906
So I hope at least that our differences are narrowed down to the issue of whether to align award periods. I hope that what I have said persuades the noble Baroness that our judgment is the right one. I do not see this as primarily a matter of administrative convenience—indeed, the balance of advantage might be the other way—but rather as a matter of paying attention to the interests of the claimants. I hope that on the basis of these assurances the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Minister. I welcome his assurance that he is not concerned with administrative convenience but with paying attention to the interests of the claimants themselves. We were concerned lest people would feel that their circumstances had not changed but that they were having their award changed. It was to cope with that situation that we put down the amendment in the first place. I welcome the Minister's assurance that there was no intention that if there had been no change in circumstance there would be any change in award.
The problem, as the disablement organisations see it, is that sometimes adjudicators do not always follow what is expected of them. If that happens then the claimant has no alternative—the onus is upon the claimant, as I said in my opening statement—but to appeal against the withdrawal and then to proceed to prove entitlement. It was to try to avoid that that we put down the amendment. However, I note that the Minister does not feel disposed to accept the amendment for the reasons he has given. In the circumstances it is not my intention to press the amendment. We are all going to have to see how this works out in practice. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Introduction of disability working allowance]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 11, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert:
("(iv) income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. These are drafting changes to clarify the circumstances in which someone with the income-related benefit, including the disability premium, satisfies the qualifying benefit test. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, line 39, at end insert:
("(d) when a claim for disability working allowance is made or is treated as made, he has a disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting or retaining a job.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved a rather similar amendment in Committee. I said then that the idea was to make provision for entitlement to DWA alone rather than through passporting benefits.

907
It is hardly surprising that, given the rules in relation to entitlement, relatively few people are likely to qualify for DWA.
As I said in Committee, if the Bill remained unamended the result would be that some disabled people would qualify for benefit, the DWA, whereas others, perhaps equally disabled, would not. This is divisive and unfortunate. There are a number of people who would not qualify: those on unemployment benefit or other benefits which are not listed in the Bill as qualifying benefits; those who perhaps have been given incorrect advice, as happens; those who initially fail to qualify for DWA on income grounds but whose earnings have dropped; and those already in work who acquire disability, and so on. I made reference to these when the issue was discussed in Committee. The amendment moved in Committee aimed to allow such people to have a functional test so that they could qualify on grounds of disability alone. That was voted upon and rejected by the Committee; so I cannot proceed with exactly the same amendment. The wording therefore is slightly different.
The Minister claimed that if the amendment then before the Committee was successful it would cost about £200 million. That is a lot of money. But unless something is done the anomalous position will arise of people with the same disabilities being treated differently. In some cases the result will be quite harsh and quite unacceptable.
Take the case, for example, of a man in a well-paid job who becomes ill with cerebral palsy. He has to give up his job. Not realising that he would be eligible for invalidity benefit he claims unemployment benefit for a year, after which he receives income support but no disability premium. He eventually finds a lower paid job and is advised to claim DWA, but because he has not had the passporting benefits of the DWA he does not qualify.
We have thought about the whole matter again since Committee. We still feel this to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, we have come back with slightly different wording because it is our belief on this side of the House that the whole matter requires reconsideration. Incidentally, if there are functional tests for people without passporting benefits, I cannot see that the cost is likely to be as much as the £200 million indicated by the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I had intended to add my name to the amendment, but somehow it has not got there. Once again the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has argued the case most compellingly and cogently. I am still concerned at the failure of the DWA to help people with, for example, a progressive disability who are actually in work and not claiming DLA. There is no way that they can remain in work and get DWA without coming off first to qualify.
In its note on disability working allowance the Department of Social Security in November 1990 acknowledged the assistance of a number of detailed papers, including Disability Employment Credit—General Principles, by the Disablement Income Group, DIG. I do not think that much attention was
908
paid to it, although the principles were acknowledged, because in paragraph 1 DIG's paper outlined that the DWA, then called disability employment credit, should be in the following terms:
"The credit should be available both to help people back into work and to help people remain in work. The credit should thus be available to help people whose disabilities have taken them (temporarily) from the work force but who could return to work full time, albeit at a reduced rate and therefore for reduced earnings. It should also be available to help those whose disability is progressing and making it increasingly difficult for them to continue working at 'full' capacity".
In paragraph 2 DIG expressly stated:
"The credit should not be limited to disabled people in receipt of particular benefits that might be used as passport benefits. It should, for example. he available to deaf people and partially sighted people who are not in receipt of any disability benefit".
In opposing these amendments is the Minister really saying that DWA is a benefit to encourage people back to work, to get them off invalidity benefit or income support, and not a benefit to help disabled people to remain at work? Is he saying that DWA is a two-way allowance or a one-way allowance? Is he saying that he will help a disabled person back to work but will not help an identically disabled person with the same qualifications and experience to remain in work.
It appears that that may be so because in Committee the Minister said:
"We have always accepted that the provisions do not cover people already working. On grounds of simplicity and cost we had to decide exactly how far we could go".—[Official Report, 11/3/91; col. 28.]
Does the Minister agree that if people are not helped to remain in work they retire prematurely and add to the numbers receiving invalidity benefit and income support? At page 23 of The Way Ahead the Government said that they would target help:
"specifically on people who are only partially rather than wholly incapable of work".
I believe that the amendment will ensure more effective targeting.
Lord Henley: My Lords, Amendment No. 37 is virtually identical to Amendment No. 60 which was debated in Committee. The noble Baroness may say that it is merely similar but in my view it is virtually identical. That amendment was rejected in a Division. However, if the noble Baroness wishes to table the amendment again we shall have another chat about it. In Committee I gave two reasons why I could not accept the amendment.
Disability working allowance is a very important step forward. It introduces a new opportunity for disabled people and takes nothing away from anyone. A number of your Lordships have commented on the value of the benefit to disabled people and some of your Lordships have pointed out ways in which it could be made better—I stress, at a price. It is easy to criticise the benefit for what it will not do but we must remember the positive value of DWA to disabled people.
As has been suggested, if resources were available DWA could be extended to more people. But, as I said when the Committee debated this point, we estimate that the cost of accepting this amendment will be of the order of £200 million net of savings elsewhere in

909
the benefit system. This is a very significant sum of money, although I appreciate that the noble Baroness believes that it is only quite a lot of money.
However, as I pointed out to the Committee, there is a positive side. Disability working allowance is intended to provide support for people making the difficult transition from incapacity to work. In particular, because the qualifying benefit test ensures that all claimants satisfy or have recently satisfied a medical test for a long-term disability or incapacity benefit, we can use this as supporting evidence instead of devising an additional medical test.
It has been pointed out that we are developing a test of functional disability to be used in the minority of repeat claims where the evidence from the qualifying benefit test is no longer sufficient. It has been suggested that this test could be used for all claims, including initial claims from people who do not have a qualifying benefit.
This test of functional disability will be in the form of a questionnaire asking claimants about things that they can and cannot do. The form will include questions about mobility, reaching and stretching, seeing, hearing and speaking, consciousness, fatigue, pain and so on. The questionnaire was devised on the assumption that all claimants who took the test would have been in receipt of a qualifying benefit at some stage. Therefore, there is an established history of long-term illness or disability. The test will therefore provide evidence to confirm that there is a continuing, significant disability. This test would not be suitable for use in cases where the claimant had not satisfied the qualifying benefit test at the start of his or her DWA claim.
I believe that DWA will provide a valuable opportunity for 50,000 disabled people at any one time to work when they might well not be able to do so without it. It could be extended to others but only at considerable cost—what the noble Baroness referred to as quite a lot of money. We have devised a benefit which makes very good use of the evidence that the department already has of claimants' disabilities. In this way we shall meet the needs of the people DWA is specifically intended for; that is, those who are trying to make the difficult transition from incapacity into work. Amendment No. 37 would require the Government to devise and pay for a very different benefit. I hope that on this occasion the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I have read the amendment that I moved in Committee and it is not the same as that before the House tonight. The wording of the amendment was:
"when the claim for a disability working allowance is made or is treated as made, he has a physical or mental disability".
We have substituted that wording for the wording in Amendment No. 37 which reads:
"he has a disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting or retaining a job".
That is not the same as the original wording.
The intention was to ensure that more people would qualify for DWA. I make no apology for that because DWA is intended to provide an incentive for people who are disabled and who would otherwise be
910
isolated and confined to their homes to join the workforce. If the incentive is successful ultimately such people may not be dependent on benefits. After entering the workforce disabled people may find themselves able to do more and more work, which will be to their benefit and that of the community. We should regard DWA as an investment in society because disabled people will be able to make a contribution.
I believe that 50,000 is a relatively small number of people. Most organisations for the disabled state that approximately 285,000 disabled people would be quite capable of carrying out some work. Provisions in regard to DWA have been so drafted that it will be difficult for more than 50,000 people to qualify. That was the object of the original amendment tabled in Committee, which admittedly was lost on a Division. I make no apology that the amendment now before the House is intended to extend DWA to benefit a larger number of people. The fact remains that some disabled people will qualify while others will not simply because they do not have the passporting benefits. That is not acceptable. If the provision remains in the Act, as is likely, I believe that whichever Government are in power must examine it. It is not my intention to press the amendment to a Division and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 11, line 49, leave out ("with an amount included such as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph").
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("if he also satisfies such additional conditions as may be prescribed") and insert ("in prescribed circumstances").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 12, line 41, after ("percentage") insert ("which shall not exceed 40 per cent.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I introduced a similar amendment in Committee but withdrew it because I wanted to study the Minister's response. I have had the opportunity of doing so but remain unconvinced by his arguments. I said in Committee that, as the Bill stands, a poverty trap will be created because once a disabled person starts earning there will be large corresponding reductions in his or her DWA. Therefore, such people must consider the options very carefully and weigh up whether or not they will be better off working than simply continuing to be dependent entirely on social benefits.
As we have said repeatedly, the object of the DWA is to provide an incentive to disabled people to join the labour market and become part of the workforce and the community. We all regard that as important. We believe passionately that disabled people should be encouraged to do whatever work they can because that ends the isolation which is often an unacceptable and tragic part of the condition of disability.
Unless the Bill is amended I question whether that objective will be achieved for more than a relatively small minority. The intention is to provide for a 70 per cent. taper. That means that a disabled person will lose a substantial amount in the pound of every extra pound earned above a specified income threshold.
In Committee the Minister claimed that the priority was to help people with disabilities who are on the lowest incomes. He opposed my amendment on the grounds that reducing the taper would help only those who are better off and that that was probably not the best use of money. The implication is that any lowering of the taper will reduce the help available to those on the lowest incomes thus making them less of a priority.
It is true that the Minister corrected me when I said that the Government's case was that the lowest paid would be worse off. He said:
"I suggested that 40 per cent. would not particularly benefit the worse off, it would benefit the slightly better off"—[Official Report, 11/3/91; col. 35.]
The taper does not affect people who earn so little that they are automatically entitled to a maximum DWA in any case.
However, I argue that it is essential that disabled people should be able to see that if their earnings rise a little, their DWA will not be reduced by a 70 per cent. taper. We are not speaking of large amounts of earnings. If a 40 per cent. taper were to be introduced the maximum net earnings for a single person claiming DWA would have to be less than £127.60 per week and for a couple £186.97. Those are the ceilings. The nearer are the amount of earnings to the ceiling, the less people will receive on DWA.
In the long term the Government are expecting to make savings as people come off benefits and onto DWA. I am not satisfied with the reasons given in Committee for opposing the amendment and I did not call a division on it at that time. Therefore, I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, on this occasion I assure the noble Baroness that her amendment this evening is not similar to her previous amendment but is identical to it. The noble Baroness used the word "similar" and I thought I should take her up on that.
I understand the argument of the noble Baroness but I do not believe that I can take the matter much further than it was taken in Committee. I understand the anxiety about the combined effect of the tapers in disability working allowance, the housing benefit and community charge benefit. Of course, this combined effect will probably affect less than half of DWA recipients.
However, disability working allowance does not create a poverty trap as has been suggested. Recipients will almost always be better off working and claiming DWA than they would be if they did not. It is also the case that, as their earnings rise, recipients will virtually always keep a proportion of their extra earnings and so will be better off. I repeat, DWA does not create a poverty trap.
912
We have said that DWA offers a new opportunity for disabled people with only limited capacity to work if they wish. DWA provides this opportunity by largely removing the risk that a disabled person giving up an incapacity benefit might fall below income support level because he has decided to take a job. That is a very significant point which has not been fully recognised by the noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite.
We must be very careful about the effect DWA has on behaviour. None of us would want disabled people to feel pressurised to work if they are not fit enough. Nor would we want those who cannot work to feel that they are being discriminated against, because resources are being spent on incentives to encourage those who can work to do so. I believe that a balance must be struck and that resources must be divided fairly among all who need benefits.
As I said, DWA has been designed to give as much help as possible to people with the lowest earnings. This ensures that they are not made worse off by deciding to take a job. However, as I said in Committee—the noble Baroness quoted my words—reducing the taper would give little or nothing to them. A shallow taper would give most help to people who are already better off. It would make little or no difference to claimants with earnings at or little above the applicable amount.
I repeat the final point I made in Committee. High combined deduction rates are unavoidable if one has comparatively generous income related benefits which provide significant help to the least well off in society.
For all these reasons I cannot recommend this identical amendment to the House and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister has made a speech similar to that which he made in Committee.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Identical!
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, it is not identical but it is similar. He said in Committee and has now said again, that if the amendment is accepted it would benefit the better off and do nothing at all for those on the lowest rate. As I said earlier, the taper does not affect those earning so little that they are automatically entitled to maximum DWA.
I am not satisfied with the Minister's response but I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage. There is another amendment in my name later which deals with the levels of DWA. Perhaps we may advance similar arguments about incentives and general levels at that stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned and I suggest that the Report stage begin again at ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Finance (Publicity for Auditors' Reports) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Motor Vehicles (Safety Equipment for Children) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Gaming (Bingo) Bill [H.L.]
7.8 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I suggest that this Bill comes completely within the limits which justify the use of the Private Bill procedure. It in no way compromises the main features of the parent statute; namely, the Gaming Act 1968.
The Bill is very modest in its aims and the circumstances which justify it have been discussed in detail in a friendly way between the Gaming Board and the Home Office. Those discussions have gone on and on. I hope that my noble friend will not suggest that we should not proceed with the enactment of this legislation because discussions may continue. I can say with complete sincerity that following the discussions which have taken place over a long period the point of view which has been put by both the Gaming Board and the Home Office has been taken fully into account in framing the Bill as it now stands.
I should perhaps place on record that for 18 years I was chairman of a national company which controlled many bingo clubs. That perhaps gives me an insight into the problems, authenticity and practice of the arguments that I and other noble Lords will present. I have not had that connection for the past four years and to that extent I am able to look at the matter objectively.
Over those years I was always puzzled by the way the regulations arising from the Gaming Act continued to lump both casinos and bingo clubs together. One has always recognised the necessity of constraining the advertising of casinos where large sums of money are staked and all types of hard gaming are available; but that is a million miles away from the friendly social atmosphere of one's local bingo club where games are played for modest stakes. However, the restrictions on their advertising of what is mostly a social gathering are the same as those for casinos.
It is significant that in 1978 a Royal Commission, with all the detailed probing that it carries out, described bingo as a pastime,
"where people, mostly women, often lonely or elderly can meet in a neighbourly way and enjoy an agreeable flutter".
I believe that sums up what bingo is all about. I have a shrewd feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, when he makes his contribution and with his special knowledge of the mining community and the north of England, will be in a position to produce first class
914
evidence that the Royal Commission accurately described what he found in that part of the country. I certainly found it accurate in the Midlands and other areas where we had interests in past years.
At the moment bingo clubs may advertise their facilities as social clubs. However, the use of the word "bingo" is completely verboten; they cannot use it. That is the "flutter" to which the Royal Commission referred as being what attracted people to spend their leisure time in the clubs. The only place where "bingo" is allowed to appear is on the front of the club itself. When one compares that restriction with newspapers that circulate millions of copies emblazoning on front pages the astronomical wins that can be made from newspaper bingo competitions, only a deep reading of Freud could give any explanation as to why that blatant contradiction exists between those two leisure activities.
The Bill attempts to iron out one small part of those contradictions. That is why I ask your Lordships' House to give "God speed" to what is a practical but modest Bill. From my own point of view and knowledge of the industry I should have liked complete deregulation of advertising restrictions in regard to bingo. That would allow full advertising not only of the address and social benefits, but also of the fact that they play bingo with modest money prizes. However, discussions with the Gaming Board and the Home Office have been going on with all their authority and experience. At this stage I did not want to give the appearance of going hull-headed against their feelings of wanting to resist full deregulation. Therefore, the Bill does not cover that. It only asks that, when advertising, the word "bingo" may be used. I do not even ask that the amount of money involved in this modest level of gambling need be advertised. The Bill is only concerned with the use of the word "bingo".
It is important that that encouragement should be given, particularly in view of the fact that I do not ask for a precedent even in regard to the money. Both Houses agreed a statute not long ago which gave full approval to the advertising of national bingo. As it was agreed in that instance that it would not be damaging, I suggest that the least we can do at this time is to go that extra step further along the same road.
The Bill would allow the clubs to use the word "bingo" when advertising and to show when and where the game is to be played, the cost of the programme, the facilities that are available and how one may become a member. I do not suggest that the period that must elapse between applying for membership and receiving it should be altered. The Bill merely deals with the outlawing of the word "bingo". It is important that this step should be taken if we feel that there is a need to promote this leisure activity as described by the Royal Commission.
In 1974—the year in which I came to your Lordships' House and when I first took an interest in the matte—there were over 1,600 licensed bingo clubs operating. There are now only about 980. The decline is mainly among the smaller operators. They are the ones with which I am mainly concerned and which I

915
have in mind when asking for this Second Reading to be given as a move towards placing upon the statute the freedom that the Bill would give.
Another puzzle which justifies the acceptance of the Bill is that present legislation allows the word "bingo" to be used only on the front of premises and nowhere else; yet the national game, which goes much further for bigger prize money, has already received permission under legislation passed a short time ago for extended advertising.
Perhaps I may remind my noble friend who will be replying from the Front Bench that it was the Minister from the Home Office who is now at Cabinet level who, when commending the approval to which I have just referred, said that legislation should be introduced because of the decline that continued to bedevil the bingo industry. It was a good reason then for wanting to give that bit of freedom, and that reason is now multiplied by 10 if we want to maintain the leisure activity which gives so much pleasure to so many people in areas where leisure activities are not as bright as they are in many town centres.
I said to my noble friend that an easy reply, if one does not want to give full-throated approval at this stage, is to say that the discussions are going on. The discussions have been going on. The relationship between the industry, the Home Office and the Gaming Board is very friendly. This Bill has taken into account the views that they have already expressed. I do not think that Parliament will be doing its duty if the Bill were to be delayed further on the basis of more discussions. Discussions have been taking place, but the time has come when Parliament itself should say "You have discussed this matter and evolution to the next small step should be proceeded with".
If your Lordships' House gives this matter its full approval and the Bill goes to another place that will take a certain amount of time. If during that time further discussions take place and full agreement occurs where the Government have the power to bring in the same regulations as my Bill would introduce, that can be done then. But that is not a good reason why we should not carry out our functions in your Lordships' House and set the Bill on its way in order to ensure that an activity which is now a full part of leisure activities in this country should be allowed to continue. It is with that in mind, modest though the measure is, but important to so many thousands of people, that I ask for this Bill to be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
7.21 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. This small but worthwhile Bill certainly meets with my approval. It is a measure that is designed to assist the general social well-being of many elderly people, and especially elderly women, who like to congregate in a warm, friendly, safe atmosphere and play the game of bingo. I think it is quite remarkable how long this
916
game has lasted. At the beginning I regarded it as a short-term craze—a fad—catching on for a while like the hula-hoop or a short-term fashion design. It has really amazed me that so many clubs are still in being nationwide. Obviously it has provided a most welcome source of satisfaction for millions of our citizens.
As the noble Lord has already mentioned, at one time there were 1,600 licensed clubs. There are still nearly 1,000 of them operating today. I gather that at the peak there were 6 million people regularly playing bingo. There are still 2,800,000 people participating today. Of course bingo is gaming or gambling, but it is tightly controlled. Bingo clubs are licensed, membership is necessary, admission is controlled and there are restrictions on prize money. There are not many millionaires from bingo: on the other hand, not many players are gambling themselves into debt and penury.
The Bill should help maintain this national gaming pastime of bingo. Perhaps the Bill may give the game a fillip. I am fully aware of the problems of the anti-gamblers about stimulating demand. It might just hold the figures. The aim is a minor deregulation of advertising for licensed bingo clubs enabling them to advertise where bingo can be played and only bingo, allowing the title "bingo" to be used. That is the real change. The new measure will also give the date of the session, the cost, the facilities available and how one can become a member. Prize money must not be advertised under this measure. I believe that would bring with it a slight smell of the casino. Nor must the measure be linked with either gaming or gambling activities. That is all to the good for the bingo organiser and for the helpful promotion of the game. It may well halt its decline. That is about all that can be said to those concerned about gambling.
What is of special interest to me is the promotion of bingo in working men's clubs, which are conservative, liberal, social, trade and labour clubs. Many of them have bingo nights or the game is played during the intermission of a concert. There are also Sunday morning clubs: all these activities are very popular. Hundreds of men and women attend these bingo sessions raising money for the club members' social well-being as well as enjoying the social atmosphere and the game. The cash raised from these bingo sessions helps the clubs to grant money to local charities. It also helps to sustain the clubs' indoor and outdoor sporting activities. The bingo sessions finance outings for pensioners and children. In the past this game has been known in the clubs as "lotto", "housey-housey", or "tombola", but under all those guises it is bingo.
Bingo is a satisfying gaming activity and all my working men's clubs would support this measure. Bingo is an innocent sporting form of recreation giving pleasure to nearly 3 million of our people and mainly to those who find some happiness in their visits to the bingo sessions in social centres and clubs. Therefore, I hope that the Government will see fit to accept this measure. It will allow bingo to be advertised and give it the fair prominence that it deserves.
7.26 p.m
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I wish to make a very brief contribution to this debate and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on bringing forward a necessary and long overdue amendment to a measure which has been out of touch and out of date for quite a long time. I congratulate him, too, on introducing it with his usual eloquence. He and the noble Lord, Lord Mason, have treated the subject so thoroughly that it leaves the rest of us with very little to say, but I am going to say it all the same.
I start by declaring a personal interest. I am a director of a group of public companies which, among other things, operates licensed bingo clubs. I am more than mildly surprised that this issue has not been resolved long since. The Gaming Act 1968, as the noble Lord pointed out, sought in some respects to separate bingo playing and hard gaming but not as regards advertising. The separation has been achieved. Licensed bingo clubs have taken pains to foster their own separate social identity. On the whole they have a good atmosphere, as has been observed, where people can play in comfortable, congenial and pretty civilised surroundings. If the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate has any doubts on this score I shall be happy to arrange some familiarisation visits for him.
It is true to say, as both noble Lords have said, that the bingo industry has a pretty responsible attitude to gaming. Contrary to the original aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I myself am content that the Bill does not now include the advertising of prize money or gaming machines. The ability to advertise the basic information embodied in the Bill cannot conceivably be reckoned to constitute a threat to society as we know it. It merely allows the bingo industry to compete fairly with other leisure activities on, in the cant phrase, "a level playing field".
Moreover, it will induce healthy competition within the bingo industry itself. Is that not consistent with the Government's economic philosophy? Is that not consistent with the Prime Minister's wish to promote a classless society? It is obvious from the figures that the noble Lord gave us that the number of clubs is continuing to fall. I find the decline in the fortunes of the smaller operators particularly worrying. When their small local club closes where will the people who are unable to travel very far play bingo? We shall see a concentration of clubs in the big cities and among the big operators. No one wants to see that, least of all, to judge from what he said, the noble Lord, Lord Mason. Curiously enough, the larger operators do not want that either.
Complementing the Royal Commission's views, adverted to by the noble Lord, and complementing the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, nearly 10 years ago an authoritative study by Rachel Dixey and Margaret Talbot produced conclusions. They were that for many elderly people, particularly women, the local bingo club provides a source of companionship. Indeed, it often affords their only leisure activity. One could claim that in its way it performs a useful social service. Other forms of gaming such as betting on horse racing or
918
participating in the football pools offer no such social benefits yet they are perfectly free to advertise. It is a matter for courteous derision that a bingo club, by contrast, is not able to indicate even such basic information as its address or the times of its sessions.
Surely, so far as advertising goes, it cannot be right to treat bingo, which, I repeat, is a modest form of social recreational wagering, on all fours with the hard gaming that goes on in casinos. As I have reminded your Lordships before, during his tragically short tenure as chairman of the Gaming Board five years ago, the late Sir Anthony Rawlinson said this:
"Were the legislation being rewritten in respect of advertising restrictions, I think the case could be made for distinguishing licensed bingo premises from licensed casino premises".
This Bill provides an opportunity to do some very modest rewriting. I hope that your Lordships' House will grant it a Second Reading.
7.32 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as is so often the case, my noble friend Lord HarmarNicholls does the House a good service by bringing this modest but important measure before the House. In this case he is extremely well supported by the noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley and Lord Bancroft, both of whom have spoken powerfully in support of the measure. All speakers this evening have said that the bingo industry is declining. There is no cause or call for the Government to support it. However, by the same token there is no reason for its survival to he impeded by unnecessary restrictions. That is really the issue that is before us this evening. The fact is that bingo quite clearly performs a valuable and important social function.
I am glad that in thinking about this Bill I have been able to find a very valuable ally in the shape of David Mellor, now an important Cabinet Minister, but in 1985 an Under-Secretary in another place. At that time, in connection with the debate on the national game, he said
"No one should doubt the importance of bingo in the lives of a good many people, especially women, in the community … For many people, a weekly or twice-weekly visit to a local bingo club provides a priceless form of recreation".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/85; col. 1180.]
That seems to me to be powerful support for the measure before us today. The fact is that this industry is very well regulated, a point brought out by all the speakers in the debate. It does not abuse its position. Indeed, it is very well run. This is a small Bill which gives the industry a little fresh air and long overdue freedom. I hope the Government will support it and that it will find a place on the statute book very quickly indeed.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this modest and well thought out Bill is to be welcomed. As other noble Lords in various parts of the House have already pointed out, bingo is a perfectly harmless pursuit which gives innocent excitement, together with companionship, to large numbers of mainly middle-aged or elderly and often lonely people. Bingo does not deserve to be lumped legally with big money

919
gambling. The latter opens the door to the possibility of individuals incurring massive personal losses, plus the possibility—not the probability, I concede—of criminal involvement, not least in the fields of money laundering and suchlike.
The record of Conservative governments since May 1979 in resisting the insidious encroachment of the nanny state and in fostering the enlargement of non-economic freedoms leaves much to be desired. Indeed their record in this sphere is decidedly poor. The Government now have an opportunity to atone for this, albeit in a very minor way, by actively assisting this modest measure to pass into law.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on this matter I do not speak for the Labour Party, as on all Private Bills we are neutral. I am myself, alone. The Duke of Kent, in Act 1, Scene 1, of King Lear, says to the King:
"…in thy best consideration, check this hideous rashness".
No such admonition need be directed towards the Government in this matter. Twenty-three years have passed like an ever rolling stream since the Gaming Act laid down, in Section 42, restrictions on the advertising of gaming, and included bingo in the category of activities so restricted. At that time the cries of outrage from the bingo industry were modestly mute, since bingo was doing rather well. It is only since the decline of the game, which reached its peak of popularity in 1974, that the sense of unjustified discrimination has become apparent and painful to anyone. However, your Lordships may care to note that, while more than 6 million people regularly played bingo in 1968, this number had dropped to 4.7 million by 1980 and to 2.4 million by 1989.
For more than three years the Bingo Association of Great Britain has been in discussion with the Home Office and the Gaming Board about the deregulation of advertising for licensed bingo clubs. Questions about it have been regularly put down and answered in another place. The BAGB made two submissions to the Gaming Board during the summer and autumn of 1990 and the board made its recommendations to the Home Office last November. Since then the Home Office has had the matter "under consideration". Whatever the verdict, whenever it comes, of one thing we may be sure: there will be nothing rash, sudden, impetuous, hasty, unconsidered or precipitate about it.
Why, we may ask, are the Government so slow, so careful, so cautious about this modest little measure? It is unlikely to unleash forces which they are powerless to control, or to bring about a Gadarene gallop back to the bingo halls by those who deserted them in search of headier pastimes. Why are the Government so preternaturally wary about this? May it perhaps be because they have good reason not to accede too readily to the BAGB request? On 17th January 1990 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State stated in a Written Answer:
920
"Licensed bingo clubs already advertise freely as social clubs, and specific games of bingo and certain prizes in them, are already advertised on the front of club premises".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/90; col. 265.]
The Government clearly felt that sufficient opportunity already existed and there was no need for additional and special relaxation of controls in favour of bingo. However, the bingo industry obviously feels that it is a special case. In its briefing for the present occasion it argues that the removal of some of the existing restrictions is justified because of the special nature of bingo clubs, which provide a valuable social function, especially for women and the elderly. It quotes—we heard it—the then Under-Secretary of State, David Mellor, in 1985, when he said:
"No one should doubt the importance of bingo in the lives of a good many people, especially women, in the community.
… For many people, a weekly or twice-weekly visit to a local bingo club provides a priceless form of recreation".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/85; col. 1180.]
But, the same could be said of a weekly or twice-weekly visit to the Dog and Duck. Moreover, an equally valuable social function could be claimed for the local betting shop, or the dog track—which provides a good night out for the family—or even for the neighbourhood launderette.
There is plentiful evidence on the other side of the danger of addiction to bingo clubs. Many people, especially women and the elderly, have gambled money that they could not afford, neglected their work and their families and left children unattended to follow the lure of the bingo caller; that is, the poor person's Pied Piper. I do not claim that the moral fabric of the nation is under imminent threat; but the Government are surely right to be cautious. I say that because, as everyone agrees, bingo is gaming and the dangers of addiction are inherent in all gambling, as are irresponsible behaviour and financial disaster. Moreover, in 1991 the argument that bingo provides, "a valuable social function", seems rather thin in view of the fact that its devotees are deserting it in a steady stream and seeking social solace elsewhere.
However, there is a deeper social concern here, on which it seems that both Government and Opposition share a view. The basic premise which underlies Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968 is that advertising to stimulate a demand for gambling is undesirable. Gambling is widely felt to be an ineluctable fact of life, but not in itself a moral or social good. In certain cases it is demonstrably disastrous, it has some real dangers and we should not be evidently worse off if it did not exist.
Section 42 of the Act was carefully drawn to ensure that no form of advertising is permitted which stimulates demand for gambling in any form. The present Bill breaches that premise to some extent. For example, by advertising "the facilities available" in subsection (2A), it would be possible to paint a very alluring picture which would both stimulate and entice. That would run clean contrary to the intention of Section 42. But the central illogicality of the Bill seems to me to be exemplified in paragraph 1.7 of the BAGB briefing, which reads:
"The industry accepts that the Government has no obligation to protect any industry when in decline, but feels that partial deregulation of advertising would 'tidy up'

921
provisions in the Gaming Act which are now out of date without constituting a major alteration in the principles of regulation in the gaming sector".
That means that the purpose of the present Bill is to "tidy up" provisions which are now outdated. However, since 1968 the provisions have not changed, though bingo has. It is bingo which is outdated, as is proved by the fact that fewer and fewer people wish to play the game. Thus the BAGB's plea for partial deregulation of advertising can only be to protect, or discriminate in favour of, the bingo industry when in decline.
How often throughout the 1980s did we see this Government set their adamantine face against state intervention in the play of market forces? How often did we hear them pronounce the doom that no lame duck would be reprieved? How often did we watch good companies go bankrupt, and good ideas die unrealised, because the stern dogma of "no intervention" was in cold-eyed control? Will the Government now betray their principles and shamelessly abandon their beliefs by throwing a lifebelt to the drowning bingo industry, hauling it ashore, and giving it the kiss of life?
I cannot believe that the nation is crying out for concessions to be made to bingo. I know of no opinion polls which point to a public demand for the Bill. However, I note that on 19th March 1990 Mr. Waddington, as he then was, stated in a Written Answer that the Government had received,
"102 letters from hon. Members—and one letter from a member of the public, about these controls".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 19/3/90; col. 455.]
That is hardly an army with banners. I conclude that no great harm would come if this Bill did not pass and that, if the Government rejected it, they would save not only their principles but also their face.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it may be helpful if I indicate the Government's view of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has introduced. But before I comment on the substance, it is important to be clear about the broader context within which the Bill must be seen. I would not begin to dispute that bingo does have a very neighbourly and social tradition. It is by its nature a game which brings people together. It seems to appeal particularly to women and the older members of our community. For them, it performs a useful social function which might not otherwise be available. I accept everything that noble Lords have said in that respect, although I should be delighted to be a beneficiary of a familiarisation visit offered by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. I have no doubt that it would result in my being still better qualified to agree with him. However, having said that, bingo is still a form of gambling. The maximum single prize in the national game can be as high as £50,000. Successive governments have taken the view that gambling, including bingo, should be subject to special regulation which does not apply to all forms of leisure activity.
The question we are being invited to consider today, therefore, is primarily whether the controls on advertising a particular form of gambling should be
922
relaxed. That requires us to look not just at bingo but also at whether any change would be consistent with the controls applied to other forms of gambling. What was conceded to bingo could be demanded by those with an interest in other forms of gambling.
One of the basic features of long-standing government policy in this area is that gambling should not be positively encouraged. It is, of course, a fact of life that gambling exists. It is no part of government policy to prevent people having a flutter if they want to. But it must be properly regulated and the demand for gambling should not be stimulated.
One of the principal methods of encouraging people to take part in certain activities is by advertising. It follows that advertising controls are at the very heart of gambling policy and any proposals for change need very careful consideration. So far as concerns bingo, Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968 forbids advertisements informing the public about any premises where gaming takes place, or inviting them to take part in such gaming or to apply for information about it. But the statutory framework makes different provisions for different forms of gambling. For example, lotteries are able to advertise quite freely because they are small-scale and are generally for charitable purposes. Bingo clubs can and do advertise as social clubs in the press. On the other hand, betting offices may not advertise their location or the facilities they provide. However, the broadcast advertising of all forms of commercial gambling is prohibited. That is because broadcasting has generally been considered to be the most effective advertising medium of all. It is able to reach a vast number of people of all ages. Therefore, to permit the use of this means of advertising would allow a significant stimulation of demand.
The balance of controls on the various forms of gambling is very difficult to strike. We recognise that casinos provide a harder form of gaming than bingo, and yet both are subject to the same statutory control on advertising, as my noble friend pointed out. On the other hand, any relaxation of the controls for bingo must he justified on their own merits and in relation to the general framework of controls.
The effect of the Bill is to remove all controls on advertising of bingo, subject to various requirements including any additional requirement which the Secretary of State may specify by regulation. The Government have previously said that the complete deregulation of advertising controls is not acceptable. However, Ministers have also indicated that they would be willing to consider some partial relaxation of the advertising controls if a good enough case could be made out, subject to one or two ground rules.
The first ground rule is that the Government are opposed to any amendment of the law which would allow, or lead to, wider advertising of inducements to game; for example, press advertising of prizes available at specific bingo clubs. Secondly, we are in principle opposed to making any exception to the general prohibition on the broadcast advertising of commercial gambling. The case for local radio advertising would have to be judged in that context.

923
For the past twelve months or so, the bingo industry has been in discussion with the Gaming Board for Great Britain about what, if any, partial deregulation of the advertising controls might be justified. We understand that the industry now seeks to be able to advertise in print and on local radio where and when bingo is played, the quality of clubs and their facilities, and the cost of the bingo programme. It also wants print advertisements to include applications for membership. There would be no reference to prizes in such advertisements, but we understand that the industry would still want to be able to issue general advertisements in the press or other printed matter which, as at present, would refer to prizes.
At the end of last year, following its discussions with the bingo industry, the gaming board made its recommendations for some relaxation to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Those recommendations are now under consideration. We asked the Bingo Association of Great Britain for further information which was supplied earlier this month. The Government are still considering whether there is a case for relaxing any of the present controls on the advertising of licensed bingo clubs. For example, it is not at present clear to us whether any new freedom to advertise specific premises should be allowed to operate alongside the continued use of general advertising of bingo in the press, which may include reference to prizes. We are also concerned that heavier advertising of bingo could change its social and neighbourly character, to which I referred earlier, by putting greater emphasis on the opportunity to gamble rather than on its social aspects. If that were to he the consequence of any partial deregulation, it would be harder to resist calls for compensatory deregulation from other sectors of the gambling industry.
Those are all points which the Government will consider in the light of the gaming board's recommendations and in the light of the arguments already put to us by the Bingo Association of Great Britain and of those made in this debate. It may well be necessary to have further meetings with the industry before reaching a decision, but we shall aim to reach a decision as soon as possible.
I shall now turn briefly to the drafting of the Bill. It has a number of weaknesses, no doubt in part reflecting the fact that no agreement has yet been reached on what relaxation, if any, the Government could support. The Bill would remove all controls on advertising of bingo, subject to various requirements, including any additional requirement which the Secretary of State may specify by regulation. There is no indication of the kind of additional requirement that might be specified. If, for example, the Government decided that the long-standing prohibition on broadcast advertising should remain, could the regulations exclude broadcasting from the forms of advertising allowed by the Bill? We have doubts about whether that would be a proper use of the regulatory power, and it is not, in any event, an approach which the Government would favour.
924
There are a number of other unsatisfactory aspects of the Bill where, for example, the meaning of certain terms is unclear. The Government recognise the difficulties of drafting amendments to what is a complex area of the law. The technical weaknesses which we see in the Bill are not in any way criticisms of the bingo industry's case; but we firmly believe that the best way to proceed is to agree upon what changes are justified before providing for them in a Bill.
Your Lordships may have gathered from my remarks that this is not a Bill to which the Government can give an immediate welcome. It may be that there is some scope for relaxing the controls on advertising of bingo. The Government are prepared to continue the process of discussion with the bingo industry, but at this stage it is not clear whether an adequate case can be made or what degree of relaxation, if any, would be sensible. The progress of the Bill through this House is, of course, a matter for your Lordships. The Government will watch its progress with interest.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in a way, that is not an unhelpful reply. I think we can now give the Bill a Second Reading without any problem. My noble friend said that the Government have some doubts about certain points, but they are not included in the Bill. It is true that there have been discussions, and all the points of view put by the Gaming Board for Great Britain and the Home Office have been taken account of. They were the points put by my noble friend, and they are not included in the Bill. If my noble friend feels that the Bill goes further than I explained; for example, that the word "bingo" should be allowed in advertisements which are now allowed, we can table amendments in Committee if we feel it right to have a Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, had my spirits up and down as to how he felt about the Bill. If he does not mind my saying so, I am always a little suspicious when someone opens a speech with a Shakespearian quotation. I always feel that people want to hide behind something. There is nothing to hide behind in this case. The noble Lord made it clear that he was not speaking for the Opposition, but for himself. He delivered his speech in a delightful way, and I understood clearly that he does not like gambling. That should not stand in the way of those of us who do not accept the danger that he hinted at as a reason not to give the Bill a Second Reading.
If, by the time the Bill completes its passage through this House and is sent to another place, the discussions which my noble friend said the Government were prepared to continue are completed, and if agreement is reached on the points raised, there is no reason why the Government should not introduce regulations. The discussions have been going on for a long time. I believe that Parliament is doing its duty when it says, "You have been talking about this matter for long enough, let us do something". My noble friend said that the Government were prepared to recognise that there was a need to give a little more freedom. I can think

925
of nothing more modest and in keeping with that aim than this Bill. It is with confidence that I move that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.57 to 8.10 p.m.]

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 6.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 12. line 42, at end insert:
("(3C) Where a person is entitled to the disability working allowance by virtue of section 20(6A) (c) (i) or (ii) above the amount shall include an amount in respect of his mortgage interest payments or other housing costs as are prescribed.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns mortgage interest repayments. I moved an amendment on the subject in Committee but did not press it because I wished to look more carefully at the Minister's response. I now raise the issue again because I do not believe that adequate reasons for rejecting it were given by the Minister when I first moved it.
The intention of the amendment, as I said in Committee, is to try to ensure that mortgage interest and other housing cost provisions are provided for in the calculation of DWA as they are in the calculation for income support. In Committee the Minister claimed that there would be immense problems in estimating how many people with mortgages might claim DWA. He further said:
"The majority of people who will be considering claiming disability working allowance will not be receiving any benefit which includes an allowance for mortgage interest or other housing costs. Invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance do not include any allowance for mortgage interest".—[Official Report, 11/3/91; col. 36.]
While it is true that receipt of SDA does not itself entitle people to have mortgage interest paid, a large number of such people have to receive income support to supplement their income. Thus, many people who at present receive SDA will have their mortgage interest paid.
DWA is surely more likely to attract claimants and thus disabled people into work—which we keep on saying is one of the objectives—if they are assured about their housing costs. Otherwise, many claimants will have no incentive to opt for DWA. Many disabled people will have to consider very carefully indeed whether they may lose out if they were to opt for a job plus DWA. This nullifies the so-called incentive effect. Therefore I wish the whole matter to be reconsidered in this House. For that reason, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have studied the Official Report of our debate on the noble Baroness's amendment in Committee. That amendment was identical—I stress identical, not similar—to the amendment she has just moved. I have to repeat the same arguments. I remain convinced that we were right to follow the model established for other benefits for people in work—family credit and its predecessor, family income supplement.
It will be possible for people with quite reasonable wages to receive some DWA. I quoted an example in Committee, using the illustrative rates we have given in the note on DWA. A couple with two children aged between 11 and 15 could still receive DWA if they were earning £170 a week. On top of that, they would have child benefit and some would have the disability living allowance. If mortgage interest were paid in addition, we would pay an income related benefit to people whose income was around the national average. I feel that would be hard to justify.
The family credit model helps to ensure that the benefit is comparatively simple to understand and to operate. This is of considerable importance to potential claimants. They need to be able to understand the benefit in order to take it into account when deciding whether to take a job. They also need to be confident that their claim can be dealt with quickly and that they will get the money they are entitled to within a matter of days.
From time to time the department's claim forms are criticised for being too long and difficult to complete. Questions about mortgage interest would add to this. Information has also to be checked and taken into account in the benefit calculation. Having to gather and include details of mortgage interest would add to the time taken to process DWA claims and would also add to the potential for errors and disputes.
It is not possible to estimate precisely how many people with mortgages might claim DWA. Probably about 10,000 will claim and will be better off, working and claiming DWA than they would be on income support. We have said that probably a much smaller number with larger mortgages and low earnings will not be better off on DWA. But, as I said in Committee, if they want to work they will be better off with DWA than they would be if the benefit were not introduced.
Most DWA claimants will not have been receiving any benefit which includes an allowance for mortgage interest or other housing costs. As your Lordships know, and as the noble Baroness said, invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance do not include any allowance for mortgage interest. Those who are already in work when DWA is introduced—perhaps 15,000 people, 30 per cent. of the caseload we are expecting to reach—will be getting no help with their mortgage interest other than tax relief.
Since DWA will make them better off even without an allowance for mortgage interest and other housing costs, it is hard to justify the extra cost and the administrative complexity which would result from including such an allowance.
Disability working allowance is a broad brush scheme designed to be as easy as possible to understand and operate. It would be a very big step to

927
allow for mortgage interest and other housing costs. Such a step would be out of keeping with all we have done to streamline the benefit and, on balance, I do not think it would improve the effectiveness of the benefit. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment but will be prepared to withdraw it.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and before the noble Baroness replies, will he explain a little further a remark he made earlier? He attempted to adduce a parallel with the previous benefit, family income supplement, which was the precursor of benefits like this. I believe that he said there was no allowance in it for mortgage interest. There was no allowance in it for anything. It was a benefit given to people who received low wages to enable them to manage. The benefit was not apportioned so that one could spend so much on this, so much on that and so much on the other. I hope that the noble Lord will not deny that an enormous number of families who were in receipt of that family income supplement found it immensely helpful. It enabled them to keep up their mortgage interest payments.
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, that is why we introduced family credit, which is a somewhat better benefit than family income supplement. It has had a far higher take-up than family income supplement.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we have had pretty much the same discussion as we had in Committee. I remain basically unconvinced. It seems to me that the Minister is arguing yet again that people will inevitably be better off with DWA. According to the information that I have received from organisations representing the disabled, that is rather problematical. Some people will be better off, others will gain so little that by the time they have looked at what they are likely to lose as a result of opting for DWA they may well decide not to go down that route at all. That would be a pity. As I said earlier, the intention of everyone in this House is, I am sure, that DWA should be a successful benefit and should encourage many people back into the labour market.
The Minister said that in the other benefits to which I referred people did not receive mortgage relief. That is absolutely true. However, some people would receive income support and perhaps receive mortgage interest relief as a result of getting the benefit.
I am not at all happy with what has been said. The organisations representing the disabled felt strongly enough about this provision to ask us to press it again on Report. As I said earlier, the director of Shelter wrote to me to say she thought this was an important amendment and that if it was accepted it would represent a great benefit to many people who otherwise would have enormous difficulty in opting for DWA. However, I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage of the proceedings. Despite my misgivings about the response we have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 12, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6) of section 21 of the 1986 Act—
"(6A) In the case of the disability working allowance the regulations shall provide that—

(a) the maximum rate for a single person shall be the same as the adult rate for family credit with an addition of 20 per cent of that adult rate;

(b) the maximum rate for lone parents and couples shall be the same as the adult rate for family credit with an addition of 45 per cent of that adult rate;

(c) the rate for couples where both are disabled shall be the same as the adult rate for family credit with an addition of 65 per cent of that adult rate; and

(d) the rates for children shall be the same as those prescribed for children in relation to family credit." ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords. in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45 as I understand they are grouped together. The object of the amendments is to try to raise the levels of DWA as an incentive to disabled people to opt for employment. All the organisations catering for the disabled are currently concerned that the levels of DWA, particularly in view of the 70 per cent. taper, are such that relatively few people will be tempted to opt for work. As we see it, that would nullify the whole intention of DWA. The provision therefore links the amounts to the family credit rates, but with additions because of disability. The reason for this is that disabled people have special needs. We have often referred to those needs during debates on the Bill. When they work, they incur working expenses. such as travel expenses, even taking account of help that is available under the fares to work scheme. They also incur clothing expenses and expenses for food, in particular for food that must be purchased at midday.
The Spastics Society has provided me with examples of such expenses. Some of the examples are detailed, but it becomes fairly clear that for a person coming off incapacity benefits and income support, the benefits of working would sometimes hardly be worth while. If such a person earns £36 a week, for example, from working, plus £36.22 DWA top-up, he could end up, after working 16 hours a week, only £1.92 per week better off. Then he or she would lose entitlement to health benefits which are passported under income support. Reducing the taper would have helped. However, as we know, the Minister has not been prepared to accept that. This is another attempt to try to provide a genuine incentive for disabled people to take paid employment.
As the illustration I have mentioned indicates—I have many detailed examples that I could provide—a benefit of ultimately around £1.92 a week is hardly an incentive for someone who is prepared to work 16 hours a week, particularly when health care benefits are also lost. Noble Lords will know that we attempted to remedy that position in Committee but we were not successful.
I have given an example that relates to a single person. The amendment I am moving now also seeks

929
to cover the position of lone parents and couples where both partners are disabled. Again we emphasise that being disabled involves extra costs that those of us who are lucky enough not to be disabled can hardly imagine. There are the costs of medicines and sometimes costs for special equipment and clothing which may be specialised or different from normal clothing. Those costs are incurred in addition to the normal costs of working which involve, as I have already indicated, travel costs and the costs of meals taken away from home. For those reasons I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are various technical objections to these amendments. For example, they fix the benefit rates in such a way that if the Government decided on a more generous uprating for DWA this would have to be done by primary legislation. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has tabled the amendments in order to debate the generosity or otherwise of the level at which DWA is to be introduced. Therefore, I do not propose to dwell on the technical objections save to make one point.
By tradition the Government have set benefit rates by regulation. This ensures that the rates are given appropriate parliamentary scrutiny but also allows the Government flexibility to tune the rates. In this way it is possible to give a little extra to particular groups where appropriate—for example, last year we increased both the adult and the children's disability premiums by more than inflation, at a cost of £26 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, it also allows the Government to make judgments between wider competing priorities. Resources are always limited and the Government must decide how to apportion them. It must be right that governments can do this without constant recourse to primary legislation.
For that reason the Government propose to set the DWA rates by regulation. We intend to do this in the autumn. The rates will be set after considering all the views expressed during the Bill's passage through Parliament and in the light of wider decisions about the resources which are available.
I now turn to Amendment No. 44. We set out illustrative rates for DWA in the note we published last November. In two respects the rates we proposed then are the same as or similar to those this amendment would require. As suggested by this amendment, we propose to set the rates for children at the same level as they are set from time to time for family credit. The illustrative rate we have given for couples and single parents is only 95p. less than the level it would be if the formula in this amendment was applied. The important differences are in the rates for single people and for couples where both partners are disabled.
At present benefit rates the formula would give single claimants £6.40 more than the illustrative rates. We arrived at our illustrative rates by setting the rate for single people at 60 per cent. of the rate for couples. This is roughly the ratio used in other social security benefits and seems to us to be reasonable. We considered giving a special higher rate of DWA where both partners are disabled but decided against that
930
because of the practical problems of identifying whether the partner is disabled. Short of devising a disability test for partners, I am not sure how we could make the suggested formula work in such cases.
Amendment No. 45 would set the applicable amount for all DWA recipients at the same level and would set this level 20 per cent. higher than the family credit applicable amount. I am not clear why this particular ratio was selected, but if it proved too high or low it would require primary legislation to refine it. There is the question of whether it is right to adopt the same applicable amount for single childless people as for couples. I think it is reasonable to acknowledge in the benefit structure the fact that two people's needs are greater than those of one person.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendments and giving us the opportunity to discuss the rate at which DWA should be introduced. We shall take note of what she has said. This is in fact the first debate on the subject during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
There are very important issues. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that it is more appropriate to set the benefit rates by regulation and that the Government must decide the level nearer the time taking into account the resources which are available. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unsympathetic response to the amendment. I appreciate that he said that note would be taken of my comments in speaking to the amendments. Clearly, as I emphasised in my opening remarks, we wished DWA to be set at a generous enough rate to encourage people who otherwise might not do so to opt for DWA and join the labour market. That is the whole objective of this exercise. We were concerned—this is also a concern of the organisations involved with the disabled—that the rates set would simply not provide the appropriate incentive.
I note what the Minister said about the flexibility involved in setting rates by regulation rather than in primary legislation. I suppose that there is something to be said for that approach if account is taken of what Members of this House and of another place have to say about those rates when they are made known. Certainly, unless the rates are reasonably generous they will not provide the appropriate incentive.
However, it is not my intention to press the amendments tonight. As the Minister said, this is the first time we have debated the rates themselves during the course of the passage of the Bill through this House. I am very glad that note is being taken of what is being said, because what I am saying to your Lordships tonight does not come out of the air. They are points that have been put to me by organisations which represent the disabled and which have been so active in lobbying on the Bill and which do so much work on behalf of people who are disabled who, we all hope, will ultimately benefit from the provisions of the Bill.
Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 12, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation)—
(5A) Subsection (5) above shall not apply where a
person is claiming the disability working allowance." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved an amendment to this effect at Committee stage. I believe that it was the same amendment—or similar. As it was getting late I did not press it to a Division. Nevertheless, this is a matter which we are justified in asking to be reconsidered.
Under the Bill as it stands, if one member of a couple claims DWA the partner's income will be taken into account when assessing entitlement and calculating the amount of benefit payable. It will be seen immediately that numbers of disabled people—mostly women-are likely to be disadvantaged by that requirement. Yet if the intention is, as we have said, to try to ensure that people with disabilities join the workforce at levels of work that they can manage that must surely be a major disincentive.
The argument has been that disabled people should be encouraged to be independent and, where possible, look after themselves. However, unless an attempt is made to individualise the benefit that simply will not happen.
In replying to the debate on the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that DWA:
"is not a personal benefit. The amount of benefit due for the whole family will be calculated and the whole family's resources (with certain specific exceptions) will be aggregated and taken into account".—[Official Report, 11/3/91; cols. 47 and 48.]
He further said:
"Disregarding the partner's income and capital would increase the cost of DWA and I do not believe it would be a good use of public money".
He also said:
"The question of incentives was one we considered very carefully when designing DWA".
Organisations representing the disabled believe that approximately half the disabled people living as couples would fail to qualify for even the minimum level of DWA. I think it particularly important that women who are disabled should have the opportunity of earning in the wider community and should have the incentive to do so. As we have said, we support the whole concept because we believe that undertaking suitable work, perhaps with reduced hours, breaks down the isolation felt by many disabled people. However, if a partner's income is to be taken into account the whole notion of independence breaks down.
I know that once again the question of cost will be raised, as it was in Committee. However, I believe that helping disabled people to independence will ultimately cost less, rather than more, as well as being emphatically the right thing to do.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness said about her amendments not coming out
932
of the air. In addition, I can assist the noble Baroness by telling her that the amendment is exactly the same as, rather than similar to, the amendment she tabled in Committee. I should also comment, as I believe I did at Committee stage, that while I appreciate the figures will be speculative the cost of the amendment could be about £10 million—a not inconsiderable sum.
There are two issues to be considered. The first is whether an income-related benefit should, as a matter of principle, be paid to someone whose partner has sufficient earnings or capital to take the family above the general income-related benefit level. The second is the extent to which DWA should be expected to offer an incentive to disabled people to work.
On the first, the answer is very clear. The rules governing income-related benefits should reflect the pooling of resources which takes place in the majority of families. Income-related benefits are paid for by taxpayers, some of whom themselves have quite low earnings. The principle which applies and has always applied to income-related benefits is that the financial resources of both partners should be taken into account in calculating the benefit paid for the family. It would be inequitable to do otherwise.
As for the second issue, again the answer is very clear. The indications are that, by and large, disabled people want to work and be fully integrated into the community. They say that the benefit system obstructs them in their attempts to work, and we have done a great deal to remove the obstacles.
DWA provides an opportunity for disabled people, as I have said on a number of occasions. The opportunity offered is that disabled people on incapacity benefits can take work, even at a very low wage, confident of two points. First, their earnings can be supplemented to ensure they are not taken below income support level as a result. Most will be somewhat better off than this. Secondly, if they take a low paid job with the help of DWA they have two years in which to establish themselves. During that time if their attempt at work fails and they prove incapable of work they can go back to their incapacity benefit without having to wait 28 weeks to requalify.
As I said, I believe that disabled people should decide whether or not to go to work on the basis of a judgment of their capacity to do so. They may well want to work because of the financial and social rewards, but I do not believe that the benefit system should push them to go before they are ready.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments and accept the fact that disregarding the partner's income and capital would increase the cost of DWA. As I said in Committee, I do not believe that that would necessarily be a good use of public money.
Baroness Turner: My Lords, again I rise to say that I note what the Minister said without necessarily agreeing with it. I was under the impression, and we have been told repeatedly by the Minister during the course of our discussions on the Bill, that DWA is a new and entirely fresh benefit. It is a different and completely new approach. The whole idea is that disabled people should be made more independent, and should be encouraged to become more

933
independent, by joining the workforce. If one intends to encourage independence this part of the Bill is not the right way to go about it.
I am very sorry indeed that it should be regarded as appropriate that in this benefit the same criteria should apply as in relation to the other benefits to which the Minister has referred. I thought that it was a rather different benefit with a different approach.
In particular, I am concerned about the position of women. Surely we would like to encourage more disabled women to become independent and independently to join the labour market. It seems to me that this provision will militate against that. Nevertheless, it is not my intention to divide the House at this stage of the Bill. Having expressed my disagreement with the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 12, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation)—
"(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6) above if the person is claiming a disability working allowance the prescribed amount shall not be less than £16,000." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I see that Amendment No. 47 has been grouped with Amendment No. 48 but I do not think that they are about the same subject. Therefore, I propose to speak only to Amendment No. 47, which deals with the capital limit which may be prescribed. It is now £8,000 and the amendment proposes that it should he not less than £16,000. I should like to be able to move—but I expect without hope—that there should be no prescribed capital limit.
I should like to say that this amendment is not similar but identical to the amendment I moved in Committee. I move it in order to elicit some kind of response from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who very kindly undertook in Committee to consider the amendment before the next stage.
There was all-round support for the amendment in Committee, and it was noticeable that the support came, almost especially, from the Conservative Benches. First, there was support from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, secondly, there was support from the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and, thirdly, late in the day there was rather unexpectedly support from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour—though perhaps that was not her intention. Among other remarks, she said that nowadays £8,000 was not very much capital; nor indeed was £16,000. I can count upon her as a supporter in withdrawing this amendment in the hope of good things to come following discussion between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
It so happened that I was not well and was extremely ably represented by the noble Baroness in front of me. She and her experts came along and talked to the noble Lord. I am told that they had a very agreeable and promising conversation. I cannot
934
count my chickens before they hatch, and I am just hoping that the good things adumbrated earlier by the noble Lord are about to be vouchsafed.
It is quite clear that good Conservatives like people to acquire nest eggs. That approach is documented particularly in regard to the present amendment to the Bill in paragraph 3.18 of The Way Ahead. The Government identify as a priority for targeting resources those who have not had the,
"opportunity to earn, to build up pension rights and to save".
By imposing an £8,000 capital limit the Government will clearly be running against their own aims. Therefore, we are trying the bring them into line with their aims as set out in The Way Ahead. Disability working allowance should be a very different benefit from family credit. It is designed to enable disabled people to work part-time and to take an active part in society, whereas family credit is designed to assist families on low income.
If the capital limit were removed I believe it would not add significantly to the cost of the disability working allowance. I have authority for saying that, in that when the Government were asked in the House of Commons by Mr. John Hannam (one of their own supporters) about the cost of raising the capital limit for this benefit, the Minister replied that, given the small numbers involved, it was not possible to estimate with confidence the gross or net cost.
I appreciate that it is impossible to do so, but the implication was that it was not very great.
I think I have made the case for the amendment and given the opportunity for the Minister to let us know the result of his conversation with his noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. At Committee stage in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, my noble friend the Minister said that compensation for personal injury held in trust would be disregarded as far as the calculations were concerned. Sometimes it can take a very long time for compensation to be paid following an industrial or other injury. It may well be that by the time compensation is paid the newly disabled person has reached the stage where he is ready to go back to work. What is the position in relation to compensation which is not in trust? Is that also to be disregarded? Some people will have the ability to get legal advice and have compensation put into trust and some will not. Is one to penalise those who do not have their compensation put into trust?
The current figure of £8,000, which the noble Lord by his amendment wishes to raise to £16,000, is very low. The cost of special adaptations required by physically disabled people is peculiar to those people. Disabled people are far more individuals than able bodied people because they need things to be specially designed for them.
In addition, in many cases when people get jobs they need to move. It is not always the case that local housing authority dwellings specially designed for

935
disabled people are available in those areas where such people getting new jobs would require to obtain homes. They may well have to buy. The cost of buying a house and moving can sometimes be horrendous. On top of that is the cost of all the necessary adaptations. Therefore, to encourage disabled people to get work and be prepared to move to get work we need to keep the capital level as high as possible. It has to be borne in mind that a physically disabled person cannot get a home just anywhere. Even if a disabled person's home is within the recommended distance of a quarter of a mile of shops, the situation is hopeless if the house happens to be in the bottom of a valley with the shops at the top of the hill. The disabled person cannot get up the hill in his or her wheelchair.
Even if they do not have to move and they stay in one place, they have to maintain their homes. Most of us maintain our homes on a do-it-yourself basis. We may not do it as well as the professionals, but it is done, But a disabled person in a wheelchair would, for instance, have the greatest difficulty in redecorating a ceiling. They would have to get somebody in to do that. As opposed to paying just a few pounds for equipment, it could cost them several hundreds of pounds. They will not be able to get into the attic to deal with the plumbing or the electrical wiring above the ceiling. There are so many aspects of disability which attract far more expense than one realises. It is essential that a disabled person should have a capital sum upon which he or she can fall back in emergencies. I heartily support the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment and to say that on this side we agree that there is no reason for grouping this amendment with the following one in my name. With the leave of the House, we would be happy to have them debated entirely separately. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that the two amendments raise different issues.
I shall add very little to what has been said. In fact a great deal of it was said in Committee. The £8,000 limit is very low. Arising from disability there are costs which have to be shouldered and which are not imposed upon people who are not disabled. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already referred to them.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised again the whole question of industrial compensation. I raised the matter in Committee and received from the Minister a response to the effect that if it were compensation in trust it would be disregarded. But as has already been indicated, there may very well be money simply paid in compensation and remaining in a bank account before any decisions had been taken as to what should be done with it. Moreover, advice may not be available as to what should be done with it in any event.
For all those reasons I support the amendment. I suppose that the main reason is that £8,000 is too low in current circumstances. There seemed to be general agreement earlier when we debated this issue that that was the situation. Indeed, the Minister himself said that he would be prepared to take away and look through the first of the amendments, which was the
936
amendment relating to the £8,000 and creating a situation in which the prescribed amount should not be less than £16,000. I await with interest the Minister's response.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, first, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for bringing up this issue. He may remember that last time also I spoke in favour of the amendment. I congratulate the Minister for the steps that he has taken already today to increase the amount of money which will be paid in the form of benefit for those people who congenitally or later on in life are unfortunately mentally affected and disabled.
I should like to ask him whether the figure of £8,000 was considered before the recent Budget when value added tax went up to 17.5 per cent. In fact was it considered in line with the fact that we shall go into the European Community a little bit more integrated physically and in other ways in 1992 or perhaps 1993? Was the £8,000 also considered—I hope that the Minister is listening too—when the tax was increased on fuel? That is a tax which affects heating, travel and the cost of carers for the disabled. What about the new local government taxes which the Minister in another place talked about which will come into effect possibly within three years? Very well, within three years, but does that mean to say that the £8,000 will be reconsidered in 1992? In fact can the people whose cases we are trying to represent this evening make do with £8,000 a year? Can they manage on it? The answer is no.
Can they manage on £16,000? I totally agree with what has been said already this evening by two or three speakers. The amount is paltry. Noble Lords will remember that the last time I spoke on this matter I said that we had the privilege of taking an allowance for meals. I incorrectly calculated it at £24 a day; I understand now that it is £26. If one were to take that sum for 365 days—I hope my mathematics are correct—it would come to £9,490. That would mean that out of the £16,000 the disabled person would have left £6,510 for the remainder of what he or she had to manage with for that year in order to live. I do not call that generous. I do not think that enough thought has been put into this issue. I can assure the Minister that, as a partially disabled person—I know there are others present in the House who come into the same category—I am fortunate not to earn only £16,000 per annum.
I should be grateful if the Minister would consider £16,000 as the lowest rate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for again bringing up this point. I thoroughly support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that the two amendments, Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, were grouped together. However, if the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, want them to be "ungrouped" then that is fine by me.
As we have said, the disability working allowance is an income-related benefit. Resources are limited and must be used first to help those who are relatively less well off. The proposal reflects that aim by giving most

937
help to people with less than £3,000 capital and tapering off that help as their capital rises to the appropriate limit, at which point no benefit is payable.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about our record on increasing capital limits in the past. In 1980 up to £2,000 was disregarded but no supplementary benefit, as it then was, was paid to people with more capital than that. The limit was then increased to £2,582 and £3,000 in 1983. Since 1988 the rule has been that £3,000 is disregarded but—it is a big but—tariff income is assumed on capital above that level. That cut-off point was £6,000 from April 1988. In April last year it was raised to £8,000 for income support and family credit and £16,000 for housing benefit and community charge benefit.
It has been argued that DWA recipients, being disabled, have a particular need to be able to accumulate savings. I accept that, but one must bear in mind forms of capital which are wholly disregarded. For example, compensation for personal injury held in trust will be entirely disregarded.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked about compensation for personal injury which was not held in trust. The problem is that capital held in trust is easy to distinguish from any other capital and so can be disregarded without any difficulty. A payment in compensation which is paid into, say, the ordinary account of a claimant would he difficult to distinguish from any other capital. The compensation payment might have been made some years ago and other capital might have been inherited or have accrued since then. If all that capital were in the same account now, it would be difficult to distinguish one form from the other.
In reply to my noble friend I would recommend anyone to take advice on these matters and make sure that any personal injury money is held in trust. That only involves taking the appropriate legal advice. Other forms of capital will also be disregarded, such as the claimant's home, as I mentioned at Committee stage, and his personal possessions, of which I gave a rather extreme example.
Lord Carter Lord Carter: That was the Rembrandt, my Lords.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it was the Rembrandt, as the noble Lord said. And also of course the surrender value of a life assurance policy and an annuity or an occupational pension.
During the debate on this matter at Committee stage particularly in relation to the upper limit of which we are speaking—the noble Baroness wants to have the amendments ungrouped and they will be ungrouped—I promised to take away this matter and reconsider our proposals in the light of arguments advanced by Members of this House. Since that debate I have discussed the issues further with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I hoped to be able to discuss them with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, but I regret that he was unable to attend on that occasion. I might be wrong but I understand that he was in Cumbria, which was a perfectly good excuse. The noble Lord shakes his head. He was not in Cumbria. I am sure nonetheless that he had an equally good excuse for not having been there.
938
The noble Baroness made a convincing case for raising the upper capital limit to £16,000. In the light of all the arguments, I have reconsidered these matters, and I accept the contention that has been put forward that there is a special case for setting the capital cut-off point for DWA higher than the £8,000 limit used in income support and family credit. On that basis I can confirm that we will set the upper capital limit for DWA at £16,000.
The noble Lord will understand that this will be done by regulation. I am sure that he will accept my assurance that this will be the case: obviously it cannot be a matter for the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I must say that that is a handsome reply on what may be recorded for posterity as the Rembrandt amendment, or indeed it could be called the Carnegy of Lour amendment. The noble Baroness, perhaps inadvertently, helped us considerably to this substantial concession. We are grateful to her as well as to the noble Lord for this fine result.
Certainly the goodies that he had laid out for future pleasure have now been consumed with gratitude, and we are grateful. I am sure that all in the disabled world will be grateful too. With those words, and with the promise of amendments by means of regulation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 12, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation)—
"(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, if the person is claiming a disability working allowance the prescribed lower amount shall not be less than £5,000."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I too should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the enormous concession made on the previous amendment, although it has nothing to do with this amendment. On this amendment we are looking at the lower end of the scale and at the question of the £3,000, which is the figure at which the taper begins and the figure at which reductions in benefit begin. The Minister has confirmed tonight that this has been in existence since 1983/84. I cannot understand why this figure has never been uprated in line with inflation. If it were uprated it would be nearer the £5,000 that we are suggesting.
The Minister has been good enough to accept the arguments that we put forward from all sides of the House in regard to the £8,000. I wonder therefore why it is not possible for him to move on the £3,000. He indicated in Committee that he did not feel that this figure was something on which he could move. Although it would not tie in with anything else on income-related benefits, neither, as I understand it, would the concession that he has just made in regard to £8,000.
I wonder, therefore, without my having to make a case about it because we have discussed it quite a lot in Committee and the arguments are similar to the ones advanced in relation to the £8,000, is the Minister prepared to make any concession at all in relation to the £3,000? It has remained the figure in family credit for a long time, and, as we have indicated on a number of occasions in discussion on this Bill, DWA is a rather different sort of benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, after a successful appreciation of my previous concession I am not sure that I shall be able to help the noble Baroness here.The £3,000 is the lower capital limit —or it is proposed to be—not just for DWA but for all the other four income-related benefits, and I see no case for giving this one particular income-related benefit a different base limit from the others.
The noble Baroness asked, if that was the case, why we were able to increase DWA to £16,000. The point I made at Committee stage was that there were two income-related benefits with a capital limit of £8,000 and two with £16,000 and that we had decided to attach DWA to the £8,000 limit. In the light of representations made today I have been able to offer an increase in the upper capital limit to £16,000. Therefore, there are now three benefits on £16,000 and two on £8,000.
The noble Baroness tried to make the point that £3,000 has been the fixed lower limit since 1983. That is not quite the case. Three thousand pounds was also the upper capital limit in 1983. What we have done since then is to bring in the tariff income that is assumed on capital above that level. The noble Baroness will know that that tariff income assumes an income of a pound a week for each £250 of extra benefit. Either the noble Baroness, or possibly her noble friend Lord Carter, have argued that these are punitive interest rates and argued that they represent something of the order of 17, 18 or 19 per cent. assumed interest on the extra income. That is not the case. If one looks at an individual with capital of £3,250, the rate of interest, because one has also to take into account the first £3,000, is something quite marginal; some 1 or 2 per cent. It gradually works up from that, and, I admit, reaches to a relatively high figure towards the higher levels of the upper capital limit.
We do not see a case for increasing the lower limit from £3,000 at the moment. I would also say again that we shall continue to review those capital limits, as we have done in the past, and shall continue to ensure that both the lower and upper capital limits are pitched at about the right level. I hope, particularly in the light of the concession on the earlier amendment, which was originally grouped with this amendment, that the noble Baroness may be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for his explanation, although it seems to me that what we are talking about is an attempt to get everything nice and tidy, with a sort of bureaucratic tidiness where you have everything
940
related to everything else. That is a pity in view of the fact that we are talking about what is a new and quite different benefit.
However, I am grateful for the concession on the previous amendment, as I am sure we all are. I am also grateful for the assurance that it will be the intention to continue to review, when it seems appropriate to do so, not only the upper but the lower capital limit. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Disability working allowance—supplementary]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 13, line 17, leave out ("for the purposes of section 20(6A) (b) above") and insert ("that for the purposes of section 20(6A) (b) above he has such a disability (in accordance with regulations under section 20(6C) above)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to correct an error on the Marshalled List. It indicates that this is an amendment to Clause 6; in fact, it is an amendment to Clause 7. It is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the disability test for initial claims will be defined in regulations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Disability working allowance: amendments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 32, line 7, leave out ("115C") and insert ("115D").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 28. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Effect on remission of NHS charges of entitlement to DWA
.In the calculation of resources for entitlement to remission of charges under the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe that payments of disability working allowance shall be disregarded.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is not identical to that moved in Committee but is a modification. Its provisions will cost less than those of the amendment moved in Committee. We hope therefore that it will be attractive to the Government. Its purpose is to lessen the incidence of National Health Service charges on those in receipt of DWA. The previous amendment would have passported DWA beneficiaries to immunity from national health charges. This amendment does rather less.
The purpose of DWA is to encourage people who are partially capable of work to return to or take up work by topping up their earnings. A great deal of that incentive is taken away by the Bill as drafted because such people lose the immunity to National Health Service charges that they can claim on family credit. Therefore they may not be encouraged to take up DWA.
It is notable that DWA is modelled on family credit. The prima facie reason for moving the amendment is to bring it more into line with family credit and we hope that the Government will be

941
willing to do that. The alternative proposal that we are putting forward today only partially achieves that aim and we hope that it will be more acceptable to the Government. It will bring DWA into line with attendance allowance and mobility allowance, both of which will be replaced by disability living allowance under Part I of the Bill.
Disregarding DWA from the calculation for help under the low income scheme would at least increase the value of help provided to DWA claimants. The lack of help towards the cost of prescriptions remains serious. The charges will rise in the near future to £3.40 per item. At least the recipients of DWA will be able to claim the season ticket which will be some help. However, I maintain that it is not enough help. The only help with prescription charges available to non-exempt groups is via the season ticket.
We know that the season ticket is of little help to people on low incomes who may be unable to find the cost of the immediate charge, let alone pay in advance of future charges. This time our proposals do not go that far; our amendment asks for much less. We still hope for largesse from the Government. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. It was moved so well by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that I wish to add only two points. The proposal brings the DWA into line with the attendance allowance and mobility allowance which are also disregarded. Therefore, what is the logic for not also disregarding DWA?
In Committee the Minister said:
"To exempt recipients of DWA from health charges would cost some £3.3 million a year in loss of income from prescription charges, dental charges and provision of sight tests and optical vouchers. Those benefits would go not to those in greatest need—who will be eligible for help under the NHS low income scheme—but to those above the threshold for that scheme'.—[Official Report, 11/3/91; col. 43.]
That implies that the cost of our amendment would be less than £3.3 million and would direct help to those who would be eligible for help under the NHS low income scheme. I hope that in the light of that explanation the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support the amendment. Those people receiving unemployment benefit or income support—I am terribly muddled because the names keep changing and just as I learn one name it changes, so I shall call it unemployment benefit —are exempt from prescription charges. As a disabled person may need various prescriptions, it may be a considerable disincentive to take up employment if one has to pay for prescription charges. If people can work, it is so much better for self-esteem and so much better for the family, should there be a family. Unless the amendment is accepted there will be a serious disincentive. It must be remembered that we are speaking of disabled, not able-bodied, people.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment. As my noble friend said, this is very much a bottom line amendment
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have a feeling that I have come to the end of my generosity this evening. We are considering an amendment moved in Committee to exempt DWA recipients from NHS charges. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will remember, that was rejected on a Division. I accept that this amendment is not identical and may not even be similar, to use the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, but its intention is very similar.
Perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She is correct that a person on income support would be exempt from these charges. That has always been the case. The great majority of DWA recipients will be better off in work than on an incapacity benefit. It follows that they must expect the help given to the least well off by the welfare state to be withdrawn as their income rises above income support level.
Many people are automatically exempt from NHS charges and many more receive help under the low income scheme, which has been referred to. But those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their medication and of their dental and optical treatment should do so.
The NHS low income scheme is designed to protect people with limited resources who are not otherwise exempt from NHS charges. The threshold for exemption is set at about the same level as that used in assessing entitlement to income support, although the NHS scheme also allows for net housing costs to be taken into account. We believe that this is fair and sensible. Many DWA recipients will be eligible for help under this scheme but I can see little justification for a special disregard of DWA which would put them in a rather better position than all others with low incomes.
I now turn to family credit and the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as to why those on family credit will be exempted from NHS charges while DWA recipients will not be. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also mentioned attendance and mobility allowance.
Exemption from NHS charges has been granted to recipients of family credit and its predecessor benefit family income supplement since its introduction in 1971; and the Government have not subsequently thought it right to reduce the entitlement of this group of beneficiaries. However, it is a central principle of government policy that help should be targeted towards those whose need is greatest. Recipients of DWA will be better off than those on income support (and DWA will be more generous than family credit) and it is not unreasonable that recipients of DWA should lose entitlement to automatic help with NHS charges.
Except for prescription charges, where availability of season tickets minimises the additional costs which can be incurred, DWA recipients will be able to apply for help with NHS charges through the NHS low income scheme, and can expect to receive at least partial help with charges unless their income is

943
substantially above income support level. I believe that this makes the most effective use of the resources available.
Having listened to the arguments, I remain unconvinced. Wherever the line is drawn there will always be people who fall just the wrong side of it. It was decided in Committee that the Government's position is right. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take issue with one remark made by the Minister. How can a disabled person ever be on equal terms with others on low incomes? The disability is permanent. They cannot be on the same level. That is the argument which we always put forward and we cannot find Ministers who understand it. If a Minister became disabled, then he would understand it, but I hope that that will not happen to this Minister.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hear odd noises from behind. In my response I was attempting to say to the noble Baroness that we feel that recipients of DWA will be in a better position than those on income support. That is the point behind DWA. I then went on to say that DWA payments will be more generous than family credit. To some extent that takes account of the fears expressed by the noble Baroness.
I accept that no matter how far we amend the Bill we would not be able to meet the requirements of the noble Baroness. I appreciate that, happily, I am not in the same position as the noble Baroness and therefore it may be argued that I fail to understand these matters fully. However, the noble Baroness knows that I have listened to her on many occasions and always take note of her arguments. I am sure that the noble Baroness has had ample opportunity to ensure that I understand these matters as well as I ought.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, clearly that response is a disappointment. The tap has been turned off; the fountain no longer runs, and I am athirst.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that this issue was decided in Committee. It was not. Something rather dissimilar was decided in Committee and therefore we remain capable of continuing the argument. I still hope to persuade the Minister and his colleagues of our view.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, the provision remains a powerful disincentive to what are, after all, poor people. One must be poor to qualify for DWA and therefore it is a disincentive. The whole power behind this imaginative scheme will be lost to many families where the breadwinner would be able to elevate his self-esteem within his family and friends. For those reasons we are disappointed by the Minister's reply.
The noble Lord said something with which I can readily agree; that those who can pay for National Health Service charges should do so. But I question whether those on DWA can pay. Those in receipt of DWA are, almost by definition, poor people. I should
944
like to know how many people on DWA the Minister estimates will he eligible for National Health Service prescription cost waiver or disregard. According to the noble Lord quite a number who are in receipt of DWA will be rich enough to pay for their NHS costs. I wonder how many he estimates fall into that favourable category and remain eligible for DWA. I do not know whether the Minister is able to answer that question. I should be interested to hear his reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that I cannot answer the noble Lord on that matter. However, I shall undertake to write to him after consulting colleagues in the Department of Health. I cannot give a figure off the top of my head.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, on the face of it that would be an interesting figure to have. We are disappointed. We are speaking of a small amount of money—between £3 million and £4 million. Even at this Report stage I hope that the Minister will consider something on the lines of our amendment. However, I reluctantly beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Entitlement to other benefits after termination of entitlement to disability working allowance]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 15, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) In section 17(1) (d) of the 1975 Act, after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
"(f) Where a person has been in receipt of disability working allowance, paragraph (d) above shall have effect with the substitution for "8 weeks" of "13 weeks" " ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 52 relates to a subject discussed in Committee and is intended to clarify the issue. The aim is to extend the current linking rule, which applies to incapacity benefit, from eight to 13 weeks, which was the linking period up to 1980. This amendment would restore that linking rule of 13 weeks for ex-DWA claimants.
The House will know that the linking rule allows two periods of incapacity for work or employment to be treated as one continuous period as long as any gap is no longer than eight weeks. The continuation of the original period of interruption of employment—that is to say, PIE—is crucial, otherwise claimants lose the link with their paid national insurance contributions or age additions and so forth.
As drafted, the amendment is a compromise. We simply propose that people who have recently used DWA to try out their capacity for very limited work can later progress to better paid work for a short trial period without putting into jeopardy the invalidity benefit or SDA entitlement for ever. This is a small change but it would make it significantly easier for people with disabilities to surmount a major benefit disincentive which faces them when they attempt to try out their capacity for work. A break in the period of employment—the so-called PIE—for all claimants from eight to 13 weeks was suggested years ago by the Social Security Advisory Committee. For all these

945
reasons I hope that the noble Lord can either accept the amendment or explain the reasoning behind his possible rejection of it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think I understand what the noble Lord is getting at. His amendment would provide a small extension to the normal eight-week linking rule to anyone who was getting DWA or had received DWA at any time in the past. We are extending the eight weeks to two years as a special reassurance to DWA recipients because they may not be confident that they will be able to continue working. I cannot see any justification for the special 13-week linking rule which the noble Lord has suggested.
The arguments against the amendment are very clear. First, employers would have to operate a different rule for SSP purposes for a small number of their employees. This would add to their SSP administration costs. Noble Lords know this is already a sensitive matter for employers. With the best will in the world, this is bound to make them think of DWA recipients as a nuisance and possibly discourage them from recruiting disabled people. I was trying to give reassurance to employers about that.
There is also the issue of confidentiality. We have been asked repeatedly for reassurances that we will not tell employers that an employee is getting DWA. We are taking some trouble over this. But if the employer is told not to pay SSP to an individual should they become sick within 13 weeks rather than the usual eight weeks, the proverbial cat will be out of the hag. The employer will know that the employee is getting DWA, or, worse still, that at some time in the past he or she received DWA. For ever and a day an employer would be liable to find out that at some stage in the past an employee had been sick or disabled for a protracted period.
Another argument hardly needs mentioning. Your Lordships will appreciate that the amendment would require us to keep quite a large number of records for decades in case a former DWA recipient re-qualified for invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance. Given the complexity of the existing rules and the infrequency with which the special linking rule would apply, there is also a distinct risk that it would be
946
overlooked. I hope that that explanation is sufficient for noble Lords and that at this hour of the night the noble Lord will not feel in the mood to press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not too sure, but that is an extremely helpful explanation of a rather complicated point. I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 16, line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of line 8 and insert ("that pension or allowance, it was increased in respect of a dependant by virtue of—

(i) regulation 8(6) of the Social Security (Dependency) Regulations 1977;

(ii) regulation 2 of the Social Security (Savings for Existing Beneficiaries) Regulations 1984;

(iii) regulation 3 of the Social Security Benefit (Dependency) Amendment Regulations 1984; or

(iv) regulation 4 of the Social Security Benefit (Dependency and Computation of Earnings) Amendment Regulations 1989,

for the purpose of determining whether his pension or allowance should be increased by virtue of that regulation for any period beginning with the day on which he again becomes entitled to his pension or allowance, the increase in respect of that dependant shall be treated as having been payable to him on each day between the last day on which his pension or allowance was previously payable and the day on which he again becomes entitled to it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. It completes the provisions necessary to ensure that, if a DWA recipient needs to go back to IVB or SDA using the new long linking rule, his benefit will be calculated in the same way as before in all respects. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 34, line 17, third column, at end insert:
("subsection (4) (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at half past nine o'clock.

  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: UN CONVENTION
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: UN CONVENTION
  CHILD CARE CASES IN THE HIGHER COURTS: JUDICIARY
  CHILD CARE CASES IN THE HIGHER COURTS: JUDICIARY
  CHILDREN ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  CHILDREN ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  PRISON STAFFING LEVELS DISPUTE: UNUSED CELLS
  PRISON STAFFING LEVELS DISPUTE: UNUSED CELLS
  DISABLED PEOPLE: INFORMATION SERVICES
  DISABLED PEOPLE: INFORMATION SERVICES
  NHS CLINICAL STANDARDS ADVISORY GROUP
  NHS CLINICAL STANDARDS ADVISORY GROUP
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE AND COMMUNITY CARE ACT: PAYMENTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE AND COMMUNITY CARE ACT: PAYMENTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
  THE GULF WAR: UNUSED HOSPITAL PROVISION
  THE GULF WAR: UNUSED HOSPITAL PROVISION
  D NOTICES
  D NOTICES