Sitting of 10 March 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployment, Leicester
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much and by what percentage unemployment in the city of Leicester rose between January 1991 and January 1992.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): In the Leicester local authority district, unadjusted unemployment increased by 4,877 or 40 per cent. in the 12 months to January 1992.
    Mr. Janner: Is not the increase of 40 per cent. absolutely disgraceful? It is due to the inefficiency of the Government which no amount of Budget bribery can possibly erase. Does the Minister know that while the number of jobs went down and unemployment went up, crime in the county of Leicestershire rose by more than one third over the past 12 months, nearly double the national rate, but the chief constable has said that in the next year the force can spend £l million less? From the start of the day to its finish, the Government have got their priorities wrong.
    Mr. Jackson: The key question is whether the Government's policy will lead to an increase in unemployment or tend to reduce it. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is an authority on this subject and a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Employment, must ask himself in all seriousness about the consequences for the supply of job opportunities of Labour's policies on the minimum wage and increased social charges. Those policies would have serious consequences for job opportunities.
    Mr. Latham: Are not the best chances for employment in the city of Leicester and the county of Leicestershire today's Budget and the re-election of the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must remember that 300,000 people who go into jobcentres find a job within a month.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms were registered for VAT in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): At the end of 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of businesses registered for VAT in the United Kingdom was 1·7 million, compared with 1·3 million at the end of 1979—an increase of almost a third.
    Mr. Page: Although the figures show a dramatic increase, is not my right hon. and learned Friend being characteristically modest? Does he forget the increase to £35,000 in the exemption limit for VAT? Surely, were not many more businesses created last year?
    Mr. Howard: I was being characteristically direct in answering my hon. Friend's question. Of course, the increase in the total number of firms over the period was not one third, but two thirds—to nearly 3 million, or an average increase of almost 500 every working day.

    Pay Statements
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to ensure that all employees have a right to an itemised pay statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Most employees already have the right to receive an itemised pay statement. We have no plans to extend the current legislative provisions.
    Mr. McFall: The Minister is aware that those who work for 16 hours or less do not have the right to itemised pay statements unless they have worked for five years and that those who work less than eight hours have no right to them at all. Employees are scared to enforce their rights because if they did they would be unfairly dismissed. Should not every employee have that right and should not the Government therefore scrap the two-year rule, or are the Government determined to keep up their sweat-shop policies, contrary to what is happening in the rest of Europe?
    Mr. Forth: I have received no representations on that matter and I am not aware of any disquiet among the groups that the hon. Gentleman described. As ever, we must balance the temptation to introduce such rights willy-nilly against the unreasonable cost burden that might rest increasingly on employers, especially those with only a few employees. I believe that we have the balance about right. If there is any question of unfair dismissal, those concerned always have the right to go to a tribunal, if they are protected in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. I remain to be convinced that there is a problem and that therefore we should necessarily consider the solution that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is not this one of several proposals that would add to the costs of employing part-time workers? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the directive on part-time working would mean that 1·75 million part-time workers, and their employers, would have to pay national insurance contributions?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. The Labour party has said that it would sign the directive on part-time working and many others, which would place an intolerable cost burden on British industry. That suggests that the Labour party does not care about employment. On the contrary, Labour Members are prepared to place ever more burdens on British business, which would only destroy jobs. That must be utterly reprehensible.

    Child Care
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with employers regarding child care.
    Mr. Jackson: The Advisory Committee on Women's Employment, which I chair and which includes employer representatives, has discussed child care on a number of occasions.
    The tax concession in the 1990 Budget, which allowed tax relief for employees on the benefit of nursery facilities provided by an employer, has been instrumental in promoting child care arrangements.
    Ms. Armstrong: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Midland bank, which has done much to develop child care, has said of the Government recently that they keep calling its representatives to conferences at which they urge the importance of child care, but they do nothing. Is it about time that the Government took the opportunities of our youngest children seriously, gave their parents the opportunities that they are looking for and made sure that children receive the very best start, which is something that is taken for granted in other European countries?
    Mr. Jackson: I have already referred to the tax concession in the 1990 Budget. That has shown that the Government are concerned. In the European Community, the United Kingdom has the highest proportion of women in work, with the exception of Denmark. About 63 per cent. of women of working age with children are economically active. That suggests that we are doing quite well by working women.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom has many more women in work than any other European nation and that tax relief on workplace nurseries, which was introduced in the 1990 Budget by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has greatly assisted many working women?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. It is too often forgotten—this is another dimension—that in Britain the age at which children start school is comparatively young. Children in Britain start school at five, whereas the starting ages are six in France, Germany and Italy and seven in Denmark.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: When the Equal Opportunities Commission, in its equality agenda, describes child care facilities as meagre in the extreme compared with the facilities that are available in the rest of Europe, when we know that the women in work to whom the Minister has referred are often forced into part-time work because of inadequate child care arrangements and when we bear in
    730
    mind his entirely complacent answer, is not it a good thing that a Labour Government are coming who will ensure that child care provision is expanded?
    Mr. Jackson: In a recent survey of women who work part time, only 6 per cent. said that they would prefer to work full time.

    Employment Action
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many trade unions are taking part in the employment action programme.
    Mr. Howard: So far as I am aware, none.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, which is a great disappointment to all my right and hon. Friends. Does he agree with me that proposals to pay more to those taking part in the programme will mean inevitably that fewer places will be available?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is typical of the Labour party's attitude that it would fritter away additional resources by spending more money not on increasing the number of training places but on paying more to those already in training places. There would be no net benefit to training.
    Mr. Blair: Instead of attacking trade unions, why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman attack unemployment? Why does not he admit that since last year's Budget more than 500,000 people have been added to the dole queue? At the same time, there are 1 million fewer jobs in the economy. If present policies continue, hundreds of thousands of people will stand in fear for their jobs. Is not it the truth that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government, having created recession and unemployment, do not care about the casualties of their policies?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's synthetic protestations about unemployment would carry a little more conviction if he were not so determined to advance policies which, by introducing a national statutory minimum wage, by embracing the European Commission's social action programme and by imposing a jobs tax on employers, would make unemployment far, far higher than it otherwise would be. Even the proprietor of the aptly named Walworth Castle hotel in the hon. Gentleman's constituency near Darlington has said:
    "Labour's plan would be nothing short of disastrous."

    Payroll Levy
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received on the subject of the introduction of a statutory payroll levy.
    Mr. Howard: I have received representations from various sources on the subject of a statutory payroll levy related to employers' training expenditure. The most recent, from the Institute of Directors, firmly opposed
    "any system of levy or tax that discriminates between employers on the basis of assumptions about what a firm spends on training".
    Mr. French: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, among the many business men who have condemned the payroll tax as likely to cost companies money and, therefore, jobs, is the president of the chamber of trade in Teesside? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the Labour spokesman is unable to convert to Labour policies those business men in his immediate area, he is also unlikely to convince the country?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Increasingly, we find protests from employers in the area represented by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about the effect of his policies and those of the Labour party. The truth is now out—Labour's policies would be disastrous for jobs.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Secretary of State aware that the labour force survey was published today? Will he take time to explain to the House why, in the past year, 177,000 fewer people were in training in Britain—a reduction of 5·4 per cent? Whatever happened to all the talk about a world-class skills revolution? What about the fact that £20 billion is supposed to be spent by industrialists? Is not it really the case that the Government do not care about training, that we have a disastrous training record and that it is high time that we had a Labour Government to tackle the problems?
    Mr. Howard: The same survey showed an increase of more than 100 per cent. between 1984 and 1991 in the number of people receiving training paid for by their employers and seven times as many people receiving training now as in 1979. That is the reply to the Opposition's synthetic protestations. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down and listen to the questions.

    Self-employment
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of growth of self-employment from 1979 to the present time among (a) men and (b) women.
    Mr. Forth: The number of male and female self-employed in the United Kingdom grew by 55 and 109 per cent. respectively between 1979 and 1991.
    Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that Britain now has more than 3 million self-employed people, of whom 750,000 are women, many of them in south Derbyshire? Does he share their view that they work hard for their money, that they pay quite enough tax and national insurance and that they do not want to see what would be the worst disaster for such businesses in future—an increase in income tax and national insurance, as proposed by the Labour party?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are entitled to take great pride in the fact that so many more women have now chosen self-employment to promote their standard of living and that of their families. It is also true to say that if the Opposition parties were ever in a position to put their policies into effect, that self-employment record would inevitably be gravely harmed and the cause of women in particular would suffer much more.
    Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister knows that many self-employed are concentrated in the construction industry. Does he know that thousands of construction workers in Wales are out of work, yet Shelter Cymru tells us that 63,000 families in the Principality have experienced homelessness in the past year? Why cannot this incompetent Government get their act together and put those building workers to build houses for those families?
    Mr. Forth: That must be a matter for the local authorities. I am often at a loss to understand the sense of priorities or the lack of priority among Labour-controlled local authorities in particular. They seem determined to spend their community charge payers' money on the most irrelevant and frivolous projects rather than concentrating on the real problems that the hon. Gentleman described.

    British Companies
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many British companies have 1,000 employees or more.
    Mr. Forth: Recent research by the university of Warwick indicates that there are 3,024 undertakings in the United Kingdom with 1,000 employees or more.
    Mr. Gill: Given that the United Kingdom has so many undertakings with more than 1,000 employees, does my hon. Friend agree that we would be disproportionately affected by the draft European directive on works councils? Will he assure the House that he will vigorously resist that further instance of discrimination against British industry?
    Mr. Forth: Indeed. My hon. Friend has accurately described the position. The figure of more than 3,000 which I just quoted, when compared with 873 similar undertakings in France and 479 in Italy, shows that the United Kingdom has far and away more undertakings with more than 1,000 employees than either of our major European partners. That means that the irrelevant suggestions being made by the European Commission for mandatory information for and consultation with employees would bear much more heavily on British business than it would on our major competitors. That is why British industry is so adamantly opposed to that ridiculous directive. I give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that the Government will continue to oppose it root and branch.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Why does the Minister have a graph on his tie of the economy in decline under the Conservatives?
    Mr. Forth: I have been waiting for some time for hon. Members to refer to my apparel and I am duly flattered. If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I shall try to wear my tie upside down the next time I am at the Dispatch Box.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the companies that employ more than 1,000 people employ many women part time? Those women choose to work part time because it fits in with looking after their families. Please, please, please can we not destroy those part-time jobs?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend illustrates yet again that Conservative Members regard part-time employment as

    733
    something which is productive and honourable, and not as something which is shameful or sordid. I believe that the millions of women and men who choose to work part time will understand very well that the Labour party seeks to destroy their jobs whereas the Government are in the business of protecting them.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister will know that we appreciate and share his concern about the handicap that might be placed on British industry by the European social charter. Before the Minister takes the mote out of Europe's eye, should not he take the beam out of his own? Are not many British firms unduly handicapped by the harassment they get from regulatory bodies such as the Fair Employment Commission?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I must tell him that I have recently written to all the representative small business organisations in the United Kingdom asking them to give me examples of where excessive regulation is impeding their business. I am looking forward very much to their responses. I give the commitment that, when the Government are re-elected, we shall continue to fight to reduce the burden of regulation on British industry in order to make us even more competitive than we are already.

    Unemployment, Holloway
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment rate for the Holloway travel-to-work area; and what were the comparable figures for June 1987 and May 1979.
    Mr. Jackson: Holloway falls within the London travel-to-work area. In January 1992, the latest available date, the unemployment rate for the London travel-to-work, area was 9·5 per cent., compared with 8·7 per cent. in June 1987. There is no rate available for this travel-to-work area for May 1979.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that within the borough of Islington, which includes the Holloway travel-to-work area, fewer than 100 school leavers last year were able to find jobs and that, at the Holloway unemployment office, there is a gap between the 32 registered vacancies and the 11,600 people who are registered as unemployed? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the terrible toll that that places on the community and, in particular, on the young people who cannot get work and see the possibilities of career development and a decent standard of living slipping away from them? When will he do something to bring jobs to inner-city areas?
    Mr. Jackson: During the last Employment Question Time, the hon. Gentleman asked me about job clubs in his constituency, and I have written to him about the matter. He and the House will be pleased to know that, in the 10 months to January, 1,607 people were placed in work as a result of their experience in a job club in his constituency.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the unemployment that exists in that part of Islington is the way in which the political friends of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) run Islington council? They specialise in squalor; they do nothing to help business; they cannot collect their rents;
    734
    they did not collect the rates; they do not collect the community charge; and they keep homes empty. Is that the reason why the hon. Member for Islington, North will be swept away by the excellent Tory candidate in his constituency?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Over the past 10 months, Holloway jobcentre has placed 2,006 people in jobs.

    Disabled People (Unemployment)
    Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment for (a) registered disabled people and (b) disabled people generally.
    Mr. Jackson: The 1991 labour force survey reported 18·2 per cent. unemployment among people in the labour market who had a health problem or disability which limited the kind of work that they could do. I am afraid that we do not have later figures, figures for registered disabled people or figures comparable with the monthly claimant count.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that an unemployment rate among disabled people nearly four times as high as that among able-bodied people cannot be justified? As this is the Government's 13th hour and it is now too late for them to help, will the Minister explain to disabled people why the Secretary of State for Employment spends so much of his time rubbishing trade unions, rather than finding jobs for those people?
    Mr. Jackson: I think that, regrettably, there has always been a higher unemployment rate among people with disabilities than among the rest of the population. We attempt to assist, however, and the total number of people who have been helped through our sheltered employment programme has increased substantially during the past 10 years. Expenditure has risen substantially, from £88·2 million to £112 million. The number of people who have been helped through assessment and rehabilitation centres has also risen and expenditure on special assistance schemes has increased substantially. All those measures were designed to assist people with disabilities.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many companies find that the loyalty given to them by disabled people more than makes up for any days that they may have to take off work to undergo treatment? Will he tell the House just how much effort he and his colleagues in the Department have devoted in recent years to bringing that message home to employers?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way—indeed, the only way—in which we can make progress in that regard is by affecting attitudes and the culture that exists within companies. The Government have put a great deal of effort into persuading employers to take seriously the issues involving minorities in employment, including people with disabilities.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister agree that discrimination against people with disabilities clearly exists in employment and that it was therefore a great pity that the very modest Bill presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was talked out by supporters of the Government?
    Mr. Jackson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a Bill relating to advertisements—
    Mr. Clarke: No. Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister has not got the message, perhaps he had better be given it.
    Mr. Clarke: The Bill presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe dealt with discrimination against people with disabilities, particularly in regard to employment and jobs.
    Mr. Jackson: I do not believe, and the Government do not believe, that such a legislative approach is the right way to deal with the problem. Since 1944, for example, we have had a quota system which has never been effectively operated under Governments of either party. Rather than adopting an inappropriate legislative approach, we must persuade people and affect attitudes.
    Mr. Couchman: What would be the impact of the imposition of a minimum hourly wage of £3·40 on the disabled, to whom employment is so important in terms of dignity of life?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Many disabled people, often on income support, may earn relatively low wages, and the consequences of a minimum wage would be a withdrawal of job opportunities which would probably affect them in particular.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that an example would be a great deal of help to employers in the private sector? Will he acknowledge that Government Departments have not even come near their own target of 3 per cent. disabled workers?
    Mr. Jackson: We take very seriously our attempts to secure employment for disabled people in the Government. It is very difficult to meet the 3 per cent. target, but we are doing well in aiming towards it.

    Industrial Action
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through industrial action in North Yorkshire during 1979; what is the most recent comparable figure; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: Information is available only for the Yorkshire and Humberside region, where 55,000 working days were lost during 1991, the lowest for more than 25 years. The 1991 total is nearly 60 times lower than the 3·1 million working days lost in the same region in 1979.
    These figures illustrate the achievements of this Government's step-by-step industrial relations legislation. The fact that the number of working days lost in the United Kingdom as a whole in 1991 was the lowest since records began 100 years ago is testimony to our success.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those dramatic figures are eloquent testimony to the fact that under Labour the number of days lost was so dramatic that it resulted in near anarchy and that, as a result of our legislation, there are now proper secret ballots and democracy in the workplace? In the unlikely event of
    736
    our ever having a socialist Government again could not we expect to return to those appalling figures of industrial anarchy?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the first things that the Labour party would do would be to change the law to make it easier for trade unions to strike. They would be aided and abetted in so doing by the Liberal Democrats. Their recipe for recovery is more strikes, more frequent strikes and more damaging strikes. That is the way in which they think that they can make the economy grow.
    Mr. Barron: Can the Secretary of State say how many working days have been lost through unemployment in the north-east?
    Mr. Howard: I can also tell the hon. Gentleman how many days would be lost as a result of the extra unemployment that would be caused by his party's policies.

    Unemployment, Sheffield
    Sir Patrick Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the Sheffield travel-to-work area expressed as a percentage.
    Mr. Jackson: In January 1992, the unadjusted rate of unemployment for the Sheffield travel-to-work area was 11·4 per cent.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Is the Minister aware that Sheffield is plunging into its deepest recession since the war, that according to new research by the city council's department of employment the true figure for unemployment is 17 per cent. compared with the Minister's adjusted figure, and that even the Association of Yorkshire and Humberside Chambers of Commerce is now calling on the Government to do something about a sinking economy? In the words of the regional secretary, sitting there and doing nothing is no longer an option.
    Mr. Jackson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to talk down his home city. I cannot give credence to the 17 per cent. figure. In spite of the recent very regrettable rises in unemployment, in his constituency and in Sheffield as a whole unemployment remains a quarter lower than it was at the last election and a third below its peak in 1986.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does the Minister agree that whether in Sheffield or throughout Yorkshire as a whole the history of a great industry and of a great industrial heritage was based on innovation and entrepreneurism? Does he also agree that what Yorkshire as a whole needs to restart the economy is low tax, low inflation and another Conservative Government?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend's question speaks for itself, and no doubt we shall hear more about such matters in a few minutes.

    Merseyside Training and Enterprise Council
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the Merseyside TEC to discuss funding.
    Mr. Jackson: My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet TEC chairmen on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues, including questions of funding.
    Mr. O'Hara: What advice or comfort can the Under-Secretary of State offer to those providers of training on Merseyside who have been driven out of business because insufficient resources have been allocated to the Merseyside TEC to provide contracts to them? What succour or comfort can he offer to the unemployed in my constituency of Knowsley, South, where 65 jobless now chase every vacancy advertised in the jobcentres? How can he possibly justify cutting training which is so desperately needed by a work force without jobs such as that in Knowsley, South?
    Mr. Jackson: There has been an increase in the overall budget made available by the Government for training. Negotiations between particular TECs and providers must be a matter for those TECs and providers.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the House not to indulge in private conversations. It is difficult to hear even at this end.
    Mr. Alton: If the protests that have been made about cuts in training places on Merseyside are simply synthetic protestations, as the Minister said earlier, can he explain why projects such as the Hexagon project on Merseyside face closure? How can he explain that when 71,000 people in the city of Liverpool alone are currently unemployed? Surely that is an area where more training, not less, is needed.
    Mr. Jackson: I know that the hon. Gentleman is sympathetic to the idea of localism that lay behind the creation of the training and enterprise councils. The TECs are in the best position to make informed judgments about the qualities of particular providers. I will not second-guess the judgments made by Merseyside TEC in respect of any provider, including Hexagon.

    North London Training and Enterprise Council
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the chairman of the North London TEC to discuss the contributions of trade unions to training.
    Mr. Howard: None, Sir.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the day after the Transport and General Workers Union's disgraceful decision to boycott Government training schemes, the union was described as "the Labour party in so many ways"? Is he aware that the right hon. Gentleman who so described it was none other than the Leader of the Opposition?
    Mr. Howard: I am. The Transport and General Workers Union voted to boycott youth training, to boycott employment training and to boycott the training and enterprise councils. Not a word of condemnation of that disgraceful position has come from the Leader of the Opposition, who is sponsored by that union, or from the shadow spokesman on employment, who is also sponsored by that union, or by any of the renegade crew who man the Labour Front Bench.

    Unemployment, North-west England
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new policies he has to reduce unemployment in the north-west region.
    Mr. Howard: The Government's main role is to ensure a sound and stable economic framework within which enterprise can flourish and the battle against inflation can be won. In addition, since 1979 regional selective assistance worth £326 million has been committed to the north-west, creating more than 60,000 new jobs and safeguarding more than 60,000 existing jobs.
    Mr. Loyden: Is not it patently clear that the Conservative party and the Minister have no understanding whatever of what unemployment means to the unemployed, their families and communities? After 13 years, it is an absolute disgrace that no input has been made to tackling unemployment. The Government have failed absolutely to tackle unemployment except for some cosmetic surgery. Is not it about time that the Government recognised that the only cure for unemployment is to get rid of the Conservative Government as soon as possible?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman really cares about unemployed people, will he join me today in calling on his Front-Bench colleagues to abandon their policy of a national statutory minimum wage, to abandon their jobs tax and to abandon their embrace of the European Community social action programme so that we can avoid the disastrous consequences for employment that would follow from such policies?
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the north-west of England is coming out of recession faster than the rest of the country? Will he also confirm that we are leading the way in many training schemes and that there is no doubt that housing—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is no doubt that, in housing and in many other matters, the north-west of England is showing the way and will continue to show the way?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend, who will continue to champion the cause of the north-west in the next Parliament. The only things that could put a stop to the recovery from recession in the north-west of England and elsewhere are the policies of the Labour party—for example, the sharpest ever peacetime tax increase, the national statutory minimum wage, and changes in the law to encourage strikes. Those would be the policies to put a stop to recovery. [Interruption.] We shall ensure—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Howard: We shall ensure that—[Interruption.]

    Training Schemes
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people are currently engaged in training schemes.
    Mr. Howard: There are currently some 300,000 young people on youth training, and around 150,000 people on employment training in Great Britain. Last financial year,

    739
    some 740,000 people entered Government training programmes, compared with 110,000 in 1978–79—a sevenfold increase.
    Mr. Flannery: Is not it a fact that during the 13 years of this Government, 25 methods have been found to try to prove that unemployment is massively smaller than it is? Is not it also a fact that the unemployed are generally on useless training schemes and that, therefore, unemployment and the slump are far more massive than the Government care to admit?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is talking characteristic nonsense. More than 80 per cent. of those on youth training gain a qualification or a job, or enter a further education course. We are the only country in Europe to guarantee a two-year training course leading to a qualification for 16 and 17-year-old unemployed young people. That is what the hon. Gentleman should recognise.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that since 1979 the Government have introduced more training places and a wider range of training courses both in width and in depth, in a way that has never been attempted before? We have spent far more money. Therefore it is nonsense for the Opposition to claim that we have done nothing at all about the problems of retraining.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. We are spending two and a half times as much, after taking account of inflation, as was spent by the last Labour Government on training. That is because this is the only Government who understand training and care about training, and are determined to make sure that our people have high-quality training.

    EC Working Time Directive
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the CBI regarding the draft EC working time directive.
    Mr. Forth: The CBI responded fully to my Department's consultative document on the proposed working time directive. It firmly opposed the Commission's proposals. I fully agree with the CBI that the directive would be a needless strain on United Kingdom competitiveness, and a threat to jobs and earnings.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals, as attacked by civil engineers, would be a restrictive practice and would restrict the flexibility of the construction industry? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Sir Anthony Durant: I did not know that my question was so good. Would not the proposals restrict jobs, cause inefficiency and, with the minimum wage proposals, be very damaging to industry?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. No significant employer representative body in the United Kingdom has done anything other than condemn those irrelevant and damaging proposals very roundly. Her Majesty's Government will continue to fight to persuade our colleagues in the European Community that the proposals
    740
    are not only unnecessary and unjustifiable, but would be extremely damaging to employment throughout the Community, particularly in the United Kingdom. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the representations that he has made.
    Mrs. Wise: Will the Minister explain why European companies can apparently provide their workers with better conditions in terms of hours and minimum wages than this country's employers? Why is it that European companies do not regard looking after their workers well in terms of hours and wages as destroying competitiveness, but instead see it as a way to obtain good work from their workers? Why is that?
    Mr. Forth: There are two good reasons. First, for many of our European partners, the rules apply on paper but not in practice. They simply do not put into effect the rules that the Community agrees. Secondly, investors from outside the Community, from places such as Japan, the United States and many others, look at the European Community and decide that the United Kingdom is by far the best place in which to invest due to the stability, skills and reliability of our work force. That explanation speaks volumes and answers the hon. Lady's question.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it not an appalling indictment of 13 years of this Government's economic policy that yesterday one of Her Majesty's coroners described the shortage of beds in one of Britain's principal hospitals—a shortage that has led to the death of a pensioner from Southwark —as appalling due to a 2 per cent. insufficiency in gross domestic funding of the national health service? As a result of the Government's policy, the pensioner's widow is more than £7 per week less well off in real terms than she was when the Government came to power. Is that not an example of private wealth at the expense of public underfunding? Are the Government to continue with the same policy or enact a U-turn at the last moment?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman well knows that there has been a dramatic increase in national health service spending on any measure one cares to take, far and above the amount necessary either to keep pace with the general level of inflation or to keep pace with the level of inflation in medical costs. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case, and he also knows that there has been an increase in net spending at all levels of income in this country.
    Mr. Onslow: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the important report on occupational pensions by the Select Committee on Social Services? Does he agree that it contains a great many lessons for many people, particularly on the Maxwell scandal? Will he give the

    741
    House an undertaking that, when the report calls for action from the Government, we can rely on my right hon. Friend to take action without delay?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the report. Our first step must be to examine it thoroughly and look at all the recommendations made by the Select Committee. It raises a number of complex and inter-related matters, some of which are for the pensions industry, some for the banks, some for actuaries, auditors and regulators. Some relate to the present legal framework. We need time to examine fully the findings of the Select Committee and to give our response. It is necessary to bear it in mind that the vast majority of occupational pensions schemes operate successfully in the United Kingdom—some 100,000 of them. The cause of the problem with Mirror Group pensioners is all too clear; There appears to have been a massive fraud, perpetuated under the very eyes of the trustees.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I strongly recommend the report in question to the Prime Minister? I hope, it will lead, after the election, to his supporting us in putting its main recommendations into effect. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall giving the House, from that Dispatch Box, the assurance that the Government would not achieve the objective of tax reductions
    "on the back of a burgeoning Government borrowing requirement now or in future"?—[Official Report 14 July 1988; Vol. 137. c. 588.]
    Does he still stand by that assurance?
    The Prime Minister: Nothing that my right hon. Friend does or announces later this afternoon will change our objective, or our intention of maintaining medium-term balance in the fiscal situation.
    Mr. Kinnock: I asked whether the Prime Minister stood by the assurance that borrowing requirement would not increase to pay for tax cuts, now or in future, under any Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was leader. Does the Prime Minister still stand by that opinion—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: I did answer that question. Before asking his second question, the right hon. Gentleman might have consulted the shadow Chancellor, who said last week that—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very unseemly behaviour.
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that Labour Members do not like to hear what they themselves said, but I intend to repeat it. As the shadow Chancellor said last week, "I"—that is, the shadow Chancellor—
    "am prepared to go on the basis of accepting the PSBR which emerges from the Budget."
    Clearly the Opposition have no independent judgment whatsoever.
    Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend take time this afternoon to watch the recent interview by Mr. David Frost, which revealed the success of the Government's health service provisions, and also that the Opposition's figures are totally bogus? That interview revealed also that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) does not know his NHS from his NUPE.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely clearly. The bogus statistics of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) have been finally revealed.
    742
    Without the steady drip-feed of leaked documents, clearly the hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty with his figures. As was pointed out to him in that interview, this year there has been a 7·1 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated compared with last year, which is higher even than the Government's forecast increase in patient care. I remind the House of the so-called Cook test. The hon. Gentleman said that the success of the trusts must be measured
    "by the simple test of whether they do more or less work for the national health service patients."
    The trusts have clearly passed that test, and I look to the hon. Gentleman to admit that.
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Patchett: Given the proposed increase in pensions, does the Prime Minister honestly feel that it is sufficient—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows what is the pensions increase. It has been announced, it is Government policy, and I stand by that policy.
    Sir Donald Thompson: My right hon. Friend will have heard in recent Question Times much about medicine in London. Will he turn his eyes to the country as a whole and to the north—to the West Riding and my own constituency, where the health service is thought to be one of the best in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: It is not only thought to be so but it undoubtedly is so, and getting better in each and every part of the United Kingdom. That is largely because of the dedication of the staff and the increased resources provided by this Government.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: I refer the Prime Minister to the barrage of criticism from the Select Committee on Defence over the Government's handling of Army cuts, and its implied call for a defence review. Is the Prime Minister aware that among right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who understand the Government's overall objectives, there is still a genuine fear that the outcome will be overstretch in peacetime and a dangerous shortage in times of tension? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is one risk—one national lottery—which we can well do without?
    The Prime Minister: The Army of the 1990s will be structured to meet our needs in the face of a changed threat, in particular the end of the Warsaw pact and the millions of Warsaw troops who previously were geared immediately to face us. Our forward planning is designed to enable us to take stock precisely as the Select Committee advocated. I stress that we believe our proposals are right, and we set them out clearly in "Options for Change."
    The hon. Gentleman says that all parts of the House take that view. Although I know that he does, I do not believe that all parts of the House do share that view. The

    743
    occupants of the Opposition Front Bench appear to advocate 25 per cent. cuts in defence expenditure while the occupants of the Liberal Benches advocate 50 per cent. cuts in defence expenditure, both of which are irresponsible and both of which would have a devastating effect on our capacity to defend ourselves.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that proportional representation reduces democracy and effective government? Will he confirm that after he has won the general election and is back in No. 10, he will have no intention of changing our voting system? Will he condemn the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench for using the issue in a squalid attempt to lure Liberal voters into their camp and for indulging in two-faced opportunism?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that Liberals generally need much luring into Labour policies; they are very similar. My views on proportional representation are well known. PR does not lead to effective government and I do not support it. Indeed, I agree entirely with what the Leader of the Opposition said a few years ago, that
    "proportional representation … is fundamentally counter-democratic in any case."
    I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has told the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman is putting down an early marker for after the next election.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Will the Prime Minister explain what compensation is available under his supposed citizens charter for the late arrival of economic recovery? Does he realise that it is not just an hour but a year and a half late?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. I can tell him precisely what will be there. It will be a very low level of inflation, lower than we have known at any time in recent years, and steady sustainable growth leading to secure jobs, sustaining the Conservative party in government for many years.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend tell me how best to reply to a constituent of mine who has recently completed a course of treatment at Broomfield hospital in Chelmsford and who tells me that the nurses and doctors were fantastic, that the treatment was magnificent and that he is fed up to the back teeth with the constant efforts of the Labour party to undermine and talk down the achievements of the health service?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's constituent speaks for many people who have enjoyed the splendid services of the national health service in the last year or so.
    744
    I advise my hon. Friend to tell his constituent that his experience is not unusual and that it is a tribute to the service that is available from the national health service. He might add that the reforms that are bringing that about are in danger under the plans proposed by the Labour party and that nobody could guarantee the increasing support and assistance from the NHS if those reforms were turned back.
    Mr. Bidwell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 march.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bidwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Home Office is withdrawing section 11 funding from all the colleges in the London borough of Ealing and that that adversely affects the Pathway further education centre in my constituency, where we have the largest concentration of people from the new Commonwealth? I find that totally objectionable from a Government who are shaping up to borrow and spend to save their necks.
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman raises but, as he knows, a tremendous amount of support has been made available through the Home Office and other sources to assist members of the ethnic minorities in this country. That continues to be the case.
    Mr. Thornton: With not a red rose in sight on the Opposition Benches, does my right hon. Friend realise that the traditional red rose of Lancashire is alive and well on the Government Benches? What message would my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancashire give us to take back to our constituents in the light of recent research showing that nearly 200 of the top British firms believe that the best way to increase unemployment and inflation and decrease investment would be the calamity of a Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. I share his remarks about the red rose belonging to Lancashire. It also belongs to the Rugby Football Union, which shows the red flag on its grand slam tie that it was generous enough to send me this morning. My hon. Friend is also right about the calamity of a Labour Government, because 86 per cent. of companies in that survey thought that Labour would be bad for the economy. I am concerned about what on earth is wrong with the other 14 per cent.

  BILL PRESENTED
    GENERAL ELECTIONS
    Mr. Tony Banks, supported by Mr. Tom Clarke, Ms. Diane Abbott and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, presented a Bill to make statutory provision for fixed term parliaments, compulsory attendance at polling stations, a public holiday on days set for general elections; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 9 April and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
WAYS AND MEANS

  Budget Statement
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that, at the end of the Chancellor's speech, copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
  3.31 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): I want to begin by announcing a far-reaching reform that will affect our entire system of public finance. Each year, the Budget for this country is presented in two parts. In the autumn, the Chancellor announces the Government's spending plans for the coming financial year; and in March, he sets out the revenue measures necessary to pay for them. Many criticised this uniquely British institution. Elsewhere in the world, and indeed everywhere in the private sector, the meaning of the word "budget" is crystal clear: it is a schedule showing where the money is coming from, and where it is going to.
  In my view, the current system is not only illogical, it has also had a number of highly undesirable consequences. Over the years, the separation of public expenditure from taxation and the announcement of tax proposals in isolation has intensified the pressure for special reliefs and contributed to the excessively complex tax system that we have now. The time has come for reform.
  I therefore intend that next year's Budget will be the last spring Budget. From then on the annual Budget will be in December, and it will cover not just taxation but also public expenditure. The Budget in December 1993 will contain the Government's proposals for both revenues and expenditure in 1994–95. It will also include spending plans for the subsequent two years. The 1994 Finance Bill will be presented to the House in January rather than April.
  I am publishing today a White Paper on the mechanics of this change. I believe that it will lead to better decisions about both taxation and spending. It will enable spending plans to be considered alongside the tax plans needed to pay for them. Above all, it will enable Government and Parliament to make more informed and rational choices between spending measures and tax changes. I hope that it will be warmly welcomed by the House.

  ECONOMIC SITUATION AND PROSPECTS
  This year's Budget is a Budget for the recovery. As usual, I shall begin with the current economic situation and prospects. I shall then deal with monetary policy and public finances. Finally, I will present my tax proposals. The Financial Statement and Budget Report, together with a number of press releases filling out the details of my proposals, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I have sat down.

  WORLD DEVELOPMENTS AND PROSPECTS
  I turn first to international developments. Nineteen ninety one saw the weakest growth in the major seven economies in a decade, while industrial production in the
  746
  G7 actually fell. This brought a sharp slowdown in the growth of world trade, which was exacerbated by the dramatic events in the former Soviet Union.
  In the United States recovery was generally expected in the second half of last year. But, despite low interest rates, the upturn failed to appear towards the end of 1991. High levels of debt have made firms and households very cautious about spending, while banks have been reluctant to increase their lending.
  In Japan there have been similar problems, and growth has slowed sharply. In the year to January, industrial production actually fell by 4 per cent.
  The slowdown in world growth has been accompanied by lower inflation in nearly all the major economies. G7 inflation fell from over 5 per cent. at the beginning of last year to about 3 per cent. now.
  But economic developments in continental Europe have been dominated by events in Germany. Over-rapid expansion of domestic demand, following reunification, led to a rise in German inflation. The German authorities responded by increasing interest rates and Germany has now moved into recession. As a consequence, other European economies are experiencing high real interest rates and weak domestic demand.
  But falling inflation, and the cuts in interest rates that have already taken place in north America and Japan, will in time lead to a pick-up in confidence and demand. And as the underlying level of German inflation abates, I expect to see reductions in European interest rates.
  Gross domestic product in the seven major economies is projected to grow by about 11/2 per cent. in 1992, and world trade by about 4 per cent. We can expect more rapid growth in later years as the recovery gains momentum.
  Some have argued that delayed recovery in the United States, and the slowdowns in Japan and Europe, are not just a cyclical phenomenon of the kind we have seen before, but herald something much more serious. It would be irresponsible for anyone in my position simply to ignore such claims. But I do not believe that they are well founded. I believe that Governments have learned the lessons of the past. Above all, they recognise that nothing could be more damaging to the world economy than a relapse into protectionism of the sort that we saw in the 1930s.
  Indeed, a crucial challenge for Governments is not merely to preserve the world trading order, but to extend it. Unfortunately, not all our Community partners see this as clearly as we in Britain do. But narrow sectional interests must not be allowed to prevent the current GATT negotiations from reaching a rapid and successful conclusion. The prosperity of the world in the decades ahead rests squarely on the freedom to trade.

  UNITED KINGDOM: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  The most significant development in the British economy over the past year has been the sharp and sustained reduction in inflation. Retail price inflation has fallen to around 4 per cent., close to the German level, while underlying producer price inflation is at its lowest level for a generation.
  Average earnings, too, are rising at the lowest rate for 25 years, suggesting that, after a decade of supply-side reform, the British labour market is operating far more effectively than before. This augurs well for employment prospects in the longer term. But, as elsewhere in the

  747
  world, activity and demand in Britain have been weak. The rapid increase in demand in the late 1980s, fuelled by a sharp fall in saving and large increases in indebtedness, made a period of adjustment inevitable. Companies and households that borrowed extensively have reined in spending and repaid debt in response to higher interest rates.
  Following a substantial reduction in interest rates, there were clear signs of renewed growth in the late summer and early autumn of last year—not just in confidence surveys, but also in the figures for retail sales and economic activity more generally. But, as in the United States, the recovery here was not sustained.
  The effect on the British economy of recent world developments, and particularly those in the United States, cannot simply be measured by the adverse consequences for British exports. British firms have factories and offices abroad—indeed, our investment in the United States is higher than that of any other country. Conditions in one country can and do affect business confidence elsewhere. So unexpected weakness in the rest of the world has taken its toll on confidence in Britain, discouraging investment and stockbuilding. Over the year as a whole, GDP fell by nearly 2½ per cent., ½per cent. more than my forecast of a year ago.

  THE OUTLOOK FOR 1992 AND 1993
  Most independent forecasters agree that 1992 will see the resumption of economic growth. The recovery is expected to start slowly, but to gather pace. I expect growth in the year to the second half of 1992 to be almost 2 per cent. The level of GDP for this year as a whole should be about 1 per cent. higher than last.
  As inflation in Britain has fallen, so too have interest rates; and that has put money in the pockets of mortgage payers. Indeed, a typical family with a £30,000 mortgage is now more than 15 per cent. better off in real terms than in October 1990—nearly £30 a week. That represents a considerable stock of pent-up spending power, which will in time feed through to stronger consumer spending.
  Output will also be boosted by stronger export growth as the world economy recovers. Our share of world trade in manufactures rose in 1991 for the third successive year, despite the world slowdown, and I expect further gains in the future as lower inflation leads to improved competitiveness.
  The current account deficit for last year was about £4½ billion, ¾per cent. of GDP. As domestic demand recovers, the deficit is likely to widen a little this year. At 1 per cent. of GDP for the year as a whole, it will be easily financeable.
  Even with a resumption of growth, unemployment is likely to go on rising for some time. But while the increase will moderate over the months ahead, a sustained reduction in unemployment over the longer term will depend crucially on our success in keeping inflation down, and the prospects for that are better than at any time in recent economic history.
  I expect retail price inflation to fall decisively below 4 per cent. by the end of the year and to be close to 3 per cent. by the middle of 1993. Producer price inflation will be even lower, down to 2 per cent. by the end of this year and to 1½ per cent. by the middle of 1993.

  THE LONGER TERM PROSPECT
  A whole generation has grown up to accept inflation as an unalterable fact of life. But we are now making steady progress towards price stability—an environment in which the decisions of businesses and consumers are no longer distorted by the expectation of a general upward movement in prices. Inflation has been the scourge of our economy for decades, and its defeat, not just here but elsewhere in Europe, will represent a tremendous achievement, bringing enormous benefits to British businesses and families. There are those who would put this at risk by seeking to pump up demand, but I am not prepared to take steps which would call into question the Government's determination to match or better the inflation performance of our Community partners.
  And even if it were thought desirable, it is not remotely feasible for Governments to try to target the level of demand month by month or quarter by quarter. Having made such progress in getting inflation down, it would be tragic now to throw it all away with an ill-judged or ill-timed attempt to kick-start demand.
  The challenge before us is not to provide some artificial short-term stimulus to the economy. It is to continue the supply-side reforms of the 1980s. Low tax and light government have produced an economic environment which spurs competition and rewards enterprise. Our job now is to build on them to help people and businesses make the most of recovery. And that will be the theme of my Budget today.
  Between 1979 and the end of 1990, the number of businesses rose by almost a third. Even during the recession capital spending on plant and machinery has remained higher as a proportion of GDP than at any point in the 1970s. As a result we have seen exceptional growth in manufacturing productivity—faster than in any other G7 country in the 1980s. Industrial relations have been transformed. Fewer days were lost to industrial action in 1991 than in any year since records began a century ago.
  The confidence of foreign investors in Britain's renewed economic strength is demonstrated by our continued high share of inward investment. Almost half of the direct investment in the European Community from the United States and Japan comes to the United Kingdom. Those investors recognise that Britain, with its low taxes, good industrial relations and stable currency, is the right place to come to exploit the opportunities of the single European market.

  MONETARY AND EXCHANGE RATE POLICY
  Whether or not the United Kingdom decides to participate in a move to a single European currency, we will be among those who meet the strict conditions required for entry. The Government believe that these conditions provide a valuable framework for setting policy in the medium term.
  And that means that monetary policy is primarily directed at the maintenance of sterling's parity within the exchange rate mechanism. In due course we shall move to the narrow band of the ERM, at the current central rate of 2.95 DM.
  Since ERM entry was announced in October 1990, sterling has remained within its permitted ERM bands, while interest rates have been reduced by 41 per cent. The differential between United Kingdom and German interest rates is now at its lowest for a decade.
  In common with all the major countries within the ERM, I shall set a domestic monetary target. M0, the narrow measure of money, has stayed comfortably within the range I set in the last Budget. For the year ahead I propose to continue the target range for narrow money of 0 to 4 per cent. This is consistent with a further fall in inflation combined with a recovery in output. I shall continue to watch closely other indicators of monetary conditions, including broad money and asset prices.

  PUBLIC FINANCE AND FISCAL POLICY
  I turn now to the public sector finances. The slowdown in the world economy over the last year has led to larger budget deficits in most industrial countries. Tax revenues and spending on some social security programmes largely depend upon the level of economic activity. So, in a recession, tax receipts are lower while social security spending rises.
  But, thanks to my predecessors, we in Britain have the great advantage of having a ratio of Government debt to GDP that is very low by both historical and international standards. Indeed, the general Government debt burden is lower in the United Kingdom than in any other European Community country bar Luxembourg. That means that a rise in borrowing in response to cyclical pressures will not jeopardise the Government's firm commitment to sound finance.
  The objective of fiscal policy remains to balance the budget over the medium term. In a recession borrowing will tend to rise. But there is nothing wrong with that, providing that the underlying position is sound and the budget moves back towards balance as the economy recovers. Indeed, it makes good economic sense to allow the level of Government borrowing to vary in this way over the business cycle.
  For the year ending on 1 April, I expect a PSBR of a little under £14 billion, or 2¼ per cent. of GDP. The rise in the forecast since the autumn statement is due for the most part to the impact of weaker activity on revenues rather than to higher public spending. Indeed, planned public expenditure this year is likely to be a little below the level that I set in last year's Budget.
  Since the full impact of the recession, on both tax revenues and public expenditure, feeds through only with a time lag, the PSBR will increase further in 1992–93. Taking account of the measures that I am announcing today, my forecast implies a PSBR next year of some 4½ per cent. of GDP, about £28 billion.
  As I have said, the increased borrowing requirement reflects the delayed impact of weaker activity over the last year. Even so, I expect it to be rather lower than that of Germany, and less than half the level seen in Britain following the recession in the mid-1970s. The ratio of Government debt to GDP will rise slightly next year. But our debt burden will remain very low by international standards. As the economy recovers, and growth gathers pace, the PSBR will move back towards balance, and the debt burden will resume its downward trend.
  During 1991–92 the borrowing requirement has been fully funded, and that policy will continue over the year ahead. An increased amount will be funded through national savings. A new product, a guaranteed growth bond designed to appeal to taxpayers, will be launched in the summer.

  INVESTMENT
  The prosperity of this country does not stem from government but from the enterprise and initiative of the British people and of British business. A recurrent theme of the Budgets delivered by my distinguished predecessors has been the desire to create a framework in which economic decisions are taken on their own merits, and not in response to distortions created by the tax system. In continuing that tradition today, my Budget will ensure that recovery is not based on some short-term boost from Government but on the decisions taken by the private sector.
  The proposals that I shall be presenting today should be seen in the context of the benefits that business will receive from the measures I announced last year. In my last Budget, I cut the main rate of corporation tax by a full two percentage points, to 33 per cent., for profits earned in the 1991 financial year. That has given Britain a lower rate of corporation tax than any of our major competitors, and I propose to leave it unchanged for the year ahead.
  Because corporation tax is paid in arrears, companies will feel the full impact of last year's cut only in the coming year. Combined with the other corporation tax measures that I announced last year, it will benefit businesses by some £1 billion in 1992–93.
  In my autumn statement I announced substantial increases in public sector investment. In the financial year beginning 1 April investment in roads and public transport will be £5 billion, and capital spending on the national health service will be more than £2 billion. Next year, public sector asset creation—in other words, total investment spending by the public sector—will amount to nearly £30 billion.
  Over the last decade, this Government have fully demonstrated their commitment to investment in our public infrastructure. It would be wholly wrong to allow the impact of the recession on the fiscal deficit to lead to cuts in our long-term investment programmes, as occurred in the 1970s. But it would be equally wrong to expect public investment or an ever-expanding public sector to lead the recovery. The recovery will be sustainable only if it is led by the private sector. Investment does not take place in a vacuum. Good quality private-sector investment will come not from artificial subsidies or incentives but in response to consumer demand.
  One suggestion that has been put to me is that I should raise first year capital allowances. I have considered this proposition very carefully. I would be as concerned as anyone if I thought that the corporation tax system introduced in 1984 was acting as a drag on profitable investment. But, on average, the current tax rules allow capital investment to be written off more quickly than economic depreciation would imply. In current circumstances, any general increase in capital allowances would primarily benefit large and profitable businesses. Moreover, given the way that the corporation tax system works, those benefits would not flow through into companies' cash flow until the year after next.
  The evidence suggests that the cost of higher capital allowances to the Exchequer would be several times greater than the resulting increase in investment over the next few years. I have therefore concluded that, whatever its superficial attractions, an increase in capital allowances would not be a sensible use of the resources available.

  NATIONAL NON-DOMESTIC RATE
  There is a far better way to help business this year. I have decided to bring forward proposals that will be of early benefit to some 900,000 non-domestic properties, large and small, throughout the United Kingdom.
  Business in England and Wales has gained much from the introduction of the uniform business rate in 1990. During the 1980s, when business rates were set by local authorities, poundages in England rose on average by over 37 per cent. more than inflation. Under the new system, rate poundages are capped in real terms.
  In some cases, however, the changes in bills have been substantial, and many businesses have faced a difficult adjustment. That is why, when we introduced the uniform business rate, the Government eased the transition by phasing in the losses of those who faced large changes in their bills. But I am well aware that many of the businesses which face large increases next year have also been hard hit by the recession. I have therefore decided that their burdens should not be compounded by real increases in business rates.
  The Government propose to amend the transitional arrangements already enacted for next year's business rates in England and Wales to ensure that no business property will face a real increase in rates next year. The bills for properties protected by the transitional arrangements will increase by no more than the rate of inflation, like those for other properties—500,000 business properties in England and Wales will benefit at a cost to the Exchequer of £320 million in 1992–93. The present statutory limits on real annual increases in rate bills will apply again from 1993–94. Since such increases will be from a lower base, there will be a further cost of £220 million in that year.
  The present rules mean that new occupiers are not eligible for transitional relief. As the property market has weakened, this has made it more difficult for businesses to move. I therefore propose to allow businesses occupying new premises after midnight tonight to inherit the transitional protection available to the previous occupier, at a further cost of about £25 million. This should help to increase mobility and unlock the property market.
  But it would be wrong to concentrate help only on those businesses who lose from the new arrangements. While the transitional arrangements have postponed losses for some companies, they have also delayed the gains for those who did worst out of the old system. I believe that businesses should see the full benefits more rapidly. I therefore propose to accelerate their gains.
  From 1993–94 onwards, I propose that all businesses gaining from the 990 reforms should be allowed to have their gains in full. So, by then, no business will be paying higher business rates than it should be doing under the new system.
  In the coming year, I propose that the maximum reductions in the rate bills of the gainers should be raised to 22 per cent. in real terms for large properties, and to 27 per cent. for small properties. Those limits are nine percentage points higher than in the current year: 150,000 business properties in England and Wales will benefit at a revenue cost of £85 million in 1992–93.
  These changes will not reduce the income of local authorities. Subject to Parliament's approval, the Government will pay extra money into the non-domestic
  752
  rates pool to make good the shortfall in business rates revenue. These payments will not add to public expenditure.
  The Government will introduce special legislation as soon as practicable to implement these proposals. In the meantime, local authorities should send out bills and collect business rates in accordance with the existing legislation and regulations. Business rate bills on properties in transition will be cut, and adjustment made for earlier higher levels of payment, when Parliament has approved the legislation and local authorities can send out new lower bills.
  The proposals that I have outlined will apply to business properties in England and Wales, reducing the total business rates bill next year by 3¼ per cent. Scotland and Northern Ireland each have different arrangements for business rates. The Government propose that their total rates bills next year should likewise be reduced by 3¼ per cent. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland will be announcing the details.
  These measures will bring significant and early benefit to many thousands of businesses throughout the United Kingdom. The revenue cost will be £480 million in 1992–93 and £590 million in 1993–94 but will fall away rapidly in subsequent years.

  SMALL BUSINESS
  My proposals on the UBR will be of particular benefit to small businesses—the lifeblood of a modern economy. Small businesses have been at the heart of the supply-side revolution in this country over the last decade. The result has been a new economic dynamism, with increased competition and a more flexible labour market.
  Inevitably, taxation and regulation bear most heavily on small firms, so I have considered carefully what measures I can take to ease that burden, and in particular to ease the cash flow of small businesses. Last year, I raised the VAT registration threshold by some 40 per cent. This year, I propose to increase the threshold in line with inflation, to £36,600. One hundred and thirty-five thousand traders—one third of all those eligible—now use the cash accounting scheme for VAT, which allows small firms to delay their VAT payments until they themselves have been paid. I can now announce that the rules will be relaxed to allow traders owing less than £5,000 to Customs to use cash accounting. I hope that this will encourage many more traders to take advantage of this excellent scheme.
  My decision last year to allow small employers to pay income tax and national insurance deducted at source on a quarterly rather than monthly basis was widely welcomed by small employers. I propose to raise the qualifying limit to £450 a month. That will mean that nearly ¾ million employers will be able to make payments quarterly rather than monthly.
  But one problem arouses more anger in the small business community than any other. I have every sympathy for small companies which find that their larger debtors are deliberately delaying payment to boost their own cash flow. Such practices are wholly deplorable; and, while there is no easy solution, my right hon. Friends and I have looked hard at what the Government can do to help. I have a number of proposals to announce.
  First, the Government propose to require larger companies to state in their annual report and accounts how quickly they pay. Second, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be proposing simpler procedures in small claims and debt recovery cases.
  Third, I want to see the Government's good record on the payment of bills extended to firms which win Government contracts. From next month, those successfully negotiating a contract with a Government Department will be required to include clauses in their own contracts with subcontractors which provide for the prompt payment of bills, ordinarily within 30 days of receiving a valid invoice. I believe that Government have set a good example, and I hope that large companies will follow.
  For businesses facing cash flow difficulties, value added tax penalties can be the last straw. It has been put to me on many occasions that the VAT penalty regime is too strict. The serious misdeclaration penalty is catching too many minor mistakes. This must stop. In future, Customs will not normally charge penalties on underdeclarations of tax of up to £2,000. That will take over three quarters of cases out of the penalty regime, although the largest mistakes will still be penalised.
  Last year I reduced the rate of penalty from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. I now propose to cut it further, to 15 per cent. But there are other aspects of the regime which require more consideration, and Customs are issuing today a further consultation document on the options for longer-term reform.
  I believe that the highest rates of default surcharge levied on traders who submit late VAT returns or payments cannot be justified. I therefore propose to reduce the maximum rate from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. These measures, taken together, will reduce the penalties businesses might otherwise have had to pay Customs by £35 million next year.
  One of the other complaints I have heard most frequently over the years is that it is unjust that taxpayers cannot be awarded costs when they appeal before the special commissioners. I now propose to introduce a measure which would give the Lord Chancellor power to make new rules about the hearing of appeals, including the powers to award costs where either party has acted wholly unreasonably.

  INHERITANCE TAX
  I have one final change to announce which will be of substantial benefit, particularly to small family businesses. I propose to take most family businesses out of inheritance tax altogether. This will cost £10 million in 1992–93, and £25 million in 1993–94. Relief from inheritance tax for interests in unincorporated businesses, for shareholdings greater than 25 per cent. in unquoted companies, and for working farmers will be increased from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent.
  Shares dealt on the unlisted securities market, which are generally less liquid than shares with a full stock market quotation, will from today be treated like unquoted shares. That means that shareholdings of over 25 per cent. will also generally be free from inheritance tax.
  For shareholdings of 25 per cent. or less in unquoted companies, and for agricultural landlords, the rate of relief will rise from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.
  754
  relief will also extend to smaller shareholdings in USM companies and to controlling shareholdings in quoted companies.
  Inheritance and capital are no longer a privilege of the wealthy few. Ordinary families want to be able to pass on the wealth that they have built up over their lives to their children without an excessive proportion being taken by tax. Over the years to come I shall continue to look for ways of lightening the burden of inheritance tax. This year I propose to raise the threshold for inheritance tax by more than inflation, to £150,000. This will cost about £10 million in 1992–93. I intend to raise the threshold for capital gains tax in line with inflation, to £5,800.
  Taken together, the measures that I am proposing on business rates, on VAT and on inheritance tax will be of very substantial benefit to British business as a whole and to small business in particular in the year ahead.

  OTHER BUSINESS MEASURES
  Over the past year I have received many representations about surplus advance corporation tax. ACT is paid by companies when they pay dividends. It serves two purposes: first, to discharge the shareholders' basic rate income tax liability; and, second, as a payment towards the company's own corporation tax liability. But some companies paying dividends out of foreign profits taxed abroad find that they are now paying more ACT than they can set against United Kingdom tax.
  That is a significant problem for those affected. But it is also highly complex, and huge amounts of revenue are potentially at stake. A satisfactory and lasting solution will need to address the ways in which different national systems of corporation tax interact. This is currently the subject of a review sponsored by the European Commission, and it is clearly an issue to which the Government will have to return.
  Its importance is of course increased by the abolition, from 1 January 1993, of fiscal frontiers within the European Community. That will give British business access to the largest home market in the world. But it will also necessitate a number of technical changes to our VAT and excise systems. As I announced last October, one consequence of the single market is that businesses which import from other European Community countries will pay VAT on those imports later than they do now, giving some 90,000 businesses a welcome cash-flow benefit.
  This change will add substantially to the PSBR in 1992–93. I therefore announced last year that, from this autumn, the largest VAT payers—those who paid over £2 million in VAT in 1990–91—would be required to submit VAT returns monthly rather than quarterly as now. It has been put very forcefully to me that the requirement for monthly returns would place an undue administrative burden on the businesses concerned. I have listened carefully to these representations, and I now intend to take steps to allay the concerns raised by those affected.
  I have asked Customs to implement a system of monthly payments on account for these large businesses, but I propose to allow them to continue to submit returns quarterly. This will avoid the requirement to fill in VAT returns every month, while still offsetting the cost to the Exchequer of postponed accounting for imports. Compared to my original proposal for monthly returns, payments on account will cost the Exchequer some £200

  755
  million in 1992–93, with a corresponding benefit again to the businesses concerned. I will introduce legislation to establish the basis for these new arrangements.
  I also propose to introduce legislation to prevent the business tax rules from being manipulated to secure an unjustifiable tax deferment when rent is paid between connected persons. The manipulation which has already occurred has involved tax of some hundreds of millions of pounds. This loophole will be closed immediately.
  I have one change to make to the business expansion scheme. It has been put to me that the BES could play a valuable part in helping to ease the problem of mortgage repossessions. At present companies can use the BES to acquire empty repossessed houses, but there are complications if the houses are still occupied. I propose to make it easier for the BES to be used for mortgage rescue schemes where owner-occupiers in difficulties wish to stay in their homes as assured tenants. This will add to the impact of the measures I announced in December to help the housing market.
  But I have also looked closely at the entire rationale behind the business expansion scheme, which is an exceptionally generous tax relief. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) introduced it in 1983, the venture capital industry was in its infancy, and there was concern that the investment needs of small firms were not well understood and provided for.
  The BES has been extremely successful. Over £2 billion has been raised and invested in qualifying schemes of all kinds. And Britain now has a venture capital industry the equal of that anywhere in the world, outside the United States. But the provisions of the business expansion scheme have become ever more complex; and nowadays only a small part of the total invested goes to small businesses.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) made clear when they were introduced, the BES provisions for assured tenancies were intended to expire at the end of 1993. I have decided that it is unnecessary to continue the business expansion scheme beyond that date, not only for assured tenancies, but for other investments as well. BES will therefore come to an end on 31 December 1993. As I have said, it has fulfilled a useful purpose. But its removal will significantly improve the neutrality of the tax system; and some 45 pages of complex legislation will be removed from the statute book.
  As a result of my announcement today, there is likely to be some acceleration in investment, which will be welcome. In the long run there will be substantial savings, perhaps £130 million a year.
  Last year, I made it clear that I was concerned about the position of the British film industry and that I would consider carefully any further proposals that the industry brought forward. I have done so. Although a special tax regime already exists, the industry has long argued that the provisions for writing off expenditure do not fully take account of their special circumstances, and in particular of the cash flow problems that may be caused by the sometimes lengthy gap between the completion of a film and its release. I propose two measures to alleviate the position.
  First, relief for pre-production expenditure will be available as it is incurred; and, second, production expenditure will be available for write-off at a fixed rate of one third each year, on a straight-line basis, starting
  756
  immediately on the completion of the film. This will have a cost of about £5 million in the first year, and around £15 million in 1993–94.

  CARS
  The motor industry is and will remain at the very heart of British manufacturing.
  Facing a sharp fall in domestic demand over the last year, the industry responded in exactly the right way, by switching production to exports, which rose by 20 per cent. in 1991. The fall in domestic sales should not be allowed to obscure this growing strength, which should make Britain a net exporter of cars by 1996 for the first time since 1974.
  None the less, I recognise that the last year has been a difficult one, and the measures I am proposing today will help the industry, while building on and continuing the reform of the taxation of cars that I and my predecessors have introduced.
  Before the 1988 Budget, the car scale charges—the income tax charge on those who have the benefit of a company car—were too low. Since then, we have moved much closer to realistic levels. I propose this year to increase the scale charges only in line with inflation. Otherwise, the real value of the tax payable would actually fall.
  But there are still aspects of the car scale charges which are both arbitrary and unfair. For most cars the tax payable is determined not by reference to the value of the car but rather by the car's engine size. As the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has pointed out, this causes distortions. It also discriminates against diesel cars. The unfairness in the current system may have been acceptable when the tax charge was only a fraction of the true value to the user, but that is no longer the case.
  We need a system that better measures the value of the benefit. That means basing the tax charge on the price of the car, not its engine size. I therefore propose to introduce price-based scales as soon as practicable. The Inland Revenue will be publishing a consultative document in the summer on the details and timing of such a move.
  The car fuel scales, which measure the taxable benefit of free private fuel provided by the employer, have remained frozen since 1987. I propose to increase the scale for free petrol by 4·5 per cent. But at the moment we apply the same charge to diesel as to petrol, even though the cash value of free diesel is less.
  That means the fuel scales are too high for diesel cars, so I propose to introduce a new, and significantly lower, scale for diesel, bringing the tax charge closer into line with the value of the benefit received.
  While the income tax treatment of cars has until recent years been much too generous, in other ways cars have been the subject of discriminatory tax treatment. I have some changes to announce that will reduce that discrimination, and provide a boost for all businesses buying cars and for the car industry itself.
  First, companies that offered their employees the alternative of cash or a car have found themselves liable to pay VAT on the salary forgone by those who chose the car. That is clearly nonsensical. I shall be laying an order to make clear beyond doubt that, from 1 April, a VAT charge will no longer be imposed in these so-called salary sacrifice cases.
  Second, the capital allowances available for business cars are currently restricted for cars costing more than £8,000. That limit is now unrealistically low and I propose to increase it to £12,000, enabling full capital allowances to be given on most business cars. This measure will cost £50 million in 1993–94, building up to £220 milion when the change has its maximum effect. But the revenue cost in the long term will be small.
  At present, most taxi and car hire firms and driving schools cannot recover the VAT they pay on their cars even though their cars are their business. I propose to end this anomaly from 1 August, at a cost of £50 million in 1992–93.
  Those measures will go some way towards improving the neutrality of the tax system as its affects cars purchased by businesses. But I have one further measure to announce, which will affect all those buying new cars.
  In 1973, car tax was introduced, to make up the difference between VAT and the former purchase tax. It has remained unchanged, at 10 per cent. of the wholesale price, ever since. This tax distorts consumer spending, and car manufacturers have long complained that our taxes on new cars are higher than those of other main European producers.
  This Government have always sought to reduce distortions in the tax system, and I therefore propose to reduce car tax by half, to 5 per cent., from midnight tonight. That will directly reduce the tax burden on all new cars. I trust that car dealers will respond by passing the full benefit of this reduction—about £400 on a typical family car—to the buyer. The halving of car tax will cost about £635 million in 1992–93, and £765 million in the following year.

  EXCISE DUTIES
  I turn now to excise duties. Last year I raised the duties on alcohol in line with inflation, and I propose to do the same this year. From 6 pm tonight, this will mean an increase in the tax on a typical pint of beer of just over 1p, just under 5p on a bottle of wine and 28p on a bottle of spirits. I also propose to raise the duty on unleaded petrol and on diesel in line with inflation.
  On leaded petrol, I propose a rather larger increase, of 7½ per cent., taking the tax differential between leaded and unleaded petrol to over 5p a litre. That will continue our long-standing and successful policy of encouraging motorists to move away from leaded petrol, which now represents little more than half the market.
  I propose to increase vehicle excise duty on cars, taxis and light vans by £10, and to freeze it again this year for lorries.
  I propose to raise the duty on tobacco by about 10 per cent.—roughly the same real increase as last year. That will add 13p to the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes. The duties on other tobacco products will also rise by about 10 per cent., apart from that on pipe tobacco, which will rise only in line with inflation. Benjamin Franklin once remarked that nothing was certain except death and taxes, but for some people the latter may help to delay the former. As for the irreconcilables—among whom I count myself—I have one minor compensation: I propose to abolish from 1 January 1993 the duty charged on matches and mechanical lighters.
  I also have a change to announce on betting duty, with consequences for the racing industry. I propose to cut the
  758
  rate of betting duty by one quarter of 1 per cent., reducing the tax take by £15 million in 1992–93. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will be announcing later today his determination of the horse race betting levy, and he will be making proposals to ensure that the greater part of that reduction will be channelled to the horse racing industry. That is an important part of the measure, and I shall review the cut in betting duty next year.
  A proportion of the reduction, of course, will be attributable to betting on greyhound racing. I hope that voluntary arrangements can be found to direct some of that money to help the greyhound racing industry, and my right hon. Friend will be exploring the possibilities with interested parties.
  I should also tell right hon. and hon. Members quite clearly what I am not proposing. I know that there is particular concern about the European Commission's proposals on the taxation of alcohol. But let me make it clear: I will not accept any deal in Brussels that would ride roughshod over the interests of the British cider industry. Nor will I accept a deal that would allow member states to continue to levy no excise duty on wine which they make but which forces them to put up duties on spirits which we make.

  CHARITIES
  Over the past 13 years, we have introduced a number of measures directed at encouraging charitable giving. We introduced the payroll giving scheme. We have extended and widened value added tax reliefs—and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, introduced the gift aid scheme.
  Gift aid allows tax relief on one-off donations of £600 or more. It has been a considerable success. Charities have received nearly £200 million in income under the scheme. I propose that from 1 July 1992 the minimum gift should be reduced to £400—the figure proposed by the Council for Charitable Support and the Charities Tax Reform Group. I shall not go further, because I know that some charities are concerned that to do so might reduce the attraction of regular giving through charitable covenants.
  But I propose some changes to the arrangements for tax relief on charitable covenants, intended to reduce administration costs for charities and to help them to maintain a steady and reliable flow of income. And I propose a number of minor improvements to the VAT reliefs available to charities and for aids to the disabled.

  SAVINGS
  Savings are a passport to personal independence and security; the very foundation of a property-owning democracy. That is why, over the last decade, the Government have set out to lighten the burden of taxation on saving.
  We have reduced the basic and higher rates of income tax, and abolished the investment income surcharge. We have stopped taxing the savings of non-taxpayers. And we have extended savings incentives to the mass of ordinary tax-paying savers by introducing tax-exempt special savings accounts—TESSAs—which allow people to invest up to £9,000 over five years in a bank or building society account.
  We have also introduced new and popular incentives to invest in shares. In 1986 we introduced personal equity plans to enhance the attraction of investment in shares by

  759
  making the income and capital gains from them free of tax. Today, I want to improve PEPs still further by removing the £3,000 limit on the amount that can be invested in unit or investment trusts. I propose that from April people should he able to invest up to the full £6,000 a year in qualifying investment and unit trusts. This new opportunity—which will cost £10 million in 1993–94—will provide further encouragement to PEPs, and help to small savers.
  We do not see the returns to savings as "unearned income", to be taxed more heavily than earned income. On the contrary, we will continue to lighten the burden of tax on savings, and to broaden the range of investments which receive savings incentives.

  PENSIONERS
  No one has benefited more from our encouragement of savings than pensioners. In the 1980s, most pensioners saw their real incomes rise sharply, as inflation fell and the value of occupational pensions rose. On average, pensioners' real incomes increased by more than a third between 1979 and 1988. More than half of pensioners now have a second pension; and pensioners have seen their income from saving double since 1979.
  I propose that the income tax allowances for the over-65s—both the personal allowances and the married couple's allowances—should increase in line with inflation. The income limit for the age-related allowances will also increase in line with inflation.
  Increases in the age allowances can, of course, benefit only those pensioners who pay tax. But this year I also want to help the less fortunate pensioners—those whose savings have been eroded over the years by inflation; those who have only modest occupational pensions; and those who retired too early to take advantage of the growth of SERPS.
  Last October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that the income support rates for pensioners would be increased this April by at least 7 per cent.; and there were extra increases for disabled pensioners and the over-80s.
  I now propose a further increase in income support rates, of £2 for single pensioners and £3 for pensioner couples. When this comes into effect, in October, all pensioners on income support will be at least £5·75 a week better off than they are now, and some will be as much as £10·70 a week better off. In total, some 5 million people will benefit. And it will bring the real increase in spending on benefits for poorer pensioners since 1989 to more than £700 million.
  The cost—some £145 million in 1992–93 and £305 million in the following year—will be financed from within the existing public expenditure plans.

  INCOME TAX
  Turning now to income tax more generally, I do not propose this year to increase the basic rate limit, the level of taxable income above which people begin to pay higher rate tax. Compared with indexation, this will save £180 million in 1992–93 and £290 million the following year.
  Nor do I propose any increase in the married couple's allowance for couples under 65 or the allowances that are linked to it. But I do have one significant change to
  760
  announce. The introduction of independent taxation in 1990 brought privacy and independence to married women by ending the rule that a wife's income was assumed to be her husband's. This change was widely welcomed. However, it did not eliminate completely the discriminatory features of the old system.
  At present, the husband receives the benefit of the married couple's allowance unless his income is too low to make use of it. That means that the husband's tax allowances are almost always greater than those of his wife. It also means that couples where the wife is a higher rate taxpayer and the husband is not pay more tax than couples where the husband is the higher rate taxpayer. That cannot be right. It is hardly surprising that the MCA has been described by some as the male chauvinist allowance.
  I propose to change this system. From 1993–94, couples will have a choice. If they take no action, the husband will continue to receive the MCA as now. They will be able to decide that the wife should receive the whole allowance, or that they should split it; or the wife will be able to claim half at her own request. This measure will have only a small effect on revenue—£10 million in 1993–94—but it will make the tax system much fairer to married women.
  The Government have cut the basic rate of income tax by 8p since we took office in 1979, to 25p. And, as the House knows, we are committed to reducing the basic rate to 20p as and when it is prudent to do so. I reaffirm that commitment today.
  For the year ahead, I propose that the personal allowance should be uprated only in line with inflation. It will rise from £3,295 to £3,445. But having reflected carefully on the priorities for this year's Budget, I have decided that for the year ahead it is right to leave the basic rate at 25p in the pound.
  I believe that it is possible, desirable and, indeed, prudent to take a substantial step this year towards our goal of a 20p basic rate for all taxpayers. It is neither necessary nor desirable that anyone earning more than their personal allowances should start paying income tax at a rate of 25 per cent. With national insurance contributions on top, that means that the Government take a third of every extra £1 earned even from the low paid. In my view, that is simply too much; and I believe that we can and should reduce that burden.
  So I propose this year to cut the rate of income tax by 5p, to 20p, for the first £2,000 of taxable income. That will benefit every taxpayer in the country, but it will be of proportionately greater benefit to those on low incomes. It represents a decisive first step towards the Government's objective of a 20p basic rate.
  In the next Parliament, we will gradually move closer to that goal. We will be able to do that in two possible ways: either by extending the width of the 20p band so that it covers increasing numbers of basic rate taxpayers, or by reducing the basic rate itself.
  Next year, nearly 4 million people on low incomes will already be paying tax only at the 20p rate. Their income tax bill will be cut by a fifth. That will improve their work incentives and make it more worth while for those not currently in work to take lower paid jobs.
  Nearly 25 million people—every taxpayer in the country—will see their starting rate of tax reduced to 20p. Combined with the indexation of the personal allowance, that will reduce taxes for the large majority of taxpayers by at least £2·64 a week.
  Mortgage interest tax relief at source will continue to be given at 25 per cent. for everybody, irrespective of whether they are a non-taxpayer, a 20p taxpayer, a basic rate taxpayer, or a higher rate taxpayer. But those in the 20p band will only be liable for tax at 20 per cent. on their savings.
  The new 20p band will cost £1·8 billion in 1992–93 and £2·3 billion in the following year, broadly equivalent to the cost of a penny off the basic rate. But, in comparison with a penny off the basic rate, the 20p band will be of particular benefit to those on the lowest incomes. Indeed, about three-quarters of the cost will go to taxpayers earning less than average male earnings.
  I now turn to the question of value added tax. I have a very important announcement to make, to which I hope the whole House will listen carefully. I have no need, no proposals and no plans either to raise or to extend the scope of VAT.
  The total impact of the taxation proposals I have put forward today, taken together with measures announced since my last Budget, will reduce the burden of taxation by around £1·5 billion, equivalent to ¼ per cent. of GDP, in the next financial year.

  PERORATION
  The Budget I have presented today is a Budget for the recovery. It maintains the policies that have slashed inflation and reduced interest rates. And it includes measures that will help businesses, large and small, up and down the country.
  But it is also a Budget that cuts taxes for every taxpayer in the country, a Budget which marks another significant step in our constant drive to leave individuals and families with more of what they earn. Over the past decade our belief in low taxation has brought unparalleled growth in the living standards of the British people. My Budget today continues that process, and I commend it to the House.

  PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES
  Motion made, and Question,
  That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—

  (a) Spirits (motion No. 2);

  (b) Beer (motion No. 3);

  (c) Wine and made-wine (motion No. 4);

  (d) Cider (motion No. 5);

  (e) Tobacco products (rates) (motion No. 6);

  (f) Hydrocarbon oil (motion No. 8);

  (g) Vehicles excise duty (rates: cars etc.) (motion No. 9);

  (h) Vehicles excise duty (rates: tricycles) (motion No. 10);

  (i) Value added tax (penalty for serious misdeclaration etc.) (motion No. 18);

  (j) Car tax (rates) (motion No. 20).—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50 (Ways and Means Motions), and agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion entitled "Amendment of the law". It is on that motion that the Budget debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The remaining motions will not be put until the end of the Budget debate next week, and then they will be decided without debate.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

  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;

  (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.]

  [Relevant document: European Community Document No. 10212/91 and COR2, the Commission's Annual Economic Report 1991–92.]
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: First, I offer the traditional congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the delivery of his speech, especially since he had a lot of information to offer and took rather longer providing it than he did last year and than has been customary in recent years. Nevertheless, we listened with interest. Indeed, I offer my congratulations with rather greater felicity than I usually do because this will be the last speech by a Conservative Chancellor for many years to come.
  I also want to follow an even more pleasant tradition and welcome several of the measures that the Chancellor announced this afternoon. The step that he made in the direction of radical reform of the Budget process is certainly worth a warm welcome. It has been the policy of our party for some years past, and it is good that there is a consensus. The job of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will be made easier next year when he speaks from my current position after the change has taken place.
  We should also like to welcome several of the changes that the Chancellor is introducing in respect of businesses, large and small. I refer to changes in the VAT arrangements for small businesses and the effective freezing of the uniform business rate—and to other arrangements to do with the inflation rate. We are bound to wonder, as we opposed the introduction of the UBR in the first place, why the Government waited until the recession had continued for 21 months instead of making earlier changes which would have saved many good businesses. The UBR is lingering evidence of the shambles of the poll tax system, and any changes in the right direction are to be welcomed—before we make the further changes that will be welcomed by business during the rest of this year, when we introduce our reforms.
  For the automobile manufacturing industry, which has been under terrible pressure, especially during the recession—and still—the changes in the special car tax must be welcome. The Chancellor has made here another worthwhile step worthy of our support.
  We also support the modest but welcome steps that he has taken in respect of the British film industry. I had hoped last year that he would take up the proposals of the working party; I am glad to see that he has rectified that this year. As the right hon. Gentleman is making large changes to the business expansion scheme this might have

  763
  been an opportunity for him to make the scheme serve the interests of the film industry, which certainly needs support and which, given its remarkable record again last year, is worthy of that support.
  We are in the midst of the longest recession since the 1930s, with unemployment rising towards 2·75 million again, with record repossessions and bankruptcies. What our country needed today—
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]
  Mr. Kinnock: What our country needed today was a Budget for strengthening Britain and promoting sustainable recovery out of the recession caused by the Government. What we got was a Budget to try to bribe voters with borrowed money which they will have to repay. The borrowing that the Government are raising to finance tax cuts is not, as the Chancellor would insist, prudent economic strategy: it is a panic-stricken pre-election political sweetener.
  For the sake of a few weeks of an election campaign the Government are going to try to saddle the British electors and taxpayers with many years of debt. The borrowing —[Laughter.] When Conservative Members realise that the Government are running a public sector borrowing requirement of £28 billion perhaps they will be a little more silent on the subject—the more so since the PSBR is the result of a combination of long-term failure and recession and short-term fear in the face of the electorate.
  The kind of borrowing that the Government propose—the extra borrowing to fund tax cuts—will not provide a single extra school or hospital. It will not provide a single extra place on a training scheme or in a childcare nursery. It will not create a single extra research project or transport improvement, or put an extra policeman on the streets. This debt is just extra Tory dead-weight debt, an extra £2 billion which gives a new meaning to the idea of state funding for political parties.
  There are no excuses for this Government. In 13 years of power they have had £100 billion worth of oil revenues, £40 billion worth of income from privatisation and the revenues from the highest tax burden ever imposed on the British people by any Government. At the end of all that, the best that the Chancellor could come here today and forecast in his Budget statement was a paltry 1 per cent. growth, further rises in unemployment, a continuing balance of payments deficit, despite the recession, and a PSBR of £28 billion. That is double this year's PSBR, which the Chancellor acknowledged to be £14 billion. What a terrible confession—
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kinnock: What a terrible confession the Chancellor had to make to the effects of a mismanagement that has brought this country to the point where the Government have got those finances and that growth into such a parlous state. Even now, it is quite probable that the Chancellor is not making a dependable forecast. He is having one of his visions of green shoots all over again. He started having his attack of green shoots—his equivalent of pink elephants—last year in his Budget speech. He started promising then
  "the recovery will begin around the middle of the year"—
  that is, in 1991. He told us that output would increase
  764
  "by about 2 per cent."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 165.]
  He firmly anticipated "an added boost" in the "revival" in "consumer confidence". He said that the Budget deficit would be £8 billion. In reality, as the country knows to its cost, output did not grow by 2 per cent.—it fell. The promised revival in confidence and performance simply did not take place and the deficit was not £8 billion but, as the Chancellor has just told us, £14 billion—75 per cent. higher than his original forecast. The Chancellor's predictions were not simply inaccurate; they turned out to be complete fiction.
  The Chancellor has told the Select Committee that
  "forecasting is an inexact science"
  and it may be that he is a hapless victim of the forecasters—innocent putty in their hands. He is, after all, only the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that case, we have to ask him what weight we can attach to the forecasts that he has been offering us this year, especially that on the PSBR.
  We also have to ask the Chancellor, if the forecasters were inexact and he was consequently in error and knew by January of this year that he was wrong, how could he still say to the January meeting of the National Economic Development Council:
  "The policy would not have been different had we known the outcome"?
  People all over the country have lost jobs, businesses and homes. What faith can any of them have in a Chancellor of the Exchequer who says that, even had he known at the outset that this was going to become the longest recession, his
  "policy would not have been different"?
  Despite all the redundancies, the bankruptcies and repossessions, he still, as he put it himself, regarded unemployment and recession as a "price well worth paying". The Chancellor was sticking to his economic guns even when they were turned on the people of this country.
  In his last Budget statement, the Chancellor told us that he was dedicated to
  "a simple rule, which … requires the Government to finance their spending honestly."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 167.]
  When I heard the Chancellor laying down his simple rule, I was reminded of one of his predecessors. I recall the Chancellor who was excoriating "successive Governments" who, he said,
  "had spent more than they were prepared to raise honestly from taxation and … made up the shortfall by borrowing. They left that bill to be picked up by future generations." —[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1016.]
  It was a stern rebuke to those dishonest borrowers and, interestingly, it did not come from a Chancellor in the distant past, not from a Victorian or even from one of the advisers to Henry VII; it came from the last Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, now the Prime Minister, just two years ago in his Budget statement.
  When I compare those words about honest taxation and borrowing with the Budget we have just heard, a Budget in which the Government will borrow £28 billion, of which £2 billion will go for tax cuts, I realise that I do not have to condemn the Government—they are condemned out of their own mouth and on the basis of their own words. They are the dishonest borrowers whom their Prime Minister was so busy denouncing. It is not just the Prime Minister and the Chancellor who have cursed Governments for spending more than they were prepared to raise honestly from taxation.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kinnock: It is an exception to do so, but by all means.
  Mr. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Have hon. Gentlemen started the election early? As I understood it, the Leader of the Opposition had given way.
  Mr. Kinnock indicated assent.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Are we to take it that he intends to oppose the 20p tax band that the Chancellor has just announced?
  Mr. Kinnock: It must have been the word "dishonest" that brought the right hon. Gentleman to his feet.
  Mr. Mellor: Answer the question.
  Mr. Kinnock: I will if the right hon. Gentleman will just shut up. I will answer it, no problem. We shall, next week, be offering our alternative Budget. The country will see in that how we shall have a much better offer to make to the taxpayers of Britain and to the people of Britain, who, in the great majority, want jobs, decent public services, a health service, an education system and not the bribes that the Government are offering them. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chancellor was given a reasonable hearing and the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to no less. I very much hope that we shall not get into red card territory.
  Mr. Kinnock: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The right hon. Gentleman and I just made a little history there because, as far as I know, it is the first time that the Leader of the Opposition has been interrupted in the course of his response to the Budget statement. What a shame, now that we have established this precedent, that we shall be changing the Budget process, so possibly the same conditions will not arise again. However, I can say on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that if the then Leader of the Opposition wants to intervene, he will give way.
  Mr. Mellor: Answer the question.
  Mr. Kinnock: I have just given the answer.
  We have been treated for months with teases about the Budget. We have been treated to the sight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other members of the Treasury team saying that they could not disclose anything. I think that, in the name of reasonability, they could at least give us another six days to produce our own statement in opposition to, an alternative to, what we have heard this afternoon.
  It has not just been the Chancellor and the Prime Minister who have been cursing Governments for spending
  "more than they were prepared to raise honestly from taxation",—[Official Report 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1016.]
  It is only weeks since the chairman of the Conservative party called borrowing "deferred taxation". The right hon. Gentleman probably regrets that now. He and the rest of his colleagues have to go into a general election with a promise to make tax cuts that are funded by borrowing,
  766
  and that means that they will have to go into that general election campaign guaranteeing that they will make their children and everyone else's children pay the cost of their electioneering. But it is worse than that, because borrowing for tax cuts for this generation leaves the next generation with debts and nothing else.
  Borrowing for tax cuts does not provide the next generation with the means of generating wealth or with any extra ways of producing revenues to repay the borrowing. Borrowing for tax cuts leaves no extra advantages, only extra burdens. The difference between borrowing for investment in the future and borrowing for immediate consumption is the difference between borrowing to put an extension on one's house and borrowing to go away for a day at the races. That is what the Government aim to do, just a few weeks at the races before they come second.
  Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us whether he thinks that it is all right to compromise our children's future and to burden rising generations with the cost of our generation's tax cuts because he believes that the reduction in taxes now is the best way to stimulate the economy into recovery. If he believes that, the Chancellor is wrong—even about that. The burden of personal and company debt in Britain is so big that some of the borrowed giveaway would doubtless be used to reduce that record burden and not to generate fresh economic activity.
  Mr. Tim Smith rose—
  Mr. Kinnock: Such is the run-down in British industry that, as the Engineering Employers Federation and several others testify, much of the borrowed giveaway would be spent on imports and not on generating jobs in Britain. The Government know that, but they still borrow for tax cuts in an economy which, despite the long recession, has a rising balance of payments deficit as the Chancellor again confirmed in his speech. In making those changes the Government demonstrate their desperation and their irresponsibility.
  If the Chancellor believes that borrowing for tax cuts is an effective way to promote recovery, he has to answer a simple question. If borrowing for tax cuts is the fast lane to recovery, why did not he hit upon this great scheme last year or a year ago when the recession was already nine months old instead of waiting until the recession was 21 months old? Why did not he do it a year ago when he was forecasting that Government borrowing would be just £8 billion instead of £28 billion? Why did not he do it when 50,000 more companies were still in existence or a year ago when 100,000 more families were still in their homes? Most of all, why did not the Chancellor do it a year ago when 800,000 more people were still in their jobs?
  The answer is obvious. The Chancellor did not take any action to combat recession because there was no election to come just weeks after the Budget. Now the election looms and borrowing, yesterday's original sin, has become today's prudent virtue. However, the debt will still have to be paid. Perhaps the Chancellor wishes to avoid burdening the next generation with the cost of money that has been borrowed for these pre-election tax cuts. That would be noble of him but, of course, there is only one way for him to stop the obligation falling on the next generation, and it would be quickly to reclaim the cost of this year's borrowing by raising taxes on the present generation.

  767
  Obviously, that would mean that what he gave with one hand this year he would have to take back with both hands next year.
  If the debt that the Chancellor has run up for tax cuts was not to be permanent, he would have to repay it with higher and wider VAT and other taxes and charges. I heard what the Chancellor said about having no plans to make changes in VAT. It was a faithful echo of what his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir. G. Howe) used to say in those precise words before the Government doubled VAT at the beginning of their period of government.
  The Chancellor knows that this is the only alternative to saddling rising generations with tax. The Prime Minister also knows it. All that they have not done is to admit it. I shall give the Chancellor an opportunity to make his Budget a little more honest. First, I ask him to acknowledge the basic truth that money borrowed for tax cutting would soon have to be repaid by tax raising if he was to keep his pledge to balance the Budget over the cycle. That must be the case. The Chancellor shakes his head. Unless he has developed a new system of mathematics, what I have said must be the case. One way or another that money will have to be repaid.
  Secondly, I ask him whether he would do that in this generation or leave the unavoidable task of repayment to the next generation. Which is it to be—extra tax for our children or extra tax for us? I know that the Chancellor could tell us now if he wanted to. He must have worked it out. If he can give an honest answer so that the country will hear about the real cost of his Budget and who will pay that cost, he should rise and tell us. It should not be difficult because all that he has to do is to repeat the recent words of the Prime Minister who said:
  "if borrowing takes the strain,"—
  which it clearly is—
  "taxes … have to go up to service the debt".
  If there is not an acknowledgement of that, so much for the "simple rule" of honest financing and for the Prime Minister's declarations about honest taxation and borrowing. So much for this discredited Government.
  Borrowing money for tax cuts in this recession will not stimulate recovery in any significant or sustained way. It will not strengthen the economy or improve the essential public services. If the borrowed money goes into consumption, it will suck in imports and increase the deficit and debt, and bring a rise in inflation which will be combated in due course by higher interest rates, so pushing the economy back into recession. That is where Tory policies have led this country already, and that is why the British people do not want to rejoin the treadmill that they have twice been on in the past 13 years.
  The British people know that in this recession, if there is to be borrowed money available, it must be invested in industry, construction, capital works, transport and other essential services. People know that if borrowing is used in that way it will generate sustained orders, production, profits and employment in Britain. It will create wealth and incomes by building a recovery with staying power. It will generate the extra revenue that will be needed in future for rising standards of health provision, education opportunities, childcare and proper security for the old.
  That is the kind of resilient recovery that Britain wants and needs. The Government have never been able to produce a resilient recovery because they have always relied on the consumption-led recovery that the
  768
  Chancellor advocated yet again in his speech. We need an investment-led recovery that will make Britain well equipped, well trained, competitive, consistently successful and socially just. That change will never come from this Government. They have got it wrong for the past 13 years and they will not start to get it right now. They have had all that time in power and at the end of it, it is a matter of fact that our country is under-trained, under-invested and under-performing.
  Because of the Government's policies, Britain is increasingly dependent on imports and is still in recession. Our essential public services are run down, and poverty is spreading across the land. Now the Government are asking the country to believe that, having got it so wrong for so long, they can with this Budget put it all right. They cannot be believed: they are not believed. That is why they will be beaten. They are hollow men—and the Tory Government ends not with a recovery bang but with a bribery whimper. The British people will not be deceived. They want real recovery. They will not support the bribers; they will support the builders.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The speech of the Leader of the Opposition showed his attitude clearly. We have heard that there is to be a £30 billion programme of public capital spending—a larger sum than the public sector borrowing requirement—yet there was no account of that in his speech.
  The right hon. Gentleman was asked what he would do about the 20p in the pound tax rate for the lower paid. He ducked the question and was asked it again, and again he ducked it. It is my guess that by the time that he reaches a press conference he will have been able to take advice from his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) or from other right hon. and hon. Friends. They will explain to him that he has to say either that the Labour party will vote against 20p in the pound or that it will support the reduction.
  The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to get away with his tight response when replying to the Budget statement on behalf of the Opposition. It was seen to be inadequate and it disappointed his supporters. The reaction of Opposition Members at the conclusion of his speech showed that he is not up to the job of moving across the Chamber to the Government Benches.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, to put it in a phrase, the Leader of the Opposition has been kebabed by the Budget?
  Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure about that. One needs to be fair to him. He did not have much time to prepare his response to the contents of the Budget. He had to work on the assumptions that appeared in the newspapers. It is wrong to spend too much time criticising the right hon. Gentleman, because he has done a great deal with the Labour party during his time as Leader of the Opposition. It is plain, however, that there is likely to be a change of some sort on the Opposition Benches after the election. As the election has not yet been announced, perhaps we can leave that to the debate that will take place later this week.
  There will be a welcome throughout the country for many of the imaginative proposals that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced. The idea of using the rate of 20p in the pound for the first

  769
  £2,000 of taxable income is imaginative and will be welcomed. If it did not lead to a reduction in the basic rate of tax, it would be wrong. The introduction of the proposal as a stepping stone towards a reduction in the overall rate is to be welcomed.
  Many people will understand that, whatever we may or may not want to do to those higher rates of tax, there are many others who are in and out of work. That is the reality, and it can be a tragedy for them. When someone in that position finds work and income, but is then subject to income tax of 25p in the pound plus national insurance stoppages, those are disincentives. It leads also to difficulties in the eventual merging of the tax and benefits system.
  I recommend that both major parties in time adopt the idea of putting the social security system within an extended arm of the Treasury, so that on one side the Inland Revenue reports to the Treasury while on the other the social security system reports to it. That would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide how the tax and benefit systems can begin to come together, to overlap and eventually to merge. I do not think that it will be possible to merge them in one operation.
  One of the innovations of the past two or three years which has not really been noticed is that child benefit changes are now announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Introducing child benefit was a proper move but mistakes have been made. The first mistake is to use the term "child benefit", which suggests that the benefit is selective and is taken up only by the poorest. All hon. Members know that child benefit gives no help to those on income support because it is taken into account in assessing their income. That is proper, but to retain the term "child benefit" is a mistake.
  I hope that in time that benefit will be called the child cash allowance. It is right that it should be paid in cash and it is right that it should go to all children. It should be recognised that the present Chancellor has been right—as was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before him—with the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, to make the necessary decisions as part of a Budget announcement. I hope that in future Budgets it will be possible to have real increases in child benefit, or the child cash allowance, as well as to extend the 20p rate of income tax beyond the first £2,000 of taxable income.
  Mr. John Battle: Is it not a fact that the consequences of the measures that have been announced today will not work through into the pockets of the lower paid? Anything that they gain will be deducted from their family credit. The Government have put together social security benefits and taxation. The hon. Gentleman will see that it is not a Budget for the low-paid or lower-paid.
  Mr. Bottomley: I hope that this portion of my speech will not be extended too far. I am trying to make some non-partisan points. If my support of higher rates of child benefit is partisan and the Labour party disapproves of it, that is something that should be on the record. I was working on the assumption that Labour party policy towards a child cash allowance had not changed.
  I thought that it was not controversial to talk about stepping stones leading to the merger of the tax and social
  770
  security systems. I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that families in work, but on low incomes, who have children will not get an immediate increase.
  Mr. Battle: They will not get a penny.
  Mr. Bottomley: When the hon. Gentleman has finished interrupting me from a sedentary position, I shall take up his argument. There are also those families without children who will receive benefit.
  The proposals of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for pensioners will provide them with immediate help. They will be recognised as important and they will do more in a concentrated way for 5 million pensioners than would have been done under the Labour party's proposals, which would have given an increase in pensions to pensioners whether or not they were well-off.
  A degree of selectivity is worth while. Indeed, there must be a degree of selectivity. It may be based on income. There may be a condition—for example, whether or not one is dealing with a child. I think that my right hon. Friend deserves congratulations for employing selectivity for pensioners based on income.
  I look forward to the debate continuing over the next two or three days—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall not give way.
  If the debate is truncated because we are to move into a general election campaign, it will be interesting to see whether the official Opposition's leadership will make up its mind about 20p in the pound for the first £2,000 of taxable income or whether it will try to duck that and other crucial issues.
  5.16 pm
  Sir David Steel: It is not my normal practice to intervene in Budget debates. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will be able to catch your eye tomorrow, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In the absence of the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), because of the effect of Glasgow weather on his health, I shall begin by saying that when I last had a cold my doctor, who is also a friend, came through the bedroom door bearing a bottle of whisky, a jar of his own honey and a lemon. He said, "You add these to hot water and you will feel much better." I said, "This is the national health service at its best, but will it cure me?" He replied, "No, it won't do you any good at all but it will make you feel better." And this is a hot toddy Budget. It will not do the economy any good but it will make people feel better temporarily, for as long as the infusion lasts. I believe that that is what it was designed to do.
  The Budget was designed not to help the country over the months or years ahead but to get the Government through the next few weeks as they hope. The real question is whether the Budget in these terms would have been introduced by the Government after an election in precisely the same terms in which it has been introduced this afternoon. The answer is manifestly not.
  We unreservedly welcome some of the individual tinkering changes. There is relief on business rates;

  771
  arrangements for value-added tax and late payments, which will help small businesses; inheritance tax changes for family businesses—they are welcome, and especially for family farms—relief for the car industry; and the increase in income support levels. These minor changes would, I hope, have been carried out by whatever Government were in office and at whatever stage in parliamentary terms.
  Our basic complaint is that the Budget's fundamental strategy is wrong. It will do nothing to stimulate the investment that the country requires. In the middle of his statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced a curious little homily about the difference between public investment and private investment. The right hon. Gentleman more or less said that all public investment was somehow bad and that private investment was good. It was—[Interruption.] That was the general tenor of his remarks. We say that such is the long-term damage that has been done to our economy that we need the stimulus which can be achieved only by the public sector if we are to turn the economy round.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed put the matter well in his pre-Budget submission when he said:
  "Most economies were not as badly managed as Britain's was during the late 1980s, and few of our main competitors have Britain's underlying weaknesses of a poorly-skilled and educated workforce, an inadequate transport infrastructure and a poor record of investment in research and development."
  That is why we have suggested that a programme should be brought forward which would include school and college building; energy conservation measures—how little there was in the Budget on the improvement of the environment and energy conservation; a tiny fiddling around on the margins on unleaded petrol and that was all, nothing else—major investment in railway infrastructure and, in particular, in housing because Britain is suffering from an increase in homelessness. It is one of the standing condemnations of the Government that, having introduced an excellent programme of council house sales, they have not allowed local authorities the freedom to spend the income derived from that on housing.
  To give a brief example from my constituency, I had to take a deputation to see a Scottish Office Minister the other day because one of my housing authorities is unable to proceed with a programme to improve the housing stock in my constituency, including improvements such as double glazing, which surely the country should welcome; colour-washing to improve the environment of some of our rather dowdy housing schemes; internal improvements and the construction of new homes, which are needed because the waiting list in my area has risen by 37 per cent. in one year.
  The key point is that, while the Government are restraining local authorities from carrying out such sensible programmes, 10 per cent. of the labour force in my area is in the construction industry which is suffering chronic unemployment.
  Our alternative proposals to the Government's Budget strategy would result in a 400,000 drop in unemployment in the first year and a 600,000 drop in the second year. As each unemployed person costs the Exchequer £8,500 today, we are talking about a consequential saving to the Exchequer of £2·5 billion by the end of the second year. In
  772
  all the waste of public expenditure there is no greater waste than the money spent on the growth of unemployment benefits that are paid out under the Government.
  The Government are aiming for a snapshot election. What the country will want to look at is not the record over 13 days but the record over 13 years. They will look at the record unemployment, the unprecedented number of home repossessions, the unprecedented level of debt in our society, the record homelessness, the growth of the cardboard cities and, in particular, the squeeze on young people whether through the reductions in social security or in education assistance. When the Government are judged on 13 years as distinct from 13 days in the aftermath of a Budget, they will be found by the country to be severely wanting.
  5.22 pm
  Sir John Stokes: There has been a certain air of unreality in this afternoon's Budget debate in that most people know that a two point cut in interest rates would do more than anything else to revive the economy, but we know that that cannot be done because of German control. As an Englishman, it grieves me that we have handed over control of our economic and monetary affairs to a foreign bank. That is a non-party point, as the Opposition are even more keen on the exchange rate mechanism than are Conservative Members. I fear that the ghost of an independent bank rate decided by ourselves alone in these islands will haunt this country and its people for many years to come.
  That, of course, is not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's fault. I congratulate him on what he has done. I expect to see clarity of purpose and execution coming from this Budget—as I am sure we shall—with its principle of low taxes, protection of private property under the law, limited state intervention in social and economic affairs, emphasis on non-state institutions such as the Church and the family and rejection of bureaucratic attempts to centralise and standardise. I object to the state telling me what to do in any aspect of life where an individual should have free choice according to his conscience. I am glad, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has not made punitive increases in the taxation of tobacco and alcohol.
  Looking at the country at large, and my constituency in particular, those in work have never been better off. With low inflation and average pay rises of 7 per cent., their standard of living has continued to rise. All that would be put at risk by a Labour Government. What is needed now is to help industry and commerce to recover as much as possible and to give individuals more confidence about their future, including those who, unfortunately, have become unemployed.
  Looking back over previous years, I wish that we had been able to cut taxes by a larger amount, even if that meant paying less back in borrowing. I hope that we can still find a way to make local government more accountable to its electorate in terms of spending, which was the merit of the original community charge. I am also concerned about the increasing numbers in the exceedingly popular national health service, which is good and getting better. But we must watch the numbers. I think that I am right in saying that, with the disintegration of the Soviet army, the national health service is now the largest organisation in Europe. If its staff continues to increase at

  773
  the present rate, in due course half the British people will be employed in the health service. Therefore, we must be careful, as I am sure the Government are, to ensure that we get full value for all money that is spent.
  I welcome enormously the reduction in the business rate and the increase in VAT thresholds, as the contribution that small firms make to the economy is immense. As a Member from the west midlands, I am delighted that the tax on new cars is to be reduced. That will be greatly welcomed in my constituency and elsewhere. The reduction in inheritance tax on small businesses and farms is splendid. One hopes that those reductions will continue in the years to come with future Conservative Governments.
  I welcome the lower band in income tax which has long been needed. That will help those who are in and out of work and who find life difficult. It is a splendid measure which I am glad the Government have introduced. Altogether, the tax cuts will stimulate investment and the economy and enhance confidence at consumer level. We must continue to help people to be more self-reliant and to provide more and more for their education, health and retirement.
  It is vital that the Government and the Chancellor should be committed to minimising Government intervention in favour of the free market and individual choice. That is the essential difference between the Conservative and the Labour parties. We must also make it clear that we commend a Conservative Government who know what they want to do, who are confident that they can do it and who will have the chance to do it, too. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has shown confidence and competence and for that reason the Government deserve to win the next election.
  I have two personal sadnesses which arise not from the Budget but from the way in which we spend or save our money. The cuts in the Army, in the armoured regiments and the infantry battalions, will prove to be a dangerous and false economy and I hope that the Government will reconsider them in a few weeks' time. I am also concerned about the headlong rush to enable more young people to go to university. More students may mean a lower standard. There are better ways of bringing on our young people than by making them mad to get a degree in all kinds of absurd subjects.
  Finally, a Conservative Government must protect and defend the institutions for which Britain is so renowned—the Queen, Parliament and especially the House of Lords with its hereditary element, the Church of England, the judges, the armed services and the police.
  I hope that we can emerge from this long recession, which is world wide, with more confidence. I hope that we can show that we have the will and the purpose to make our country great again, so that we can be an example to other nations, particularly on the continent, which so badly need a lead from us.
  This may be the last speech that I shall make in the Chamber. I want to say how very much I have enjoyed being here. What a privilege it has been to represent my constituents and to stand up for all that is best in our country at home and abroad. I thank Mr. Speaker for his
  774
  unfailing courtesy to me and everyone on both sides of the House for their kindness and companionship, which I shall never forget.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). We shall miss him very much in the new Parliament. He invariably claims to speak for England, so he will understand it if I say a few words in favour of Wales.
  It would not be unduly prejudiced to suggest that the Budget is being used by the Government to try to win the forthcoming general election. After 13 years of their rule, Britain is in the worst depression since the 1930s. A desperate attempt is being made to save the skins of Conservative Members and to keep the Government in office. I believe that they will not succeed.
  I shall consider some of the proposals put forward by the Chancellor this afternoon. I say "proposals" because the real Budget will be brought forward after the general election by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
  Earlier, there was much speculation about a reduction in the basic rate of income tax. The Chancellor has approached that proposal in a round-about way and under the guise of helping the lower paid. It goes without saying that we would all like to pay less tax. Nevertheless, many people realise that the amount involved would be better spent elsewhere. Income tax cuts will invariably suck in imports. In addition, the Government's proposals, including the reduction in income tax, will mean that they have to borrow to pay for them.
  Those tactics are completely contrary to the previously declared attitude of the Prime Minister. On 22 February 1990, he said:
  "For decades, successive Governments had spent more than they were prepared to raise honestly from taxation and they made up the shortfall by borrowing. They left the bill to be picked up by future generations."
  No further comment is needed from me, but certainly we shall hear much about the Prime Minister's earlier attitude in the forthcoming general election campaign.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the recent written answer in Hansard which shows the public sector borrowing requirement for each year since 1974 in real terms and adjusted for inflation? It shows the figures for 1974–75 and 1975–76 and so on, and compares them with those for the past five years. There has been no net PSBR since 1984. That puts the words of the Leader of the Opposition into perspective.
  Mr. Hughes: I could have cited other quotations to reveal the Prime Minister's earlier attitude and the fact that the Budget proposals are a complete contradiction of it.
  The cuts in tax which have been announced will not help the unemployed of whom there are no fewer than 2,600,000—the total is continually rising. The tax cuts will not help the homeless. What is needed is a boost for housing. The capital receipts held by local authorities from the sale of council houses should be released on a phased basis. Besides giving ordinary people the homes that they need, such a measure would provide badly needed employment to the construction industry. The cuts will not help people on hospital waiting lists or reduce exorbitant

  775
  prescription charges. They will not help children in inadequate schools, which have no text books. The Chancellor is borrowing to bribe. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition clearly pointed out, that can only mean future tax increases. The Opposition believe that the reversal of Britain's economic decline and the elimination of social squalor are the main priorities.
  I want to be fair to the Chancellor about the reduction of the special car tax. I agree with that reduction and I am glad to note that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition also agreed. I am sympathetic to that proposal because it is justified. The car industry is vital to the economy. It has taken some bad knocks recently. Sales have plummeted, output has been cut and workers have been laid off.
  The ripples from the car industry go far and wide in Wales. We do not have a car assembly plant, but we are very reliant on car component industries for employment. For example, we have an important Ford car engine plant at Bridgend and another Ford plant at Swansea. Bosch—the major German company—is now well-established in the vale of Glamorgan and employs hundreds of people. Lucas Girling, the brake manufacturer, is a major employer in Gwent. There are many other examples.
  More importantly, the steel industry in Wales relies greatly on the motor industry to take up much of its output. In employment terms alone, the car industry is vital and we ill-treat it at our peril. That is borne out by Germany and Japan, which have encouraged and fostered their car industries. They are the two most successful trading nations.
  I know that we are all green now. It is one thing to prevail on our motor manufacturers to step up research to curb the effects of fuel emissions. However, we should bear in mind that ordinary people are attached to their motor cars. Private transport was once the prerogative of the rich. Now people use their cars to travel to work, many housewives find them indispensable for shopping at the local supermarket and many families find their cars indispensable for leisure purposes. We should step up investment in rail and other forms of public transport, but we should realise how reliant we are on road transport. No magic wand can be waved to change the position overnight.
  Training provision is also important. As far as I am aware, the Chancellor made no mention of that vital subject. Surely the disastrous cuts made in the training budget in 1991 and 1992 should be restored. What sense was there in cutting training in a period of heavy unemployment? I believe that we should increase the number of training opportunities for the long-term unemployed, and give all young people a guaranteed entitlement to quality training. That would constitute real investment in Britain's future prosperity.
  Then there is the matter of help for small businesses. Here again, I support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who welcomed the proposals concerned. Of course small businesses need help—but that help is long overdue. Only yesterday, I received a telephone call from a constituent whose husband was in a small-business partnership. The company had run into difficulties, and a leading firm of merchant bankers—in pursuit of its pound of flesh, so to speak—is threatening to take over the family home. That personal tragedy is only one example of what is currently happening.
  776
  Essentially, the current recession is a product of the Government's own policies. When he was Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) allowed a free-for-all, with easy money and easy credit; now, we are reaping the whirlwind. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are apparently on record as saying that unemployment is "a price worth paying". I certainly do not agree with that contention, or with their attempt to blame the so-called world recession for our current troubles. Comparisons are said to be odious, but let us take Japan. It was said that Japan was in recession in 1991. Some recession! In that year, its output grew by 4 per cent., while ours fell by 4 per cent.
  This is the Chancellor's second Budget. He is not a Welshman, and it is extremely unlikely that he will have a third try. Today is his date with destiny. If things go wrong on 9 April, he will book himself a one-way ticket to the pet-food canneries at Melton Mowbray; how can he escape the dogs and the tin opener? Let me make it clear that that inelegant language is not my own. It is taken from the authentic voice of the Conservative party—last Friday's Daily Telegraph. On page 19, Christopher Fildes went on to point out that, in the Tory party,
  "the pack instinct … is one of its nastiest qualities".
  I am sure that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) would bear out that observation.
  There is little doubt that the Chancellor's head is on the block. Let us be fair: he has faced a difficult task, given that more than 2·6 million of the working population are unemployed, the figure has risen consistently over the past 22 months and the trend is likely to continue unabated. Bankruptcies are at a record level, with 200 businesses going bankrupt every day. Home repossessions and mortgage arrears are also at record levels: there were 75,000 repossessions in 1991, with all the misery and unhappiness that that involves.
  After 13 years of the present Government, business confidence is at an all-time low. Leading Government figures, such as the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, have tried to cover up the catalogue of disaster with bluster coupled with music-hall humour. I can only say that that is not going to work. The game is up; "you can fool some of the people some of the time …" Conservative Members will know the rest of the quotation. I believe that, on 9 April, the people of Britain will elect a Labour Government.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I well recall the speculation that heralded today's Budget and, as I look across at Opposition Members, I see them knee-deep in shot foxes. I ask them to remember what we are going to do for pensioners by means of income support and what we will do for people on lower incomes by introducing a 20 per cent. band for the first £2,000 of taxable income. That is a significant move on the Conservatives' part: the party is recognising the poorer members of society, and giving them some help in a particularly difficult time. [Interruption.] I used to represent Workington, one of the tougher parts of the country. I have observed the improvements that have been made there and, over the past 12 years, I have observed a general increase in standards of living throughout the country.
  One of the attractions of speaking on the first day of the Budget debate is the ability to make comments that are

  777
  unsullied by any outside views or pressures—in particular, to make comments before the combined wit and wisdom of the press have been brought to bear. Many people outside the House do not realise that the press operates as a series of wolf packs: the Sundays prowl the corridors, desperately trying to keep stories from the dailies in case they are filched from them before their publication date, while the dailies compete with each other, exchanging titbits of news and information. Thus, when the papers hit the stand, we see an underlying similarity between them.
  Bereft of the combined wit and wisdom of the scribes of Fleet street, I am nevertheless convinced that their judgments on the Budget will prove that it is to be deemed one of the most ingenious, caring and clever Budgets produced for many a long year.
  I shall not develop any of the points that have been made about help for pensioners and for those who will benefit from the 20 per cent. tax band. Those points have already been made and I am convinced that, as the days go by, other hon. Members will trawl over the same ground. Let me simply make one brief comment: even if we had knocked one penny from the basic rate of income tax, we could have acted with integrity and honesty. That would not have been an election bribe. Over 12 years, we have consistently lowered the basic rate: from 33p in the pound to 25p, and we aim to bring it down to 20p. That is a committed aim and, if the Chancellor had felt that that was the way in which to act, it could have been done with integrity.
  Let us suppose that the roles had been reversed, and that Opposition Members had been involved, with their commitment to higher taxation and increased centralisation. In that event, such action would have been deemed to be an electoral bribe, but that does not apply to the Conservatives, because we are committed to bringing down the tax rates. I hope that that will be a continual programme, followed over the next four to five years of Conservative government.
  Last year, I talked about small businesses. Then, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor devoted a substantial part of his Budget to helping them and I am delighted that he has listened further to the calls of those interested in small businesses and has brought together a series of measures that will give them even more help and support.
  Let us consider in particular what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done with the uniform business rate. For me to be able to tell the small businesses in my constituency that the increase will be limited to the rate of inflation will be an enormous benefit to them. There is no doubt that in the south we have suffered an increase in the UBR to subsidise businesses in the north. I do not object to that because I want to see an equal spread of wealth across the country, but it has been a blow in a time of difficulty, and the fact that any increase is to be held to the rate of inflation is to be commended.
  Last year, I was especially fulsome about the move to raise the value added tax threshold to £35,000. As I understand it, it is now to be raised to £36,600 which is a significant improvement. It must make sense for VAT inspectors not to have to rush around to small companies, picking up tiny sums of money. It must also make sense to allow the businesses—the one-man bands—that are getting started to do so without the aggravation of filling
  778
  in VAT forms and the difficulty that that brings until they are established, until their turnover increases and until they are able to launch out and participate in the normal run of tax collections as they get bigger. I appreciate the raising of the threshold, but we should consider whether it could be even further improved in the years to come.
  One issue mentioned in the Budget was the declaration—and it was a declaration—that larger companies must pay smaller companies on time. It is absolutely disgusting that some large companies have bled small companies white by using their power and muscle and by not paying bills on time. It would be invidious to name those larger companies, but they are household names. I go out of my way to avoid buying their products if I have an alternative. The comments by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about small businesses being paid on time were necessary. I know a small business man who is in desperate trouble because a large company is refusing to pay a very large outstanding bill. All I can say to the larger company is, "Shame on you".
  The consideration in the Budget of the cost of appeals to the special commissioners is another move in the right direction. Too often when small businesses have made claims they have met intransigence and it has cost a fortune to fight a case. At the end of the day, the costs have not been recoverable, but now a step has been made in the right direction, and that can only be beneficial.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong that taxpayers should be intimidated by the thought that they might not be able to recover their costs when they have a legitimate case to take to appeal and that consideration of that anomaly is long overdue?
  Mr. Page: My hon. Friend puts the case in a nutshell. I know of instances in which people have said that the game was not worth the candle because it would take too long, and the intransigence of some tax inspectors has wrongfully won the day. Again, I know of a case in my constituency which is proceeding on exactly those lines, but now my constituent will be able to take action. I have considered his case and it is genuine. He will now know that he has the opportunity to recover some of his costs.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also listened to the problems of people handing on their companies to ensure that they are not broken up. We all know of the vast costs involved in getting a company started and of the impact of inheritance tax on those who have built a business and want to ensure that it stays in one piece and that it retains its essential individual character. They have the opportunity to do so—now, such companies will not necessarily be swallowed up and become part of yet another branch of a large conglomerate.
  It would be wrong of me to speak about the help for the car industry without declaring an interest. What is being done in this context will be a fillip to get motor manufacturers going and will, of course, have a ripple effect across the country. I believe that many people deferred their buying decisions until today, and perhaps what has been said today will encourage them.
  My last point might be slightly contentious. Although I welcome what is being done for the British film industry—the one third write-off on a straight line over three years—I have to say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I wish that we could in some way extend that

  779
  provision to manufacturing industry. If one removes from our manufacturing industry the inward investment and the investment by a few large companies such as British Gas, British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and ICI, one finds that very little manufacturing investment is being made in this country. In fact, until 1988–89 the growth rate since 1979 works out at only 1 per cent. In a world of increasing mechanisation, of more robotics and more automation, it is absolutely right that we should have increased growth in investment.
  However, we have a culture in this country whereby we do not invest, and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the lack of commitment to training and to research and development. I am afraid that that strand runs through this country and it must be broken. Our foreign competitors have a different culture. We suffer from short-termism, which is unhealthy for long-term survival. Let us consider, for example, Germany. It gives a 20 per cent. allowance against tax for dividends, but no more. If one pays a dividend of more than 20 per cent., one begins to eat into the residual profit of a company. Perhaps we could have some guidance to help to gain investment in our companies.
  That issue has what could be described as more insidious consequences because German Members of Parliament are given a specific allowance of more than £650 a month which is ring fenced for equipment such as computers, word processors and faxes. That is the way that they think—they think of investment in automation and of using equipment to ensure a more efficient operation.
  The Government have set the seal on the Conservative party proceeding to the general election. Over the years, cutting the rate of tax has left us with more taxes to put into hospitals and schools but, at the same time, we have managed to leave more money in real terms in people's pockets for them to spend as they think fit. That is the opposite of the double whammy. I have absolutely no doubt that the success of the Budget was evident in the faces of members of the Opposition, and it will be reflected in the results of the election.
  5.57 pm
  Dr. David Owen: Coming prior to an election, the Budget must face the acid test of whether it is irresponsible in budgetary terms and pure electioneering. As I understand it, the Chancellor has added to the public deficit £1·6 billion, which is rather less than many people had thought.
  I judge that, by limiting the amount of tax changes, it can fairly be called a prudent Budget and should, in a rational world, allow the Chancellor to reduce interest rates by at least ½ per cent. I strongly wish they could be reduced by a full 1 per cent. in the next couple of days. Whatever was said in the Budget, what will greatly help the British economy and British industry is a further reduction in interest rates. That must be the main essential of any strategy. It would be irrational of the markets to exclude a reduction in interest rates in the next few days. I profoundly hope that a reduction is possible.
  As for overall economic strategy, the fundamental requirement for the economy seems to be to improve its competitiveness. Inflation shows every sign of dropping to 3·2 per cent. or 3 per cent. by the end of the year. We must not only achieve but maintain that level of inflation if
  780
  British industry is to compete in the next three to four years. Those will still be difficult years for our economy because we must overcome the disadvantages of entering the exchange rate mechanism at a rate higher than was attractive for British industry.
  The errors of the past five years in handling the economy have been fairly considerable and were predicted. The pre-election Budget of 1987 fed inflation. Then, of course, we had the miscalculation following the stock market collapse in the autumn of 1987. I am less censorious of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the then Chancellor, than many people.
  First, I thought that the right hon. Member for Blaby was right to respond to prevent recession and lack of confidence. It has to be said that most people believed that. They believed that the world response was an enlightened response. Nevertheless, we all got it wrong. But the right hon. Member for Blaby, as well as the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), cannot escape serious criticism for their Budget judgment of April 1988. That Budget was grotesquely irresponsible. I and many others said so at the time.
  But it was worse than that. It was the one opportunity that we have had to restructure the tax system, abolish the threshold for national insurance contributions and take the steps that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) rightly suggested today to bring the tax and social security systems into an integrated pattern. Abolition of the national insurance contributions threshold must be done but must be done at a buoyant time. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will have great difficulty with his proposal on national insurance contributions if he implements it at a time of economic difficulty. It is a structural change that must be made and it should have been made in 1988. It would have been appropriate in 1988 and the disadvantages could have been offset by changing the 60 per cent. tax rate to only 50 per cent.
  However, it is no use looking back. The basic facts were that in 1989, with inflation running as high as it was, we had to rein back the economy. I sometimes think that the Prime Minister is too embarrassed by the phrase that he coined at the time, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working." There was no escape from the fact that, having fed and stoked up inflation so irresponsibly in 1987 and 1988, coming to grips with inflation in 1989, 1990 and 1991 would be painful. It does not serve anyone's purpose to deny that it would be difficult. But the question is whether we compounded that difficulty.
  As I said, we went into the exchange rate mechanism at too high a rate. But we all know that the political difficulty of persuading the then Prime Minister to accept that we should enter the ERM was formidable. We should have entered it in the early 1980s, and certainly when the right hon. Member for Blaby wanted to do so in 1985. There are penalties for having entered the ERM so late.
  I wish that some of the people who have so glibly advocated a single currency in the past few months and yet have railed against the constraints of the ERM would face up to the reality that the constraints of a single currency system would be far greater than anything that we have experienced in the past two years inside the ERM. I and the Social Democratic party advocated entering the ERM during the whole of the party's existence. I believe that that

  781
  discipline is necessary. It is uncomfortable, but it is no use trying to get out of that discipline. It is the price that one pays for being within the ERM.
  In the summer I hoped that we might reduce interest rates somewhat faster than we did. But these are difficult judgments and clearly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, certainly with an election approaching, felt that it would be damaging to confidence to reduce interest rates and then risk being forced to raise them again. So he has adopted a cautious approach of ½ per cent. at a time. It is a matter of the utmost importance that we reduce interest rates in the next year to 9 per cent. or perhaps lower.
  Another problem is unit costs. Britain simply must face pressure to reduce unit costs for three to four years. That is where we come to the strategy on tax reductions. Listening to the Leader of the Opposition, I must confess that I was nonplussed as to whether the Budget that he would propose in six days would have a reduced public sector borrowing requirement. Certainly the effect of what he said was that he would come in with a reduced PSBR.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: How did the right hon. Gentleman work that out?
  Dr. Owen: There was constant reiteration of the problem of borrowing to reduce taxation. By implication, he said that the borrowing requirement was too great and, therefore, would have to be restricted. However, we await his Budget.
  If we are to keep unit costs down, the section of the labour force who do not have large earnings must be given the greatest relief. That means concentrating tax relief on not only the lower paid but those who receive average pay in manufacturing industry. It is from that section that the pressure always comes to pay ourselves more than can be justified by increases in productivity. This is where we come to the reduced rate band.
  In redistribution policy, the best way of helping the poorest section who pay tax is undoubtedly to raise personal tax allowances and take people out of paying tax altogether. However, experience shows that that has little effect on the bargaining position of people in work. They do not feel that they have had a tax reduction when personal tax allowances are raised. A reduced rate band is an interesting way of grappling with the problem of keeping down unit costs and keeping wages in line with productivity.
  The Chancellor seemed to suggest in his speech that he intended to use a reduced rate band as a structural mechanism for taking income tax down from 25p to 20p in the pound. Obviously, there are several options, but I hope that he will take that one. I know that it is difficult technically, but I hope that the Chancellor will gradually take more people into the 20p rate band but come at it from below—from the lower paid up through the system. We have never done it like that before. We have simply taken slices of 1p or 2p off the standard rate. Such a reduced rate band would be an interesting development and one to be welcomed.
  I am pleased that the Chancellor did not shift the married man's tax allowance. If the tax and benefits systems are to be integrated, the allowance will have to go. The only acceptable way to do that is to allow it to wither on the vine and not to increase it.
  782
  In the past two years the Government have shown themselves ready to see child benefit increase. The hon. Member for Eltham described a child cash allowance. That was a good description of the system that we must move towards. We must put child benefit into the tax system but retain the advantage of paying it to the woman, usually the wife, in cash.
  To the business community, the alleviations in the Budget are extremely helpful. The one that I am most pleased about is the reduction by 5 per cent. of the new car tax. I should like to see the whole thing go, but it is very expensive and it will already cost more than £600 million to take it down by 5 per cent. The car industry has been preferentially hard hit and therefore needed preferential help. The measures on the unified business rate, VAT and others are small, but they have been sensibly designed to ease where the shoe is pinching in business and to give small businesses in particular, which have certainly felt the recession quite acutely, some welcome alleviation.
  Those matters are all small in comparison with cuts in interest rates. If we continue having to keep our interest rates as high as we had to keep them throughout 1991, the recession will bite very deeply in this country. It is already biting harsher than in many other countries. I assume that the Chancellor is confident that, although the Treasury forecasts of coming out of recession have been too optimistic, there is now a real prospect of coming out of the recession in the second half of next year. I hope that that will happen, but the world is still in a difficult state to make any prediction, not least because of the protectionist pressures that are building up.
  We have still failed to have a successful general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiation—it hangs over us. There are already in the United States, as evidenced in the presidential elections, very strong protectionist measures. As yet there has been little sign of the European Commission being ready to make the necessary changes in our GATT negotiating position in relation to agriculture. The GATT negotiations are probably the single most crucial matter in ensuring that the world economy starts to move forward.
  For all those reasons, we cannot and should not have expected too much from the Budget. This is a difficult time. There is no doubt, too, that, while an election hangs in the air, there is, in terms of international confidence, a tendency to hold back until the election is over. It is probably true that, whatever the result of the election, the markets will view the British economy in a more settled way after it.
  This is the last time on which I shall speak to the House, and I do so with a certain sadness but also with the belief that it is high time I went. No right hon. or hon. Member can leave the House without paying tribute to his or her constituency. I was born in the city of Plymouth, and I have represented it in the House for nearly 26 years. That has been a great privilege and something on which I shall always look back with pride. I have also managed to beat the record of Nancy Astor, and I am now the longest serving Member of Parliament in Plymouth's history.
  My great gratitude to my constituency goes back to one single thing. The House was brought up on a dictum that Disraeli apparently taught about politics—"Damn your principles and stick to your party." That dictum has obviously been successfully followed by many people. I have turned it upside down, and I have no regrets about that. The House and parliamentary democracy survive

  783
  because, from time to time, people understand that issues and principles go far beyond party and go to the root of how we regard representation in the House. It should be about how we regard and represent the best interests of our country. That must always come before our constituencies. However, at the end of the day, we must justify those decisions to our constituencies. The one thing that I shall always hold dear is that, when in 1983 my constituency was asked to endorse my decision to put what I thought were my principles before my party, it endorsed me.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: It is a great privilege to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). As he said, it was likely to be his last speech in the House. It is a privilege because all hon. Members recognise his distinguished career and the contribution that he has made to British political life over a number of years. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not take offence, but there is some irony in the light of that privilege. I was a public servant in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when the right hon. Gentleman was Foreign Secretary. The reason I decided to make the extraordinary leap from the warm bosom of the Foreign Office to the hurly-burly of political life was that I was appalled at the state of Britain under the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member. I often say that the right hon. Gentleman himself was responsible for my coming to this place.
  I was happy to agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said. However, in his criticism of the policies that were followed by my right hon. Friends in 1987 and 1988, the right hon. Gentleman was luxuriating a little in the benefits of 20:20 vision which the advantage of hindsight gives to observers. I say that as someone who can honestly claim that in January 1988 I was one of those—there were not many of us—who were warning about the dangers of relaxing the fiscal stance, whereas my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was under pressure from Opposition Members to reduce interest rates to relax the stance still further.
  The indicators that were available to the Treasury and to my right hon. Friend suggesting that the air was going out of the balloon were inaccurate. That shows that Chancellors of the Exchequer, of whatever political complexion, need better indicators, but that matter is for the past.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Devonport about the undoubted difficulties that there will be in achieving a single currency. I am positive about Europe and optimistic that we can achieve that happy state in a relatively short time, but it will undoubtedly take a number of years. There will undoubtedly be the difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The facile Labour party, having twisted its policy on Europe six times, has now leapt into the single currency issue. That is another manifestation of its unfitness to govern.
  The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to suggest that this is a responsible, prudent Budget and that the tax changes which have been announced and which seem to add about £1·6 billion to the PSBR should be well regarded by the financial markets and should give the
  784
  opportunity for a further reduction in interest rates, which is badly needed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right, and I endorse his sentiments.
  Undoubtedly, Britain faces a difficult economic situation, as does the rest of the industrialised world. When all the political cant is swept away, right hon. and hon. Members must recognise that, if they are to treat the present difficult situation with the gravity and responsibility that it deserves, it does no good to pretend that it is just a British problem. Sadly, the problem may be exacerbated if we cannot make proper progress in the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out. From my humble position on the Back Benches, I strongly endorse my right hon. Friend's argument. I urge some of our European partners, particularly our friends in the French Government, to consider their policies and attitudes carefully and take account of the needs of the world trading community.
  It is not only the European Community that has to make a move; America and other countries involved in the negotiations must also do so. We all have a responsibility, particularly the Heads of Government of the G7 nations who, when they last met under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, gave a personal pledge that they would do all in their power to ensure that the Uruguay round was successful. That pledge has yet to be honoured.
  It is against that background that we should decide whose hands are required on the tiller of the nation's economy at this difficult time—with the Budget and an imminent general election. I have no doubt that today's events and what has been said in the House, by Opposition and Government Members, make that answer crystal clear—as has the Government's overall sound record of economic management since 1979.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was faced with an extremely difficult problem. As many of my right hon. and hon. Friends continually and rightly stress, it is true that conditions have now been created for the economic recovery that we so badly need. Inflation is down to an encouraging level, and the forecast given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of further reductions in inflation is greatly to be welcomed.
  The interest rate cuts—we have already had eight in 18 months—are also to be welcomed. In addition, the rise in company and personal savings has set in place the conditions for recovery. Now we need the restoration of confidence, which means a general election and a Conservative victory. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend's Budget will contribute mightily to that.
  As for my right hon. Friend's judgment, all of us with an instinct for financial rectitude will consider carefully the fact that we have a public sector borrowing requirement of £14 billion this year, which will move to about £28 billion next year. In order to be satisfied that that is the right policy, one has to take a close look at the facts. I am absolutely convinced that it is the right policy, and a glance at the record of past years serves to highlight that.
  Try as they might, politicians can never eliminate the trade and business cycles. We are in the dip of a particularly severe trade cycle. It is due to the depth of that recession that we must take a flexible approach to public sector funding and borrowing, albeit always within the

  785
  tight parameters of a responsible fiscal stance. Our achievements since 1979 give us every right to take credit for adopting the proper approach.
  The Hansard report of 6 March, at column 322, makes it clear that, from 1984 until this financial year, there was no net borrowing requirement. That is the background against which to judge that our country's finances are strong enough to take the £28 billion public sector borrowing requirement now in prospect. It is interesting to compare that figure of £28 billion—if it is reached—to the sort of figures to which we grew accustomed in the years of the Labour Government.
  In terms of 1991–92 prices, in 1974–75 the public sector borrowing requirement reached £38·9 billion and the next year it rose to nearly £40 billion, before the International Monetary Fund had to step in and help the then Labour Government back on to the path of the straight and narrow. Therefore, it ill became the Leader of the Opposition, in an extraordinary and lamentable response to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to talk about bribing and borrowing to bribe. Such remarks came from the leader of a party which now proposes a shopping list of £37 billion more of expenditure, which boasts and glories in the fact that it intends to increase taxes and which would clearly increase interest rates and destroy jobs and the economy. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Labour party is incompetent to handle the economy. That has for long been demonstrated by its abysmal record when in government and, again and again, by its pathetic policies—despite the fact that it changes them all the time.
  The Labour party's incompetence was underlined this afternoon when, not having had the benefit of a briefing from his colleagues, the Leader of the Opposition was not clear as to whether the Labour party would reject the imaginative and extraordinarily helpful decision by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to produce the 20 per cent. tax rate. The Leader of the Opposition left the House with the impression that the Labour party would eliminate that 20 per cent. tax. The 4 million people in this country whose total tax payable would be reduced from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. would be interested if it turned out that the Labour party did intend to eliminate that 20 per cent. tax. When discussing the tax equation, the Leader of the Opposition seemed to have no understanding of our experiences since 1979, which show that lower tax rates result in a higher tax take, a higher tax revenue. That proposition, which seems simple to most of us, seemed beyond the grasp of the Leader of the Opposition.
  The decision that the country should take is clear at any time, but particularly at this extremely difficult time of economic challenge for this country and for all other countries of the developed world. The idea that the economic tasks that we face can be left to the Opposition to solve is unthinkable; such tasks must be left to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
  I greatly welcome all the measures put forward by my right hon. Friend, particularly the help given to pensioners on low incomes, the provisions on savings, inheritance and business rates and the help for the car industry. All those policies add up to a great package, which must be added to the significant additional spending set out in the autumn statement. I have great pleasure in congratulating my right
  786
  hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues on what they have achieved, not only for the Conservative party but for the country.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)— not least because he will not be retiring at the next general election. The same cannot be said of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who I am glad to see still in his place, and the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes).
  The hon. Member for Wycombe was right to refer to the GATT negotiations and to the important and significant personal pledge made by the Government leaders that they would intervene to ensure that those negotiations reached a successful conclusion. Was that promise genuine, as I hope it was, or just another sound-bite promise, made of the moment to impress people and to allay their fears, but amounting to little?
  The hon. Member for Wycombe asked whose hand was on the tiller. We will quickly know that answer, and it may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned that there have been eight reductions in the interest rate, which currently stands at 10·5 per cent. I dislike giving the hon. Gentleman bad news, but no Government have ever won a general election when the interest rate was above 10 per cent. I share the hopes of the right hon. Member for Devonport that we will see, in the interests of the economy and of the British people, a reduction in interest rates between now and the general election—although I understand that the odds are not that good.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe referred to financial rectitude. I always smile when I hear that phrase. I am reminded of one of Lord Denning's famous summings up, when he observed that the more that a defendant talked of his honesty, the more one was tempted to count the silver. When I heard the hon. Member for Wycombe, I thought that I had better start counting my silver. The hon. Gentleman referred also to a responsible fiscal stance. We will have some fun with that phrase as this debate continues over the next few days.
  I was pleased to be in the Chamber for what might be the last speech by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, who made a telling point when he said that our economy was increasingly being linked to Germany's economic and financial policies and to those of the Bundesbank.
  I also enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Devonport, although he may not have understood the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), to which the hon. Member for Wycombe referred. My right hon. Friend did not have the benefit of knowing in advance the contents of the Budget and had to make decisions and judgments as to the content of his speech as he went along. Today, he was right to desist from criticising the Government's specific tax policies and to welcome the tax cuts that will benefit the car industry, among others.
  Today was the first time that the Opposition have been able to see the Treasury's books. We will be able to present an alternative Budget next week that will inform the British public of our proposals for the British economy.
  The Chancellor mentioned a move towards the narrow band in the exchange rate mechanism and linking sterling

  787
  to a rate of 2·5 deutschmarks. The challenge awaiting the next Chancellor of the Exchequer is how to equate a fixed interest rate with rising unemployment throughout the Community. No Government—whether it be that of Ireland, France or Italy—have come to terms with that difficulty. How can one reconcile the exchange rate with job creation and lower unemployment?
  The Chancellor said that tax revenues depend on the level of activity, but he seems again to be going for a consumer boom rather than one based on investment and manufacturing. If we are tempted to follow the route of consumer boom, we will risk institutionalising the boom-bust philosophy with which we have lived for too long.
  The Chancellor spoke of a Budget for recovery, but it seems more like a Budget of discovery. He believes its almost exclusive emphasis on tax cuts will be sufficient to switch public opinion, and that will he seriously tested when the general election is called. The Budget's proposed 20 per cent. tax rate on the first £2,000 of income will be worth £2·65 to the average working man and woman. That is the equivalent of 30 pieces of silver in olden times. We will have to see whether the British people accept those 30 pieces of silver.
  I will share one secret with the Chancellor and the House. The low-paid generally vote Labour, and I do not believe that the Chancellor's endeavours to tempt Labour voters will be rewarded at the general election. Those who might stand to benefit from such a tax reduction and who might even come out of the tax band altogether will not so easily forget the last 13 years of Conservative government.
  According to the Chancellor, that tax cut will cost £1·8 billion in the next financial year and £2·3 billion the following year. That is expenditure on tax cuts rather than on hospitals, schools, or—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said—putting an extra bobby on the beat. When there is both an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement and tax reductions, we are right to claim that it is an attempt to bribe the British people.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the richer taxpayer will be penalised because the threshold at which higher rate tax becomes payable has not been increased by the rate of inflation? Perhaps that will come as some compensation to those who imagine that the Budget is aimed at the relatively wealthy.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Although we had no prior knowledge of the Budget's content, we anticipated some of its provisions. The 20 per cent. tax on the first £2,000 of income will affect the rest of the tax system. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that the Chancellor, by leaving the indexation of allowances at 4·5 per cent., has probably not done higher rate taxpayers a service.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put the Budget into perspective when he referred to the £100 billion of North sea oil revenues that have been used over the years. The hon. Member for Wycombe mentioned that a Labour Government incurred a £40 billion deficit. Our policy, right or wrong, was to borrow against oil revenues, because we did not want a slump worse than that which was already occurring because of oil price rises in 1974. We opted for a policy of borrowing against future North sea oil revenues. As it turned out, that policy was not acceptable to the IMF, and the Labour Government of the
  788
  day were forced to change course. That is the context of the deficit to which the hon. Member for Wycombe referred.
  It is right at a time of recession to try to stimulate the economy with fiscal measures. I recall James Callaghan saying in 1976—it was one of the first speeches that I had heard at a Labour party conference—that we could not spend our way out of recession. The days of deficit spending were over, he said.
  Today we have the novel approach that we can borrow money to reduce taxation, and the claim is that somehow that will spark a consumer boom, which in turn will generate jobs and aid the economy. It is an interesting argument and, as the right hon. Member for Devonport said, it represents reducing taxation from the bottom upwards. We, too, described it as an interesting concept.
  All that aside, we must consider the overall economic situation. It is clear that we have had five quarters of falling output—the longest period of falling output since the war. Although the fall has been less sharp than it was in 1980–81, the time of the first Tory recession, this is the longest recession since the 1930s.
  I do not want to bore the House with statistics. Output as a proportion of GDP fell by 5 per cent. in 1980–81, compared with a 3·5 per cent. fall for non-oil GDP. The statistics come from the Bank of England. If all roads lead to Rome, all the fingers of culpability point to Her Majesty's Government, who over the years have followed false gods and prophets. For example, the Conservatives have consistently followed the false god of high interest rates as the single club policy to reduce inflation. The right hon. Member for Devonport recalled the phrase used about a high interest rate—that if it is not hurting, it is not working.
  As a result of those policies, unemployment has been rising and output falling. The output of the construction industry has fallen by more than 12 per cent. since the first quarter of 1990. Our car manufacturing industry was sustained only by exports. The Chancellor said that the motor industry switched production to exports, which rose by 20 per cent. in 1991. But, because it is a world recession, those exports have fallen. This is the only aspect of a so-called world recession that affects our economy.
  That is why I—I am sure that the same applies to hon. Members on both sides of the House—support the reduction of the special tax on motor cars to 5 per cent. from midmight tonight. We, too, hope that manufacturers will pass that on fully to the consumer and that, as a result, car purchases will increase in the coming days.
  We are likely to hear many metaphors used in this debate. The hon. Member for Wycombe referred to hands being on the tiller. I have spoken of the Tory false god philosophy of believing that manufacturing counts less than services, even though the service sector could not sustain itself in the face of last year's increase in VAT. The effect of that increase on that sector was underestimated, as was the effect of the Gulf war on tourism.
  My hon. Friends and I noticed wryly the Chancellor's statement that he had no intention of raising VAT or extending its scope. We shall keep an eye on that promise in the future. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, a similar promise was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in 1982 when he was Chancellor.
  We are reminded of Conservative central office myths. One of them was perpetuated this morning by the right

  789
  hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), who is not in his place and who will be leaving us at the election. I have often heard his insistence that we should not speak from copious notes but, like the right hon. Member for Devonport, should speak, if possible, without notes. I admit that the right hon. Member for Devonport did that ably this afternoon.
  The right hon. Member for Croydon, South tried to persuade us of the Conservative central office myth that in the last 13 years of Conservative rule taxation had been reduced, and the hon. Member for Wycombe developed that myth in his speech. In fact, from 1979 to date, taxation has increased across the board, from 34 to 37 per cent. Allowing for a possible adjustment downwards should the effect of today's Budget be felt in full, VAT has been increased during those years from 8 to 17·5 per cent. and national insurance contributions have gone up from 6·5 to 9 per cent.
  Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that it was a demonstrated fact that lower rates of income tax produced a higher tax take. I said nothing about indirect taxation.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for reiterating his view that the Laffer curve is alive and well. Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first to suggest that, if one reduced the rate of tax, one somehow raised more money. In reality, that theory does not stand the test. It is not possible to reduce taxation and increase the take. That has never been true, and it never will be the case.
  Our criticism of the Government is that in recent years they have not adopted a proper perspective towards manufacturing and service industries. They have not had an appropriate monetary policy, other than membership of the ERM, which is the new gold standard of the Conservative party. Apart from that, the Government's only other policy has involved high interest rates. They have had no plan for the long-term unemployed. I am glad to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) has fully recovered his health. As he pointed out, the Chancellor did not once mention training, yet there have been great cuts in training programmes for youngsters.
  The Government have no plan to stop the reduction in investment. Only an adequate policy on that front will increase output, yet the Chancellor said that it was not for the Government, but for the private sector, to lead the way and create a climate which will lead to more employment.
  We see no plan to help those who have lost their jobs. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the 800,000 people who had lost jobs—[Interruption.] Conservative Members will not put me off my stride by yawning or making sedentary comments. Indeed, their yawns probably reflect Conservative party thinking on the Budget.
  There was no reference in the Chancellor's speech to the young people in society who are growing up amid increased crime, the figures for which were announced yesterday. There is increased irresponsibility in society, yet the Government are washing their hands of all such matters. Children are growing up without any prospect of getting jobs. Society should reflect a sense of shame at that
  790
  state of affairs, and I regret that nothing has been said about that by Conservative Members. After all, we bear some responsibility for the situation, in Government and in the House generally. People are growing up without the future to which they are entitled, much of that being due to years of Conservative rule.
  The Chancellor said unequivocally that unemployment would continue to rise, and unfortunately we know that to be true. We were hoping for a Budget for investment rather than one that will assist consumerism and lead to another boom/bust situation. The Government are impoverished in their approach towards financial matters. They have allowed their single club policy of high interest rates to decimate the nation and our outlook on the world as a financial and exporting country.
  Not long ago, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), whose presence in the Chamber we shall miss after the election, said that the medium-term financial strategy had a monetary and fiscal component. He said that in place of a steadily declining gold standard we had a steadily declining path for monetary growth and in place of a balanced budget we had a similarly declining path for the public sector borrowing requirement until a balanced budget was once again secured.
  Where is the judgment of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, as expressed in today's Budget? Where is his prudence and discretion? The only good thing that can be said about the Chancellor is that at least he has not been put in charge of forecasting our weather and he has not told us that a hurricane is not coming when one may be approaching. In the past year, he has refused to accept that we are in a recession and he has spoken about the economy using a whole set of metaphors such as, "we have turned the corner", "there is light at the end of the tunnel" and "there are the green shoots of spring". He made all kinds of suggestions that the economy was turning around, but it was not.
  Why do the Government think that they can so easily dupe the British people? As Winston Churchill once asked at another time and another place, what kind of people do they think we are? Do the Government think that they can give us two recessions—first, the deepest since the war and, secondly, the longest recession, sandwiched between an economic miracle that turned out to be an economic mirage and low inflation, hard fought for by the British people? That was followed by high inflation, which also cost the British people dear, and economic mistakes that the Chancellor has freely admitted. Indeed, many Secretaries of State were queueing up on Sunday to give their version of events in 1987. They say that there was an overreaction to the stock market crash and they are happy so long as the blame rests on the right hon. Member for Blaby, who must take responsibility for those terrible events.
  Now, after all those freely acknowledged mistakes, the Conservative party wants to be given another term of office. Why should the British people support this bogus prospectus of a Budget? It has no means of becoming the law of the land prior to election day but is simply a promissory note from a Government whose half-fulfilled promises are strewn back over the years like bricks on a derelict building site. Why should the British people fall for the equivalent of a three-card trick? When the time comes, they will not.

  791
  I shall come to my peroration in order to keep the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), happy. He is not as polite as usual in such debates. If this is a political Budget, so be it. Some hon. Members have called it prudent and popular. The hon. Member for Wycombe said that it was a prudent Budget. I call it perturbing and petrifying. It is the Budget on which the Prime Minister wishes to hold a general election. If it is the best promissory note, bill of goods or delivery note that he has to offer, then, to paraphrase Macbeth: "If the deed were to be done, 'tis best it were done quickly."
  A general election is welcome and a Labour Government will be a godsend.
  6.54 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: I am always glad to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) because he is one of the few Opposition Back Benchers who understand financial matters. However, he was below form today. Indeed, I formed the impression that he had prepared his speech before hearing the Budget. I suspect that it was a draft election address and, if so, I shall give him a little advice—it was too long.
  The hon. Gentleman certainly knows more about finance than does the Leader of the Opposition. The task of responding to the Budget statement, no matter who has that task, is one of the most difficult roles in the House. Over the years, I have seen many hon. Members having to do it and I know that it is extraordinarily difficult. I like the Leader of the Opposition—anyone who likes rugby cannot be all bad—but his performance today reminded me of Twickenham: England 24, Wales nil. He did not contribute much to the debate.
  May I make a personal remark to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, through you, to Mr. Speaker? This seems to be an evening of swan songs, although I hasten to assure you that it is not mine. This will be the last occasion on which I speak in the House under your Deputy Speakership and the Speakership of Mr. Speaker. The three of us entered the House at the same election and I shall miss both of you enormously because your contributions to parliamentary democracy over many years in this House have been remarkable. I hope that you will accept my remarks and convey them to Mr. Speaker.
  I was interested in the speech—another swan song—of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), whom I often follow in Budget debates and with whom I nearly always agree. I particularly liked his point about an overriding need for this to be a prudent Budget. I was anxious lest there should be any risk that the Budget damaged the pound and created a danger of interest rates being increased. The danger has not gone, however, because we live in a world where the German and other economies affect us. But I am extremely relieved, as was the right hon. Member for Devonport, that the Budget is sufficiently prudent to reassure the markets and avoid the dangers of increasing interest rates. One of the greatest curses from which we have suffered has been high interest rates. I have said time and again in interventions and speeches that, above all, we must get interest rates down and not let them increase further. Another danger is the prospect of a Labour Government because it is
  792
  acknowledged that there would be an immediate increase in interest rates, which would be catastrophic to a country trying to get out of recession.
  I have always advocated strongly the need to resist protectionism, so I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made that clear. If there were a wave of world protectionism, we would suffer as much as anyone. Some countries—perhaps the United States—could sustain it, but countries like Britain and other European countries could not do so. That is why we should ram home to our French partners the need for a sensible resolution to the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
  I shall not go through the whole of the Budget but, ever since I have been in the House, I have been interested in two aspects of financial debates and Budgets. The first is small firms, which have always been near to my heart, and the second is the cause of wider share ownership. I used to think that I was the first Minister responsible for small firms until I discovered that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley) held that post for a short period. Ever since I had those responsibilities, I have believed that small firms and their success are the essence of a free economy and that they are vital to the future of our nation.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was right to identify three ogres that terrify small firms: the uniform business rate; the horrors of the VAT man and the VAT regime; and the problems of credit control and the recovery of debts. He has dealt with all those problems. His proposals on UBR will be particularly well received by the small firms in my constituency. Likewise, easing the tyrannical and over-rigid VAT policy and his proposals for recovering debts will be welcomed. When I was Minister responsible for small firms, there were substantial complaints about debt recovery and the way in which large firms played the credit game. They played it with enormous skill—[Interruption.] It would not be fair to name such a firm. GEC was oppressive on its small contractors and had an enormous team of people stringing out the payment of debts until the last possible moment, which was intolerable to small firms.
  I welcome what the Chancellor has done about Government contracts, but it is not enough; he may have to consider draconian legislative measures to ensure that the credit game is not played by larger firms on their smaller sub-contractors.
  As for my second interest—wider share ownership—I was a founder member, together with the late Maurice Macmillan and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), of the Wider Share Ownership Council. For years we bumped along. Then we had the 1965 Budget, introduced by Lord Callaghan, which was catatrophic and highly damaging to the whole idea. It was not until recent years that wider share ownership became fashionable and popular. I therefore strongly supported the personal equity plan system introduced by this Government, and their other improvements, which I hope represent only the start of further developments which will encourage wider share ownership.
  I particularly rejoice at one event under the regime of this Government. For the first time since the war, there are more individual shareholders than there are members of trade unions. That is healthy for a free society.
  I was also pleased by the announcement that the autumn statement is to be abolished—or rather, that the

  793
  spending statement is to be combined with the tax-raising Budget. The present system has always seemed to me absurd and it is not understood by the public. The long lapse between announcing what will be spent and how it will be raised has meant that by the time we get to the Budget people have forgotten the enormous commitments that the Government made the previous autumn to expenditure on health, education and other desirable things. At the time of the Budget people ask why we are lowering taxes and why we do not spend more on health and education, forgetting entirely that tax-raising and spending are quite separate exercises. Bringing them together in this way is thoroughly sensible.
  I should like to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough about taxation. Before the Government came to office I believed and argued that there should be a shift from direct to indirect taxation, because direct taxation is a tax on work, which is largely involuntary, whereas indirect taxation is a tax on spending, which is, to a much greater degreee, voluntary. That is what the Government have done, and they have no reason to be ashamed of it. It is in line with the policies on which they were originally elected.
  I am glad—contrary to what the Opposition hoped—that there is to be no increase in VAT, and that the Chancellor still managed to reduce direct taxation. A philosophical word about taxation: one comes across an extraordinary number of simple souls who say that they would not mind paying a little more tax to have a better health service or a better education service. Such people are usually talking about other people's taxes, not their own. When I attend meetings of teachers or health service workers in my constituency, they ask why we cannot pay our nurses and teachers more. I ask how that is to be done —by increased taxation? That seems a simple solution, but these people do not want the money taken from their taxation, because if it is they will need yet more money to pay the higher taxes, and so the crazy circle continues.
  This is a dilemma with which the Opposition must wrestle, and it is clear from their proposed £37 billion extra expenditure that they have not thought it through properly. They must consider who will bear the burden. They appear unwilling to consider that, so I am afraid that the chickens will come home to roost.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Talking about chickens coming home to roost, the hon. Gentleman will have observed from the Red Book published concurrently with the Budget that the overall burden of taxation in 1978–79, the last year of Labour government, was 34·75 per cent. and that for the year 1991–92 it is 36·75 per cent., clearly a higher figure than the Government inherited. The hon. Gentleman will also have observed that the projection for 1996 is a burden of 38 per cent. taxation, a dramatic increase. It is this Government who are putting up taxation.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall read the Red Book avidly. I have not yet read all of it, but I accept what he says. However, he has missed my point, which was that I sought a change from direct to indirect taxation. That change has come about. I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's figures. I maintain that it is vital to reduce the burden of direct taxation because it is
  794
  a tax on people's work. That is what the Government have done, and I am glad that the Chancellor has continued the process today. And he shot the Opposition's fox by providing the benefit at the bottom end and helping the less fortunate people, not the well-heeled. As a result, 21 million people will be an average of £142 better off, with those at the bottom of the scale doing best. That is probably what has annoyed the Opposition.
  This has rightly been described as a Budget for recovery. When the recovery comes, as it will, East Anglia in general and Cambridgeshire in particular will be among the first to recover. The Budget creates the right framework for that recovery, because our area is full of small firms and of people anxious to work and to assist the economy. All we need now is that spark of confidence. The Budget provides the right climate. The spark of confidence will come when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is re-elected as Prime Minister.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Derek Enright: I made my maiden speech when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were in the Chair, and this will probably be my last speech when you are in it. May I take this opportunity to wish you a happy retirement and to thank you for your courtesy and great tolerance of much of what I have done? You have been an excellent mentor.
  This has been my first Budget since I became a Member of the House. Budget day is supposed to be a great and exciting day—it has a certain charisma. Those of us who have been outside hitherto looking in on the Budget have imagined keen minds working through every full stop and comma. We have supposed there to be great interest among Government Front-Bench spokesmen, and a crowded House until the late hours.
  Of course it is not quite like that. There has been yawning on the Government Front Bench and little real examination of what the Budget does. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) put his finger on it when he asked whose hand was on the tiller. He got it wrong; he should have asked whose hand was in the till. This Chancellor has put his hand in the till and, instead of paying the bills, he has taken the money for a night out.
  I suggest that this Budget is irrelevant to people's real needs. That is certainly true of Hemsworth, where we have suffered from a great barrage of Tory propaganda recently. Tories claim that 17 million days were lost through strikes in the last year of the Labour Government. In the past three days of this Tory Government 17 million days have been lost through unemployment. That puts it in perspective. This Budget will do nothing for the record number of people who are unemployed in my consituency.
  Mine also happens to be a constituency with many medium and small-sized firms. Some of them pay good wages, but some pay truly appalling wages, with the result that a large number of people in work will not even earn enough to benefit from the tax changes made by the Chancellor. Other people will have any advantage from these changes clawed back through means testing on a variety of benefits. In other words, poor people at the bottom of the scale will be hit every time by what the Government do.
  One thing that the Government could have done to give a bit of equity, fairness, justice and even mercy to the people at the bottom of the scale would have been to

  795
  examine what happens with invalidity benefit. It is a scandal that those on invalidity benefit—heaven knows, it is not generous—have to pay for their many prescriptions and cannot invest in the future and get cheap prescriptions. The Chancellor did nothing about that.
  What did the Chancellor do to get job creation going? At one point, he boasted about the Government's splendid training programme. It is about time that the Government looked at some of those programmes, because they are not training for real jobs. The training programme is producing cheap labour for people making a handsome profit, and whom the Government help further with their tax policies. Remarkably little real training is going on and that is a scandal and a disgrace.
  How has the Chancellor helped people on occupational pensions? He claimed to have done great things for them, but let me tell him about miners' pensions. Every Christmas, miners' pensions are updated by perhaps £1 or £1·5. That is then clawed back. In one case a miner not only had his £1·5 clawed back but had another 6p taken off him. Why does not the Chancellor do something about such anomalies? Perhaps it is because he does not care about them, so he does not care about defending the people whom he is hurting.
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that the Government should not be ashamed to say, "If it's not hurting, it's not working." That may be the case, but if one knows that one is hurting people, it is a normal human instinct to protect the most vulnerable. There was no sign of that in the Chancellor's speech. He did nothing to help them.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport spoke about the European Community and how he had stood by his principles rather than stay within the Labour party. His narcissistic tour of what happened made me rather sick, because some of us have had principles about the European Community and were consistent about them for a long time but stayed in the party and had the guts to fight instead of ratting on those who supported us. I yield to none in my consistency of approach to policy on the European Community.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport rightly said that the exchange rate mechanism would impose a discipline, and that is important. When it comes to economic and monetary union, that discipline will be even tighter. What is meant by imposing a discipline? What action do we have to take afterwards? That is what we should be considering. There is no easy way out and we need thinking policies. The Government think only of interest rates. They are incapable of seeing things three dimensionally. Within economic and monetary union that truly accepts the European Community, we have to work out our salvation, on many fronts, alongside our partners. The Chancellor did not mention collaboration with Europe.
  The Chancellor uttered some throw-away lines about the minimum wage. I am not ashamed of the minimum wage which is a just wage. Like the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who mentioned this in his speech, I was brought up in a Christian household which believed in the just wage. We believed that a person who did a decent day's work deserved enough to look after his family and have a home and a reasonable standard of living—nothing extravagant. That is all that the minimum wage is based on. I doubt whether our modest proposal will even achieve that basic requirement, but it will be a move in the right direction. I have no doubt that, by
  796
  talking to our European partners, we shall be able to get the level playing field that is required and, as a result of our willingness to co-operate, we shall have co-operation from them to assist us in our fight, and that is also important.
  Although there have been a couple of derogatory references to it since the statement, the Chancellor made no mention of the social charter. What is wrong with it? What are the Government so frightened about? The charter does not mention trade unions, so it does not give them any priorities. It says that workers should be treated decently. If I go to IBM or ICI, they will tell me that they want to treat their workers decently. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will confirm that ICI treats its workers decently. It is already fulfilling the social charter and that is why it is a successful firm.
  The firms which are not successful are using cheap and slave labour, and they do not have a co-operative work force. They have people who work for them because they are compelled to, but they do not have people who are proud of the work that they are doing, who are keen to make their firm do better and who are willing to put every effort into ensuring that their firm is the best in the area. The Government are opposed to that. Everything the Chancellor said was irrelevant to such a system.
  Small businesses need help. Conservative Members have spoken as though the Chancellor had said something wondrous about small businesses. He did not go as far as the Prime Minister went when he signed an early-day motion—way back in the halcyon days of the 1980s when Margaret was queen—that spoke of "compulsory" interest being levied on late payments. That is the only way to help small businesses. One cannot rely on the integrity of the big boys, despite what the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) said.
  If we are to help small businesses, we must do something about the business rate. I do not know why Conservative Members think that southern businesses are assisting northern businesses. Businesses in my area, the Wakefield metropolitan district council area—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) will bear this out—have been hammered by the uniform business rate much more than ever they were by the sensitive local authority.
  The Budget epitomises what is wrong with the Government's entire philosophy. They are a centrist and Stalinist Government who believe that the centre rules. They do not believe in devolution and trust, except in so far as they send civil servants—the viceroys of the United Kingdom, or at least of Whitehall—to tell elected Members what to do. The Government have no idea of how to make things tick at the bottom, and the Budget totally ignores that.
  I am not simply nitpicking. The Budget shows a dereliction of duty and it has no vision for a Britain of the future. It displays the incredible tiredness of a Government who are clearly ready to go and who must go to be replaced by people of vigour and strength.
  7.20 pm
  Sir Alan Glyn: This is probably my last performance in the House. My first was over 30 years ago. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the staff of the House and my constituents for their co-operation and help.

  797
  One of the most important proposals in the Budget is the one for budgetary reform. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said, for years we have had two financial statements which the public did not understand. It is right that they should be presented as one Budget in December.
  I commend the Budget, which has been presented against a background of great difficulty and a world recession. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West that, eventually, we must move from direct to indirect taxation, which allows the individual control over how he spends his money. The Budget will help the lower paid and the small business man. That is desirable, because for years we have been trying to encourage small businesses.
  The VAT payments on account have caused great trouble for small businesses which are hard hit by having to pay it and by being kept waiting for a long time for payment by the big companies. We should go further than the Budget suggests so that not only payment for Government contracts but for all contracts should be subject to a time limit of, say, 30 days. Firms similar in size to ICI are guilty of keeping small companies waiting for payment, although ICI is not guilty of that.
  I welcome the tax cuts on British cars because they will help our motor manufacturers to build up sales in Europe where they have done well this year. The cuts will help not only car manufacturers but car component makers and the steel industry.
  I welcome the separation in the incomes of husband and wife. It was a great scandal that, even though a wife was earning £10,000 and the husband only £200, he was responsible for his wife's tax. That system has gradually been broken down and the proposal in the Budget will end it altogether. The proposals on inheritance tax are also welcome and will help small business men who save to set up a small business only to see it smashed by inheritance tax. Small companies seem to be neglected by the Opposition even though they are the backbone of the country.
  I, and I am sure many other hon. Members, have been approached by many pensioners who have suffered through no fault of their own. I hope that the Government will accept the Social Security Select Committee's recommendations on pensions because they could help people who put their money into a pension fund which was transferred to a Maxwell-controlled fund only to find that the money had disappeared and they had nothing to fall back on.
  I regret the defence cuts. They are not part of the Budget but they have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). Our forces must be such that they can cope with any eventuality. We never know when they may be required to serve with the United Nations. The Budget is not a vote catcher. It shows the right way forward.
  I shall be sorry to leave the House after 30 years. I hope that in the near future more will be spent on staff accommodation and on the facilities provided for those who stay and rest here and have to change and wash. The facilities are ghastly and should be improved in the next Parliament.
  798
  Many other matters have been mentioned, including GATT negotiations which will have to be settled. The Budget represents a major reform, a change in the whole financial structure. I welcome the proposal to have a co-ordinated Budget in December. I wish all hon. Members well.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: It is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn). I have always held him in great esteem and affection. The House will certainly miss his presence. I understand that he has been in the House for about 30 years, an extremely long time to be in any one place. During the time that I have been here he has always played his part in the debates in which he has had an interest. I, and I am sure all of his colleagues, will be sad to see him leave the House. I wish him a happy and healthy retirement.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) was the first Conservative Member to cross the Chamber on Thursday last when my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) was taken ill. That was an example of the hon. Gentleman's extremely courteous and caring conduct in the House, both to his political opponents and his hon. Friends.
  Mr. Lofthouse: I have seen the hon. Gentleman do that on many occasions.
  I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you, too, will soon be leaving the House. You will certainly be missed. I have known you, too, for many years. I first met you when you visited Pontefract, for a stay of three weeks. That was some years ago, but I remember the occasion extremely well. You have always been held in high esteem in the House and your presence in the Chair will be greatly missed. I wish you a happy and healthy retirement.
  Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) has left the Chamber. I shall refer to him none the less because my remarks will not be controversial. The hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who is recognised within the House as one who understands finance. I cannot claim to be a financial wizard, but I wonder whether there are any financial wizards on the Government Benches. If there are, why is the economy in such a mess? We have the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessors, not least the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). The economy, as I say, has been getting into a mess and surely it is reasonable to ask, "Where does the fault lie?"
  It is no good the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others saying, "It is a world crisis" or, "It is a European crisis." Of course there are problems throughout the world, but we appear to be in a much worse position than other countries in the European Community, for example, apart from Greece and Portugal. Why is that?
  The Budget is an attempt—I do not think that anyone can put his hand on his heart and contradict what I am about to say—to convince the British public that things are not quite as bad as they appear to be. The British public will take some convincing. They are not familiar with the

  799
  procedures of the House or with national finance, but they are familiar with the consequences of recessions, for example.
  No one can deny that there has been great suffering within various sections of the nation over the past few years. Any Government who have been in office for 13 years cannot escape responsibility and blame for what has happened. Whether it rests with the right hon. Member for Blaby, as some Secretaries of State have seemed to suggest recently during television appearances or in the press and publications generally, I do not know, but responsibility must lie with the Government.
  My constituents will want to know what the Budget does for them. In the short time that we have had to study the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals, there seem to be only two main features within his statement. The first is a public sector borrowing requirement of £28 billion. That will be a millstone around somebody's neck; it will bear upon this Government or the next one. At some stage, it will be a millstone. It is perhaps an attempt to alleviate the burdens of the people including, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us today, the lower paid. If the lower paid receive tax reliefs, many of them will lose current benefits. If that happens, they will not be helped too much.
  How does the Budget help the unemployed? The Chancellor admitted this afternoon that there was not much hope for them. There are many unemployed people in my constituency. About 20,000 have been thrown out of work since 1985, and since then there have been few employment opportunities. The unemployed want to know how the Budget will help them. In fact, the Chancellor told them: it will not help them at all. The right hon. Gentleman sees no hope at present, in the near future or the medium future for the unemployed in my constituency and in other areas.
  Young miners in my constituency—men in their 30s and 40s—have been thrown on the scrap heap. Many of them have had their homes repossessed. What will the Budget do for them? Nothing. What will it do for old miners who are chronically sick? Right hon. and hon. Members have heard me refer on many occasions to miners with chest diseases. I visited some of them only a few weeks ago. There are old miners suffering from emphysema who receive no industrial injury benefit. Many of them cannot breathe without the aid of oxygen. There are men who cannot lift a cup of tea to their lips. I repeat: how does the Budget help them? It does not help them at all.
  How will the Budget help local authorities or the fire service? The fire service in west Yorkshire has to cut services year after year. Next year, the West Yorkshire fire authority will have to take decisions that will involve cuts to its emergency service. At the Pontefract fire station there is an emergency service unit that is specially equipped to deal with motorway accidents. The House will know that the M62 and the A1 cross are in the area. There are major chemical factories and there are still one or two pits. The special equipment is essential for the saving of life, and men have been specially trained to use it. First-class equipment will be put in storage because the authority will be unable to afford to employ staff to use it. What will the Budget do for the authority?
  What will the Budget do for the West Yorkshire police? I have a report from that force that next year it anticipates that there will be a shortage of 150 uniformed officers and 130 civilian staff. Crime increased in the area by 27 per
  800
  cent. last year. How will the Budget help to prevent crime? None of us condones the increase in crime; indeed, we all condemn it.
  What do we do when hundreds of youngsters between 16 and 20 years are unable to find employment? They get up in the morning, they have no money, and there is nowhere for them to go. They can see no future. I think back sometimes and wonder what I would have done in their position. I used to think when I was their age—I started work at 14—that I was hard done by. We used to leave the classroom on Friday and meet one another down the hole in the ground on the Monday. It was slavery, but my friends and I did not get into mischief. That is because we were not idle. We had a job. The kids who now leave school at 16 do not have employment. What will the Budget do for them? According to the Chancellor, it does nothing. There is no hope at all for those youngsters.
  How does the Budget help the health service in my area? How does it help the hospital at Pontefract? An old miner who had been in ward 7 there telephoned me to say that he had had to use his dressing gown for a pillow. That is the truth, not some trumped-up story seeking to appeal to the emotions. I thought that it was a rather outlandish story, so I went to see the chairman of the health authority and told him what the old miner had told me. He made inquiries and he confirmed that there was a pillow shortage, but it was decided to send a few—about five to each ward. How does the Budget help the health authority that is having to put up with such problems?
  This afternoon the Chancellor told us that there would probably be a 1p increase in the price of a pint of beer. One might say that that is not much, but for the retired miner and the unemployed miner it is another increase for them to bear. It decreases their spending power. The same applies to the increase in the price of cigarettes. I have no objection to that. It is a step in the right direction because it discourages people from smoking. Nevertheless, those who like to smoke have not been helped by the Budget.
  I might have generalised and I might not have dealt with matters of high finance, but I have touched on how the Budget affects people most. The Government can no longer continue to make excuses, saying that they have had only 13 years and that if they have a bit longer they might put matters right. The British public will not swallow that. The sooner the election comes the better for the return of a Labour Government.
  7.42 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). I am grateful to him for the nice things that he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn). I think that his tribute was one which all hon. Members would wish to share with him. I very much regret the departure of my hon. Friend. He has been extremely good to me during the 13 years that I have shared with him in the House. I wish him every success in his retirement.
  The debate has been a great mixture of speeches made by those who are about to leave the House, those on the Opposition Benches who have been practising their own adoption addresses, covering a range of wholly irrelevant issues in order to fax the speeches to their constituencies,

  801
  probably in the near future, and those on the Conservative Benches who have properly addressed the Budget. I hope to join the latter category and to do so extremely shortly.
  This was a first class Budget which avoided all the pitfalls which many members of the press saw faced my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and on which there has been great speculation during the past few weeks. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend did not take 1p in the pound off income tax. Those who said that that would have been seen as a bribe were right. It would have been ineffective and it would have done nothing to improve the state of our economy. I am delighted that the Government avoided going down that path.
  Instead, the Government have adopted the dual main thrust for the Budget of helping the elderly who need help, particularly pensioners, and adjusting the threshold to help those in the lower earnings categories. The Government have also succeeded in helping small businesses. Those achievements are extremely relevant to the state of our economy and to Britain's needs.
  There is no doubt that the recession is biting hard and causing great hardship. It is a pity that much of the debate on that issue takes place with a kind of myopia. It does not appear that any Opposition Member is prepared to look beyond the channel to see what is happening in the rest of the world. It is not possible to take just the British economy to lay at the feet of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer the blame for the fact that we are in recession. The blunt truth is that the world is in recession. All our major trading partners and all the major export markets into which we hope to sell our goods are in recession.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown indicated dissent.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is true that most of our export markets, if not all of them, are either in or going into recession. I shall be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman give a list of those countries that he does not think fall into that category. Germany is going into recession. France, Spain, Greece, Australia, Canada and the United States are all in recession. I could give the hon. Gentleman an endless list of countries that are in recession. I look forward to hearing from him a much shorter list of those that are not.
  Mr. Enright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the task that Germany has performed—first, in taking into its currency that of another country and, secondly, in taking into its confines a backward country while remaining successful—is remarkable and that it is to Germany that we should look rather than to Greece and Portugal?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the way in which Germany has dealt with its unification problems. I agree that it is doing a remarkable job. The fact remains, however, that since the Conservatives took office Britain's inflation rate has gone down from being four times the inflation in Germany to being on a par with the inflation in that country, and that is a great achievement which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the good grace to approve and acknowledge.
  Mr. Enright: Inflation is still higher than it was in the last year of the last Labour Government.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks to his books because that is not true. Under the last Labour Government, inflation went up to 27 per cent. If I remember rightly, at the end of 1978 it was around 19 per cent. The hon. Gentleman can check the figures.
  Mr. Enright rose—
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sorry, but I shall not continue to give way.
  There are two or three matters in the Budget of which I approve. The freezing of increases in the unified business rate will be of great value to small businesses and to businesses generally. I hope that those commercial landlords who seem to be increasing their rents in an unacceptable way in the current economic climate will take a leaf out of the Government's book and follow suit in freezing the rents that they charge.
  A business in my constituency has a large insurance company as its landlord and its rent is to increase by about 400 per cent. over a three or four-year period. I sent the insurance company's chairman a copy of the company's accounts to show that if he were to increase the rent in that way it would wipe out the small profit that the business was making, leaving it in grave financial difficulties. I received no satisfactory response and the company insists on putting up the rent. I have no doubt that, as a consequence, the company will go out of business and the insurance company will find itself with empty premises that it cannot let.
  Such occurrences are not simply in my constituency —they are much more widespread. It is a matter of profound regret that in many instances commercial landlords are not acting with proper consideration for their tenants and for the economy as a whole but are acting in a way that is greedy and stupid, and that will backfire on them and their revenue in due course.
  The VAT threshold is to go up in line with inflation and that is welcome, as is the cutting of the penalties. The penalties for what were quite minor VAT misdemeanours were unacceptably high and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor addressed that matter.
  I am pleased also that my right hon. Friend dealt with the inheritance tax burden on small businesses. The proposal has been referred to several times and it will be a great comfort to those who have built up small businesses over the years. I declare an interest because I am the non-executive chairman and a smallish shareholder in a small business. I am glad to say that it was one of the 20 fastest-growing companies in this country from 1987 to 1991. The largest shareholder has put an enormous amount of his life's work into the business and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has made it possible for his family and his children to share in the results of that labour when he retires and, ultimately, dies. Our policy is in stark contrast to that of the Labour party.
  I wish to suggest four ways in which I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might go further in his next Budget. The inheritance provisions will be of great benefit to farmers, but while our agriculture is still part of the common agricultural policy and is in an abysmal state not many small farmers will be in a position to benefit from the remission of inheritance tax. Agriculture is dreadfully short of money and most small farmers will go out of business in the near future if nothing is done to assist them. We can do that only by coming out of the CAP

  803
  or by persuading our European partners to take a more sensible view of the way in which agricultural returns are structured.
  I should like to see the Chancellor's proposals to make Government-owned companies pay their small subcontractors promptly extended to other large companies. It is undoubtedly one of the great burdens to any small company's cash flow that large companies use their clout in order not to pay their bills punctually to help their own position. That threatens the future of many small businesses. I hope that the Government will consider following the German example where it is compulsory in a contract to add interest to a bill if an invoice is not settled within 30 days. Firms in Germany cannot contract out of that obligation and large firms cannot use their industrial muscle to wriggle out of paying promptly as they do in this country.
  I welcome the proposals on the car tax. As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, a 5 per cent. reduction will cost £600 million, which is expensive. However, it will be of great help to our car industry, which is in grave difficulty, although it is doing remarkably well in the European context. I hope that another 5 per cent. reduction will be announced in the next Budget, if not before.
  I am delighted to see that £15 million is to be taken off the betting levy and redirected back into racing.
  Mr. David Davis: Hear, hear.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I note what my hon. Friend says and I know that that proposal will be widely welcomed. However, the Government could go further. Value added tax, which is payable on the sale of race horses, is another threat to racing. At 17·5 per cent., it is a crippling burden and neither Ireland nor France—our major competitors —charges as much VAT. In France, it is not charged at all and in Ireland it is charged at 2·5 per cent. That being the case, we are not able to compete and I fear for the auctions at New market and our entire racing community, unless the Government act. I hope that they can take some action on VAT on race horses before long.
  On the level of the public sector borrowing requirement, the Opposition are trying to have their cake and eat it. They have accused us of having a PSBR which is too high, yet they also accuse us of not spending enough on public services. We will have a PSBR of £28 billion in 1992–93 because of the amount that we spend on public services. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford referred to the hospital which he visited. The Government may not be doing anything in the Budget for the health service but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government increased expenditure on it from £8·5 billion in 1978 to £32·9 billion in 1992—a staggering increase in real terms.
  Furthermore, the Government have taken steps to make sure that the money that they provide for the health service is properly and efficiently spent. I visited Harold Wood hospital in my constituency last Friday and was impressed by the way in which the hospital is operating. I asked the same question that I had asked five years ago: "Can you tell me how many blankets and syringes the hospital uses in a year?" The answer was yes and that the hospital had the figures available. Five years ago, the answer was no because the figures were not available and there were no mechanism or auditing controls to enable
  804
  the hospital to find out the answer. I suspect that the health authority to which the hon Member for Pontefract and Castleford referred is probably Labour controlled and that the hospital does not have enough pillows because it has no proper controls within its structure to ensure that the money allocated to it is spent efficiently.
  Mr. Lofthouse: I cannot follow what the hon. Gentleman says about the health authority being Labour controlled. Health authorities are not Labour controlled, nor should they be Conservative controlled. The non-executive directors who run my health authority were appointed by the Secretary of State. They have no affiliation with the area and include a former solicitor from Wetherby and someone who runs a factory 50 miles away. The authority is run by people appointed by the Secretary of State and not by the Labour party.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. I was out of date, but my point about management administration is valid and I stick by what I said.
  The Labour party does not like the Budget. The Leader of the Opposition, when challenged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, refused to say whether he would reverse the 20p in the pound tax level. However, he promised that we would have the Labour party's alternative budget shortly. I look forward to that with great interest, although we already know much of the detail. The Labour party is committed to putting direct taxation up so that the top level, taken with national insurance, will go up to 59 per cent.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting our policy. The top rate of taxation will not go up from the present 40 per cent. band. We intend to introduce a new 50 per cent. band that will affect those earning substantially more than £30,000. The hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent our policy.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful for that clarification, but I did not notice that differential in any of the Labour party documents that I read. Perhaps it is a recent change, because I understand that when the changes to direct taxation were first announced, they were set to affect those on £20,500. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong and will tell us about the proposed level later.
  The fact remains that the top rate of tax will be 59 per cent. and on top of that investment income will, yet again, suffer another surcharge of a further 9 per cent. Therefore, the top rate of tax on investment income will be 68 per cent. That is what the Labour party would introduce as soon as it came to power. Heaven knows what the top rate would be if it were in power for four years; we could even go back to the level reached in 1977 under the previous Labour Government when the top rate of tax payable reached 98 per cent.
  We all know about the budgetary aims of the Labour party. It is determined to kill wealth. It does not like the idea of accumulated wealth and of family businesses being passed on from one generation to another. That is why it intends to increase inheritance tax and to bring back capital transfer tax. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) may make a face and I certainly agree with the sentiment that he expresses. I am merely repeating exactly what was said in published Labour party documents.

  805
  Are we to believe that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Conservative Government's policy of cutting inheritance tax on small businesses? If so, will he please give us his support so that we can go ahead on an all-party basis? I am sure that small businesses would be mightily relieved were that to happen. Given the fact that the Labour party has adopted such an idiotic line and we are close to an election, there is, perhaps, the faint possibility that we shall be able to squeeze some sensible accommodation out of it.
  Conservative Members believe in enterprise. We believe in people being able to work for their living and to keep as much of the money that they make as is compatible with proper funding of the state's economy. On the Opposition Benches, there is a dogmatic socialism that should have died years ago: Opposition Members wish to stifle industry and enterprise and to take money from everyone who manages to accumulate it, without letting them spend that money on their families or build something for future generations.
  That is the difference between the two parties. That is why the country will vote for the Conservatives, and why the present Government will remain in power after the next election.
  8.8 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I profoundly disagree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), except in one important respect. He mentioned his hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn). I share his affection and respect for the hon. Gentleman, who, in my experience, has always been a fair-minded adversary of the most courteous kind.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes)—that splendid English patriot—claimed that he was speaking for England, and, more particularly, for his constituency. That claim seems reasonable enough, on the basis of the speeches that the hon. Gentleman has made over the past nine years. I listened closely, as I always do, to his unashamedly patriotic speech. He was followed by my old and hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who said that he was speaking for Wales. I should like to speak for the people of Scotland—and, more particularly, for those whom I represent in Greenock and Port Glasgow.
  I see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security is present. I wish to say something about the social fund later, but I should be enormously grateful if —with her characteristic courtesy—she responded promptly to the following question. How much of the increase in the social fund will reach the two local offices in my constituency? As the hon. Lady knows, about a third of the people whom I represent are in receipt, directly or indirectly, of social security incomes. This is not a joke; I am not being facetious, but making an important point. Today's Budget has nothing to offer my constituents. Perhaps, however, the Minister's reply—which, as always, will be expeditious and courteous—will answer my question about the social fund.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Obviously, I cannot answer the detailed question about the proportion of the
  806
  social fund, but I shall certainly undertake that either my right hon. Friend the Minister of State or I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman says that this is not a Budget for his constituents. What about the help that it will give his poorer pensioners?
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for responding in such a way. Yes, I will state the ways in which the Budget will help; but, in overall terms, it does nothing for the people of Scotland—at a time when the Minister's party is in a minority there, and faces elimination in terms of representation in the House. I believe that the Secretary of State will go at the general election, and that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—the Minister of State. Scottish Office—may go as well. That may cause all kinds of problems for the governance of Scotland, but the Budget has been introduced at what is already a time of considerable political turbulence there.
  I welcome the assistance that is to be given to small firms, especially in regard to the disgraceful companies that take their time in paying bills to smaller companies. If the proposed sanctions sorted out those miscreants, I should be delighted. On a number of occasions, representatives of small businesses have come to my surgeries to complain about the slowness of large companies in paying their bills. That has created all sorts of cash-flow problems.
  I have always recognised and acknowledged the importance of small businesses, particularly in my constituency. I am a cinema buff: I was brought up on American-type films, with Doris Day singing "Blue Moon" and what have you. Given that background, I welcome the financial assistance that is to be given—belatedly—to the film industry. I refer to paragraph 4.15 of the Budget report, on page 46.
  The United Kingdom film industry includes in its ranks some very fine, talented writers, producers, directors and actors, and we in Scotland have more than our fair share of talented film makers. As a cinema buff, I welcome the support that is to be given to the industry, although it has come so late in the day.
  There are no car factories within hundreds of miles of my constituency; nevertheless, I welcome the measures in paragraph 4.19. None of my constituents now work in the car industry: Chrysler disappeared from Renfrew a long time ago. All the same, I am sure that this is an important measure for the United Kingdom's economy.
  In one respect, however, my view differs sharply from that of the Government—and, perhaps, even from that of some of my hon. Friends. I refer to the increase in alcohol duties. According to paragraph 4.21, that increase is about 4·5 per cent. and I think that it should be much higher.
  We talk about drug addiction in the United Kingdom. I can tell the House that one of the major forms of drug addiction in my part of Scotland is alcohol addiction. I hope that I do not sound too much like a whinger, but I feel that alcohol is much too cheap, and I think that the duty on it should have been increased by a much larger amount. Alcohol-related crime is on the increase in Strathclyde—and elsewhere in the United Kingdom; there is nothing special about Strathclyde in that regard. Many violent crimes are alcohol-related, especially those committed at weekends and involving the use of knives

  807
  and other weapons. I do not think that enough is being done to deal with that form of addiction, and I think that the prices of drink should be much higher.
  I also think that the increase in duty on cigarettes is not enough, at 10 per cent. Cigarettes should be more expensive, given the problems that affect those who are addicted to them. We need only visit hospitals to see those problems: emphysema, lung cancer and other smoking-related illnesses. A savage increase in duty may not be the whole answer, but a dramatic increase in the price of both alcohol and cigarettes would help.
  I said that the Budget has been introduced largely as a way of saving the Government's neck, but it will certainly not be saved in Scotland. There, the Conservative party is a declining minority party—it is now the third party in Scotland, coming after the Liberal Democrats. This is indeed a politically turbulent moment in Scotland, and despite some of the kind things that I have said about it and despite the intervention by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), the Budget will not help the Conservative party in Scotland. I shall spell out the reasons in a moment.
  One element of the turbulence in Scotland is that the power of this place is suffering a continuing diminution vis-a-vis the extraordinarily powerful central institutions of the European Community, the Council of Ministers and the Commission. Its power has also been diminished by the over-powerful Executive, but let us bring the debate back to Scotland.
  As a Member of Parliament for Scotland, I know that we are experiencing growing disenchantment with the Government and the Westminster Parliament. It is fair to say that the Scottish Tory party has lost the place. The Budget will strengthen the growing alienation from what is known as the London Government.
  Yesterday I discussed the Budget—among other things —with youngsters at a school in Gourock just over the border from my constituency. The school is in fact in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) but most of its pupils are constituents of mine. My wife and I spent a couple of hours at the school and discussed the Budget with youngsters who asked me what would be done for the unemployed people in my constituency and for those living in appalling housing conditions. The answer is nothing. There is nothing in the Budget for the thousands of my constituents caught up in those terrible circumstances.
  What is to happen to the unemployed in my constituency where the unemployment rate is now just under 13 per cent.? What comfort can they take from the Budget? I have to say, very little. People in my constituency are implementing the traditional Scottish solution to unemployment which is migration. Some highly skilled constituents are now working on sites in Spain, in shipyards in Holland and even further afield. They have been driven away from their homes, and there is nothing in the Budget to bring them back.
  What about people living in appalling housing conditions? What do they gain from the Budget? Why have not the Government given any help to the construction industry by encouraging district councils in Scotland and local councils south of the border to build the houses that are desperately needed not only by the many thousands of homeless people in Scotland but by the scores of thousands living in disgraceful conditions? There is
  808
  nothing in the Budget for those thousands of people, and they will wreak their revenge on the Government on 9 April if that is to be the date of the general election. They will ensure that the growing campaign to drive out the Tories from Scotland—largely inspired by the campaign for a Scottish assembly—reaches fruition on 9 April.
  Yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland published a document in which he claimed that there were many financial benefits accruing to Scotland from the Union. There are few in the Budget. The Secretary of State chose to ignore the fact that Scotland's gross domestic product has now fallen to 93·2 per cent. of the United Kingdom average, having risen to 97·4 per cent. in 1984. This morning's edition of The Herald—it is no longer called The Glasgow Herald—stated:
  "Mr. Lang cannot have it both ways. Are we doing as well as he likes to tell us? Or are we a poor country which would be much poorer without English bounty?"
  Scotland's GDP is slipping behind. There is a great deal of poverty in Scotland and the Government, who are known increasingly as the English or the London Government—
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The south-east Government.
  Dr. Godman: Behind their stockade in the south-east the Government are generating a great deal of disenchantment and alienation in Scotland, but it does not appear to concern them greatly. Let us be honest and acknowledge that we are in a desperately tight race for the election. Anyone who says that his or her party will win by 30 or 40 seats is appallingly disingenuous, dishonest or stupid. I believe that it will be a very tight race.
  My constituents have to tolerate dilapidated schools such as the Roman Catholic school that I visited yesterday just over the border in Gourock. My wife and I met some very fine, intelligent young people there but, walking up the stairs from the ground floor to the first floor, we had to dodge the pails and buckets that were gathering water from leaks in the roof. It was a characteristically wet day in western Scotland.
  Mr. Hardy: It always is.
  Dr. Godman: Not always; we sometimes have very fine weather in the west of Scotland. The youngsters have come to accept that their education takes place in such disgraceful conditions. What help is given in the Budget by way of a new build programme or a programme of repairs for such decaying, deteriorating schools?
  The crime figures in my constituency seem to be going through the roof. Only the other day, three men were gaoled for a total of 24 years for an armed robbery in Greenock. Much more violent crime is committed these days. I suspect that one of the reasons is the deadening influence of endemic unemployment in the area. However, another reason is that there are too few police officers on the streets of Greenock and Port Glasgow.
  Chief Superintendent Laurence Macintyre, the divisional commander of X division of Strathclyde police, tells me that he is at least 10 officers short of the minimum requirement. The overtime requirement has been chopped by 4,000 hours, so there are fewer police officers on the streets. Therefore, street crime in particular and crime involving drugs is on the increase. What support are the Government giving in the Budget for dealing with the deeply worrying increase in the crime statistics?

  809
  I told the Minister that thousands of my constituents are on social security. That is inevitably the case with a 13 per cent. unemployment rate. Many are on income support because they have exhausted their unemployment benefit. There are many pensioners because it is an aging population—the young people have been driven away by unemployment. Much more needs to be done for such people, especially those on income support and the unemployed.
  It is not so long ago that 300 to 400 male school leavers in my constituency were given apprenticeships in the local shipyards and in the marine engineering works. That figure is now down to between 12 and 16. That is a scandalous decrease.
  I mentioned earlier that I had spoken to schoolchildren aged 16 or 17 who told me that to them the Government had betrayed them and their families in failing to provide employment and decent houses in the district. For many of them the only answer was nationalism and independence. They felt that an independent Scottish Government would provide the right sort of Budgets for them and their families. I naturally sought to dissuade them from that fantastic belief.
  When I see homelessness, visit people who live in damp homes, and speak to unemployed people and people on social security incomes—a sizeable number in my constituency—I can well understand why there is growing alienation from the London Government. If anything, today's Budget will strengthen that alienation. I look forward to a Labour Government who, among other things, will create a Scottish Parliament in the capital city of my country.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: Whatever the electoral considerations referred to by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I assume that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will still be a Member of this House in the new Parliament. For me there cannot be too many Yorkshiremen and Yorkshirewomen in the House. Therefore, regardless of any party differences, I look in that sense to your return.
  I had hoped that I might be called while your colleague the right hon. Member for Woodspring (Sir P. Dean) was in the Chair, if only so that I could refer to the great friendship, kindness and courtesy with which he has always treated me and other hon. Members. Of course, similar considerations apply to Mr. Speaker, whom we shall also greatly miss. I hope that you will be able to pass on to your colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker and Mr. Speaker, our feelings of regret at their departure from the House and our good wishes for their future retirement.
  A highlight of the debate so far was the speech by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). As always, his comments were extremely thoughtful. His departure will also be a considerable loss to the House. He spoke of the need for prudence at this time. Judging by what he said, the Budget as presented this afternoon complied with the requirement that he set out. It was certainly an imaginative Budget. It dealt with the short-and medium-term problems of recession, but at the same
  810
  time it did not introduce short-term measures or gimmicks to give an artificial stimulus to the economy. I am sure that the Budget is all the better for that.
  When I listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, which followed that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, it seemed that the right hon. Gentleman found himself in some difficulty. We asked whether he supported or opposed the measures in the Budget. I have to say that when he sat down I did not know whether he supported them or not. But perhaps we shall find out more in the days to come.
  The Budget was certainly a Budget for recovery. Therefore, inevitably it had to be a Budget for business and industry and especially for small businesses. It is worth remembering that since the present Government came into office in 1979 more than 1 million people have become self-employed. I am sure that there will be considerable relief among many who saw or heard the contents of the Budget as they became apparent today.
  The fairer treatment of value added tax will be counted as a great advance by many. The penalty regime was resented by many small business people. They felt that any minor error was treated on the same basis as a major breach. I hope that in future that will no longer be the case. I know of many small shopkeepers and other small business men who have had sleepless nights because they made a minor error and felt that they were treated as criminals. They, too, will welcome the change in inheritance tax and the increase in the relief for business assets from 50 to 100 per cent. I am sure that they, too, hope for the return of a Conservative Administration.
  No one should underestimate the importance of the announcement on the uniform business rate. The change to the UBR that came about recently is often confused with the effects of the revaluation that occurred simultaneously. Listening to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), it was clear that he was confused about those two factors. He decried the impact of the uniform business rate on small businesses. Of course, there can be no doubt that the UBR as such was a great benefit to small businesses because by statute any increases are linked to inflation.
  The revaluation caused enormous anxiety and was a great blow to many firms simply because it had been postponed for up to 17 years after the previous revaluation. When the increases came about they were an enormous shock. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced his cap on increases in 1993 I was worried for a moment because people in manufacturing industry in the north of England have felt for a long time that they had already suffered a comparative disadvantage for far too long as a result of the delayed revaluation. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor quickly demonstrated that he had taken that point on board by announcing that the gainers would receive their full benefit more quickly. Many retail and commercial premises in West Yorkshire, which lost out as a result of the revaluation, will also benefit from the UBR cap. So they will share in the benefits implied by my right hon. Friend's announcement.
  The dramatic reduction in the special car tax was by any account a bold step. I hoped that there would be a reduction but had not anticipated that it would be so large. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has come into the Chamber. Only recently he became chairman of the all-party motor industry group. It is a remarkable tribute

  811
  to his leadership that after only a few weeks he has prevailed on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make such a dramatic reduction, which will reduce the average price of new cars by about £450. I have no doubt that that will provide a great stimulus to the British motor industry and that the benefits will percolate through to the many firms that are linked with that industry.
  For instance, the machine tool sector, which is well represented in my constituency, and the component industry will certainly welcome the change and the stimulus that it will give to the British motor car industry. There will undoubtedly be enormous benefits in future. Environmentally, it is an extremely beneficial move because it will encourage the replacement of old cars by new environmentally green vehicles. I am sure that that point was not far from my right hon. Friend's thoughts, bearing in mind the great importance which the Government attach to environmental issues.
  The centrepiece of the Budget is the new lower rate income tax band. There was some opposition to an income tax cut from many of my constituents who made representations about the Budget. They said that there should not be a straight cut because it would benefit wealthier people. In response, I pointed out that it depended on how any reduction in income tax was distributed. Of course, I am delighted that the formula that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has adopted will direct the most assistance to low-earners. That measure has left the Opposition hypnotised. They do not know whether to support or oppose it. Certainly, if they oppose it, it will demonstrate to all that Labour is the party of high taxation.
  I greatly welcome the improvement in the rules for personal equity plans. From April, people will be able to invest up to the full £6,000 in qualifying investment and unit trusts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), I have long had a great interest in the wider share ownership movement and the Wider Share Ownership Council in particular. One of the most significant changes that have taken place under the Government is the great increase in the number of shareholders. I am delighted that the Wider Share Ownership Council has been given a new lease of life as the Share Ownership Movement with considerably enhanced resources.
  Although the ideal must be a wider share-owning democracy, whether people own shares in their own companies—one hopes that in future Budgets one will see even more encouragement for share ownership in the companies for which people work, as I have no doubt that that produces great benefits for such companies and for the economy generally—or whether people own shares in British industry generally, for many people investment in unit trusts and investment trusts represents a first step into share holding; it is a better vehicle for many small savers. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend's announcement on PEPs will provide a stimulus to savings and encourage the wider share-owning democracy that we wish to see.
  The Budget will also help charities and voluntary giving. There were many representations about the need for VAT reliefs to help charities. It is difficult for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to take big steps in that direction, but some extensions to VAT reliefs have been
  812
  announced. That the minimum gift to attract tax relief will be reduced will also be of benefit in stimulating charitable giving.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also spoke of the importance of GATT. I share his concern to the utmost. Many industries, not least the textile industry, which employs many people in my constituency, have great anxiety that a failure to bring about an early agreement on GATT could lead to a stultification of trade and to increased protectionism. Of course, that threat is greater when electoral considerations in the United States are so significant.
  The Budget will be of great value to the country. As I left the Chamber earlier, I overheard an Opposition Member say to another, "We've lost." Who knows? He was a northern Member and he recognised the impact of the Budget in the north of England. The Budget is good not only for the country but for the Chancellor and for the Government. I look forward to supporting it in the next Parliament.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. John Browne: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn). Since I have been in the House, for just under 13 years, he has always been a marvellous character and certainly a great and friendly adviser to me. I know his constituency reasonably well and I am very sure that his constituents will miss him greatly. I would also like to echo the feelings of other hon. Members who have expressed their kind sentiments of thanks and a fond farewell to Mr. Speaker and to Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you would convey those thoughts for me, and wish them great happiness in their retirement from this House.
  I declare an interest, as detailed in the registry.
  Today, it is almost trite to say that we are in difficult economic times. It is a very difficult situation for any Chancellor in which to construct a Budget. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has constructed an extremely clever Budget—so clever that, if I were a Labour Member or a Liberal Democrat Member, I frankly would find it very difficult to do anything but vote for the Budget. I certainly would find it impossible to vote against the Budget. We have yet to see when the Divisions take place, but I would be not too amazed if, for the first time for many decades, we had a Budget that was not voted against. It is a Budget for the country as a whole, and is particularly targeted towards those in need.
  As I said, it is a clever Budget. I think that it is also a very prudent Budget. My only criticism of it is that I think that it is perhaps too prudent in the circumstances.
  May I welcome the bringing together of the Budget and the autumn statement? This is a structural matter of procedures. I believe that it is long overdue and very welcome, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for that initiative.
  In the short term, the Budget will be greatly to the benefit of many of my constituents in Winchester, and in Alton, as it is to the constituents of almost every Member of this House.
  The 20p tax band was brilliant. Many Members on both sides of the House have been pressing my right hon. Friend for a 1p cut in the basic rate of tax, which would

  813
  have amounted to a loss of revenue of very nearly the same as the revenue that we will lose through the creation of the 20p band.
  This effectively targeted tax cuts towards the lower paid, towards the young, towards those people in their first job and towards women in work. It is a brilliant initiative. From where I was sitting, I thought that I could see the wind vanish from Opposition Members' chests. I really think that the wind was taken out of their sails. It was a tremendous coup. It was a great thing to do, and I congratulate very warmly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As the effects flow through, I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the benefits targeted to the lower paid are not clawed back by the rules on income support regarding net income.
  The extra help targeted on pensioners is very welcome and worthwhile.
  Almost every type of farm is experiencing, not just difficult times, but horrific times, often through no fault of the farmers involved. When we were down to eight days of food in the second world war, we pushed farming. Farmers became the darlings of our nation. They were encouraged to produce and produce, and to borrow to obtain more from the land. They did so in a fantastic, entrepreneurial way and were highly successful. Due to our membership of the European Community and the resulting structural change of our agriculture, the farmers were asked to rein back, and experienced great difficulties. Farmers in my constituency are particularly worried now at some of the proposals of Commissioner MacSharry. I think that they will greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcements on inheritance tax.
  My right hon. Friend's proposals for small businesses were welcome. I speak as a past chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench committee on smaller businesses. The proposals on inheritance tax are important for small businesses, entrepreneurship and venture capital. The announcements on the uniform business rate were welcome, and will greatly benefit small businesses and shops. The new rules for the late payment of bills by big companies, which are the customers of small businesses, are an excellent initiative. My right hon. Friend used just the right sort of clout to support the proposal. He did not put it in legal terms, from which there are ways out, but said that if a company wins a Government contract it must ensure that it pays its bills to small businesses on time, which is excellent.
  The raising of the VAT thresholds will benefit small businesses. I welcome the fact that there is no change in the VAT rate, and the cutting of severe penalties for those guilty of minor misdemeanours.
  The film industry of our country used to be a great industry. It is because we have not been sensitive enough to that industry's needs that we have seen it flow back to Hollywood and many other countries. It is a culturally important industry as British films are seen throughout the world. The explosion in television and television software and the huge increase in film making make my right hon. Friend's proposals even more important and most welcome. It is realistic to have tax relief on pre-production costs, which are incurred many months or even years before the earnings from released films arrive. The delay in
  814
  earnings should be taken into account and should be tax deductible as costs are incurred. I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative.
  Cider makers, certainly those in the west country, will be relieved that they have escaped from the proposed threat of the European Community to impose greatly increased duty on cider.
  Whisky makers will be upset at the rise in duty, but 70 per cent. of their production and, I should imagine, a larger percentage of their profits derive from exports. Consequently, the rise in whisky duty will not affect the earnings of that industry too much.
  I welcome the 50 per cent. cut in the discriminatory tax on motor cars. I would have supported a 100 per cent. abolition of the tax, which I think is totally discriminatory, but I welcome the 50 per cent. that we have been given. It will help the economy as the motor industry is an important multiplier industry with various supporting industries such as rubber tyre, battery, electrical, plastics and paint. All will benefit from the reduction.
  One factor that I would have liked to have been included in the Budget, and which I was upset not to see, was tax deductibility for childminders. If a company is allowed a tax deduction for a creche for children, individuals who pay for childminders—particularly those who are unable to get their children to their place of work on crowded trains and undergrounds—should be given tax deductions. That was a reasonable request and I am sorry that it was not included in the Budget.
  All those measures will help my constituents and those of almost every hon. Member. Therefore, I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
  The economy in general affects us all. Quite rightly, inflation has been seen as the number one economic priority of the Government during the past 12 years or more. It is stil a most important priority, but it is falling fast and is, to some extent, yesterday's problem. I know that there is an inherent risk of a resurgence, but I believe that it is yesterday's problem and that today's number one priority for the Government should be the recession.
  We are undergoing a severe recession—the worst in living memory. If it had not been a rolling recession, affecting one industry after another, instead of happening to all industries at once, as happened in the 1920s and 1930s, I think that it would be much worse than it is now. However, I believe that it is bad, very bad, and have urged my opinion on the Government for the past 18 months. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to convey to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the recession is today's problem. If we do not solve it, tomorrow's problem will be an economic depression, and Germany, our main competitor, will be the country best placed to pick up the pieces.
  We are in a deep recession, for which the classic remedy is to lower, not just interest rates, but the most important interest rates: real interest rates—nominal interest rates less inflation. Nominal interest rates are coming down, but inflation is coming down faster. Therefore, real interest rates are not only high but rising. We tolerate not only high, but rising, real interest rates. We have a serious economic problem, and risk turning severe recession into economic depression. We are doing so by placing yesterday's top priority—inflation, which is falling fast—ahead of today's top priority—recession.
  How does that happen? It stems from our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, which I voted against. I

  815
  believe that we joined the exchange rate mechanism for the wrong reasons, and at the wrong time—too soon. We joined it before the economies that underlie all those paper currencies had converged sufficiently. Therefore, we have an exchange rate mechanism that is not for gold, silver, or currencies of intrinsic value, but paper currencies with no intrinsic value, which merely represent a collection of economies.
  The exchange rate mechanism for those paper economies represents economies that were out of phase with each other and had not converged. If they had, we could have built an exchange rate mechanism and perhaps allowed a single currency to evolve.
  We entered the mechanism too soon and for the wrong reasons, and, as a result, United Kingdom interest rates do not respond to the cries of the British economy. Our economy is crying out for lower real interest rates, not just lower nominal rates, which are peripheral. Our interest rates are not responding as they are dictated through the exchange rate mechanism, by the needs of the German economy. Unfortunately, the outlook for the German economy is for continued high, and even rising, real rates of interest. The Germans have to deal with the understandable inflation that is the consequence of absorbing East Germany. But it is not merely a temporary but a structural problem.
  Historically, the United Kingdom economy has been based on internally generated growth—on low or even negative rates of real interest, and on a tolerance of inflation to protect jobs. Today, through the exchange rate mechanism, we are trying to change our structure to meet the requirements of an entirely different economy.
  The pattern of growth in the German economy was almost the exact opposite. It was externally generated. The German economy had high real rates of interest, and inflation was not tolerated on any account.
  The United Kingdom is confronted by a major structural problem at a time of national and international recession. The exchange rate mechanism magnifies that economic agony.
  I accept that it is good for the United Kingdom economy to have the economic discipline that goes with the ERM, but our economy is still in a state of economic convalescence after some 35 years of socialism. When applying what might be good economic medicine, we must be careful not to kill the patient by giving him too much medicine at once.
  We must avoid allowing the ERM to drive us from recession into economic depression. That is why I voted against the ERM, and why I am still against it. That is why I was saddened to hear that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is getting even further into the ERM by announcing that he intends in future to move from the broad to the narrow band.
  The Budget serves as a prudent incentive. It offers tax cuts that are sustainable in the long term, which is very laudable. It is like pressing lightly and prudently on the accelerator of a stationary car. Some may feel that the accelerator is not that prudent, given a borrowing requirement of £28 billion, but that is open to argument. Let us give my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the benefit of the doubt and say that he is prudently pressing on the accelerator. The problem is that the brake of high and rising real rates of interest is still on. The risk is that the car will stall. In economic terms, that stall means changing from severe recession to economic depression.
  816
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on what I truly believe to be a very clever Budget. It is so clever that I would find it hard to vote against it. One might even find right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House voting for my right hon. Friend's Budget; that would be a real political achievement. However, I am not alone among my right hon. and hon. Friends in fearing the effects of the ERM and of rising real rates of interest on the United Kingdom economy. I urge my right hon. Friend, even at this late stage, to re-examine that aspect in the hope that our economic car will not stall.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I have tried for some weeks to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during Prime Minister's Question Time, because I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman something of fundamental importance. Unfortunately, I did not succeed, so I might as well put my question to the House now.
  When the Government first took office in 1979, the United Kingdom was—according to its gross national product, and to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other reputable authorities—the fifth richest nation in the world. When the Conservatives leave office next month, the United Kingdom will be the 10th richest country in the world. It has fallen five places because it has experienced comparative decline. That ought to transcend party political differences. The severity of the situation can be seen in all our constituencies. It can be seen in the young people who are without skills and opportunities. It can be seen in the rising crime rate, the problems of the health service, and the difficulties facing our schools.
  I hope that any politician and any British citizen would judge a Budget on whether or not it arrests the decline that has been inflicted on this country for the last 12 or 13 years. Unfortunately, today's Budget will do very little to stem that decline.
  I was surprised that a Yorkshire Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), could perceive advantages in the Budget. The City might perceive its advantages, but in those areas where there is a need to create wealth the Budget is largely irrelevant. It scatters concessions about like confetti at a shotgun wedding, and they are of little significance.
  Despite the Budget's welcome concessions to pensioners, it does not address basic problems. What have the Government done for youth, the nation's future, and investment? What does the Budget do to remedy the grievous economic conditions that exist in Britain today? Whatever the Government may say before the general election, the Chancellor admits that the public sector borrowing requirement will total £29 billion. The Government do not have that money. Over the past 13 years, they have demonstrated beyond all doubt that they are unfit to exercise stewardship of the nation's economy.
  Since the Government took office, they have received £111,000 million in offshore oil revenue, and scores of billions of pounds from privatisation. What is there to show for that money? Fiddled employment statistics.
  Yesterday, I gave my local press a story about a 12½ year-old-child whose whole education and social life is blighted because she cannot have an operation. Her mother, who is a very decent lone parent, does not have

  817
  £900 to pay for that operation. The Government had all that loot from privatisation—all that wealth from North sea oil—and yet still injustices of that kind arise.
  I have been drawing another problem in my constituency to the Government's attention for months. I refer to the future of one of Britain's most important industries. The hon. Member for Keighley fought my constituency some time ago, and will be aware of the vital importance and achievements of its engineering steel industry. It is capable of competing with any similar industrial establishment in the world. It holds world production records and can knock Germany, France, Italy, the United States and even Japan into a cocked hat in producing high-quality engineering steels.
  As a result of Government policy, it cannot work full time because the privatised electricity industry has put extra premiums on evening use, for under the Conservatives the values of the television soap opera are more important than the creation of wealth. This industry in my constituency in the last two years has faced huge increases in electricity charges.
  The Government say that the industry has the power of the consumer. But it is the biggest consumer of electricity in the Yorkshire region. That does not seem to weigh heavily on a Government and a supply industry that are no longer concerned about exports, about the creation of wealth and about the preservation of the industrial base. The Government have given industry no priority, and there is no priority in the Budget.
  When the Government were giving out revenue support for local authorities, I did not think they were being fair and, about 18 months ago, I made speeches in the House on the subject. Since then, I have analysed the position in my local authority and compared it with the two, well trumpeted Tory favourites of Westminster and Wandsworth. In this financial year, the borough of Westminster received £911 per head by way of revenue support. The borough of Rotherham received £211.
  The most expensive item for local authorities is education, and in my part of the world the school population is nearly twice that of Westminster, yet the latter received five times as much as Rotherham in revenue support. Had Rotherham been treated on the same basis, not only would we have had no poll tax to pay, but every man, woman and child in the Rotherham Westworth and Rother Valley constituencies could have received £750. That would have been stupid, of course, because the money would have been better invested.
  We in Britain are not investing in the creation of wealth. There is nothing in the Budget, for example, about one of the most serious problems facing Britain. In the late 1970s, my area had virtually beaten the housing problem. Now, because of the sale of council houses and particularly because of the enormous reduction in local authority house building, we are in a sorry state. Local authority housing is the only hope for half the population of the country who cannot afford to buy.
  Since the late 1970s, 20,000 names have gone on to the waiting lists in my area. The only hope for those people is for the local authority to get on with building. It has the capital to do that, but the receipts from council house sales have been frozen. Had the Government really wanted to stimulate the economy in an area such as mine—which, in
  818
  housing, is suffering enormous problems; the people generally have suffered economic devastation as a result of Conservative de-industrialisation policy—they would have allowed that stimulus, brought hope, and thereby reduced the queues of people attending the surgeries of councillors and Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Is my hon. Friend aware that in parts of Wakefield metropolitan district council in 1979 people were waiting only a fortnight for council tenancies? Since then, no bricks have been laid by the local authority and half the council houses have been sold. Day after day I hear at my surgery, and receive in the post, heartbreaking stories of people, including young couples with babes in arms, with nowhere to live. In many cases couples are having to live apart with parents and relatives. As my hon. Friend says, millions of pounds are being held in capital receipts as a result of council house sales. If councils could use that money, much of the problem would be solved.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have done virtually nothing to tackle the real problems of Britain. If they were prepared to tackle them, we would have had a different Budget today. Indeed, had we had more sensible Budgets during the years of Tory rule, the national economy would be much healthier. Whatever the Chancellor may say or do, and irrespective of any sensible little concessions that he may introduce, Britain's economy is unhealthy and may even be dismissed, and the Government's policies are fundamentally flawed and irrelevant.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is no longer here but he has another important engagement. In his speech he referred to several matters that he would have liked the Chancellor to have approached more severely. I am not particularly severe on those matters. For example, I recognise that old men who have smoked from the age of 12 or 13 and may not be particularly rich may find it difficult to pay the extra charge on tobacco and cigarettes. It is not up to a well-heeled Tory Chancellor to try to make it impossible for people who have smoked since boyhood to give up whether they want to or not, simply because they cannot pay. That is a brutal approach, and it is not a question which the Chancellor should determine. Moreover, an important establishment in my constituency provides 130 jobs and I should not like those to disappear because my constituency has lost too many jobs already since the Government have been in office.
  Some Conservative Members have said that the price of drink should be increased. I am not a drinker—I am not teetotal but I do not drink at work. I have been in the House for 22 years and the only drink that I have consumed here has been when I have had guests for meals, so I am not an ardent advocate for the cause of drink. If the Government wanted to do something sensible about drink, they would not price it out of the market but would have challenged and changed the unsatisfactory character of the British drinks industry. They will not do that, however, because they depend too much on the brewers' donations to fight elections on their behalf.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and the hon. Member for Keighley mentioned the Government's wonderful decision to promote green motor cars and have us all buying new cars that burn unleaded petrol. The problem is that vast numbers of my

  819
  constituents cannot afford to buy a new car and are stuck with their four-star-consuming cars. The assumption that millions of our constituents can join every fashion that the Government espouse is nonsense. My constituents cannot afford to change their cars or buy private medicine. They have to put up with run-down public services and an economy that has been badly brought down by a Government who have failed to perceive the real necessities of Britain's present economic condition, who have failed to secure investment to guarantee the future of young people, and who now believe that, by scattering a few bits of confetti here and there, Britain will feel that it is having a happy marriage.
  We are about to see a change. That has become necessary because the Government have failed the country. They have led and created an appalling and serious decline—the worst that this nation has experienced in recorded history. We talk heatedly about the problem of the enormous increase in crime. But the biggest crime of all has been the Government's incompetent failures and inadequate leadership in the past 13 years. The fact that the days of their domination are rapidly drawing to a close is much to be welcomed.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will not be surprised to hear that I do not share his feelings of doom and gloom about the condition of Britain today—quite the reverse.
  May I take up two points that the hon. Gentleman raised? First, what steps has his local authority taken to involve and encourage the development of housing for rent through housing associations? That has happened successfully in many parts of the country and I am surprised that it has not happened in his constituency. That may be due to the baleful influence of his local authority, which does not consider that housing associations are a way forward. Secondly, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's eloquent concern for those who have smoked all their lives and the higher prices that they may have to pay for tobacco, I thought that there was a consensus in the House that it was right to use the tax regime to discourage smoking. The health hazards of smoking are well-known, so the hon. Gentleman's argument does not stand up. He seemed to be strongly opposing the cross-party consensus on smoking and health.
  Mr. Hardy: I would not dissent from the view that we should discourage young people from smoking. My point was—at the risk of being a little chauvinist—that older men who may have smoked from the age of 14 and who are now in their 70s and 80s think that a pipe of baccy is rather important, and it would be cruel of the Government if they told a poor man that he had to stop smoking simply because he could no longer afford the tobacco on which he had come to depend.
  Mr. Wolfson: Be that as it may, I should like to speak about the Budget now.
  I welcome the general thrust of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement, and I fully support the Government's continuing central objective of defeating inflation and achieving a sustainable growth rate in the economy. This ingenious Budget is consistent with Government policies over many years. Not surprisingly,
  820
  my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) spoke strongly against our membership of the ERM, but I find such opposition to membership odd.
  For a long time, Governments of various political complexions have been too ready to pump up or to depress the economy for domestic reasons instead of paying attention to the underlying strength of the economy and the importance of a sustainable and consistent interest rate policy. The ERM certainly provides an additional limitation within which Governments have to work, but it is a necessary discipline if we are ever to make our industrial base stronger—[Interruption.] I am glad to see some assent to that view among Opposition Members.
  I welcome the way in which income tax has been cut; that will help the less well-off. More attention should be paid to them, not just because we are running up to an election but because they are the people who deserve special encouragement. They are the key to the future effectiveness of the British economy.
  Interestingly, the Budget has been unequivocally welcomed by Sir John Banham of the CBI, who has been critical of other aspects of Government policy in the past. He sees this Budget as contributing to the competitiveness of British industry.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is remarkable. I understand that a spokesman of the CBI in my part of the country, Cumbria, said on Radio Cumbria tonight that the Budget will do nothing for our area. Could it be that those on the ground have a different experience from that of those who sit in ivory towers?
  Mr. Wolfson: It is up to the CBI to decide whether its director general lives in an ivory tower. He may live in a tall tower, but it is not made of ivory. He is usually well in touch with the views of his members.
  I welcome the Budget, too, because it will encourage those working in the middle and skilled ranks of industry on whose performance at work, contributing constructively to the wealth of their companies, the economic health of the country depends. If that is effective and efficient, we have the wealth to pay for the social and education services that we wish to continue to increase and to improve.
  I welcome the approach to income tax because it is fundamental to Conservative philosophy. In contrast to all the Opposition parties, we believe that it is right that individuals and families should keep as much as they can of their own money to spend as they choose. As hon. Members have emphasised in the debate today, it is not an either/or choice. A low personal tax regime over at least eight out of the 12 years that the Conservatives have been in power has resulted in a growing economy, because it works with the grain of what people feel—that proper and natural desire to keep more of what they earn for themselves, which makes their efforts at work worth while to them and their families. A regime that does not pay attention to that is not working with the grain of the people and will not be successful.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that some of the lower-paid families who he claims may benefit slightly from the tax concessions may find themselves worse off because they receive means-tested benefits that are decreased by more than the amount that they gain from the tax changes?
  Mr. Wolfson: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
  Let me move on to the benefits that will accrue to pensioners, and the 5 million poorer pensioners who will gain from higher benefits. The fact that, for those on income support, a single person will receive an extra £2 and a married couple an extra £3 a week is a clear sign of the Government's concern for the less-well-off.
  Miss Widdecombe: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Wolfson: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is on the Front Bench to agree with my point.
  The changes to car tax will be of particular benefit to the hard-pressed car retailers in my constituency, but I would not have been pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor move away from the policy which the Government have been following for several years of bearing down on the benefit of a company car. I am delighted that he has not let up on the regular and steady movement towards making that a less clear benefit to individuals and has brought it more into line with other tax regimes. Nevertheless, he has found a perfectly straightforward and sensible way to give some stimulus to the car industry, which is a key factor in the health of the economy.
  In my experience, small businesses have suffered worst from the recession. Therefore, I strongly welcome the package of various measures for them announced today.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wolfson: No, I should like to continue.
  A number of hon. Members have expressed concern about the size of the PSBR. I have always been something of a Keynesian. I was less happy than some on the Conservative Benches when we followed a strict policy on borrowing during earlier recessions. In the present situation it is perfectly proper for Government borrowing to rise to deal with the budgetary problems caused by recession. Structurally, there is no budget deficit. The Government have taken a sensible way forward and, as a result of the good measures that are now in place and the competitive position of British industry, we shall be able to capitalise on that and return to growth at the end of the recession. Over the medium term we shall return to a balanced budget. During their term of office the Government have been able to repay a large part of the national debt. The borrowing requirement now is different from that which existed in 1979 when the Labour Government left office. The economy is set for recovery.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the hon. Gentleman replied to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) about the interaction between benefits and tax reductions, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), shook her head vigorously. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Minister to explain why she shook her head.
  Mr. Wolfson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I shall continue with my speech. My hon. Friend the Minister or her colleagues will have opportunities to speak.
  822
  As I said, the economy is clearly set for recovery. Inflation and interest rates are down. Companies and individuals have reduced their debt burden, and productivity and competitiveness have increased. There can be no argument on those matters. Our unit wage costs, which are the key to the future and to our competitiveness, are rising more slowly than those of our competitors. That means that real earnings are able to rise, and are doing so on a firm base. It would be the height of irresponsibility for a Labour Government to pursue policies that would lead to further inflation and result in a loss of competitiveness in British industry. That route would lead to the loss of many more jobs, because other countries would produce the goods and services that are bought by us and the rest of the world, resulting in a loss of jobs in Britain. That is the key reason for keeping inflation down. Without low inflation, we cannot look forward to success.
  The House should consider an issue that was not dealt with in the Budget, and I put up a marker to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his Conservative successors—we shall return to the issue of British shipping and the difficulties that our merchant fleet has faced over the past 10 years. It is the Government's policy to avoid special subsidies to parts of British industry. One request by the General Council of British Shipping is that it should be allowed capital allowances. I appreciate the Government's concern that if they were to make an exception of one industry and allowed capital allowances, that would open the floodgates to similar requests from many other industries that are in difficulty. I argue, however, that our shipping industry is a special case and different from other industries, and I believe that there is concern about it in all parties.
  The industry has a defence requirement that we cannot lightly set aside, and the need for action is critical. A merchant fleet that is strong and active in both ships and crew is essential for the economic and defence policies of the United Kingdom, and since last year the need for action to secure that has become more critical than ever. More well-known British companies are moving their ships or crewing arrangements offshore or they have gone out of shipping altogether. The United Kingdom-owned and registered fleet continues to contract and to age dramatically.
  The capacity of our ships has decreased by a further 7·5 per cent. and on average they are over 15 years old. The average age of our seafarers is also increasing alarmingly. The average age of officers is now more than 40. For a seafaring nation such as Britain, that is unacceptable.
  The Government are active in trying to solve the problem. Their strategy is to bring other countries, especially in the EEC, into line with us in not giving subsidies to shipping. I would argue that that is an unrealistic move because other countries tend to provide additional assistance to their shipping industries. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will refer to the matter in a future Budget and give it more favourable consideration than it has been given in the past.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Bus Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
9.27 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Last Thursday, the economic development committee of Cumbria county council decided to approach the Volvo corporation of Sweden, one of the world's largest commercial vehicle manufacturers, and to ask it to reconsider its decision to close the Workington bus plant.
The story of Volvo in Workington is, unfortunately, one of deceit, poor management, market miscalculations, asset and design stripping and media manipulation—certainly in recent weeks—culminating in a scorched-earth policy as Volvo desperately tears out jigs and other vital equipment from the plant in a desperate attempt to cart away the ashes of a previously profitable industry of strategic importance to the United Kingdom.
The story begins in the late 1960s when the Labour Government took the momentous decision to build a factory dedicated to the integrated manufacture of bus chassis and body production in Workington. The new bus plant prospered throughout the 1970s on the back of Labour's public transport policy. It was a fine example of good Labour planning, stemming import penetration and providing substantial employment for Workington.
The first real hurdle came in the early 1980s with the Government's deregulation policy, and cuts in fuel and bus grants. Bus plants at London's Park Royal, Lowestoft, Birmingham, Bristol and elsewhere in the United Kingdom closed as the industry contracted. All indicators pointed to Workington being the survivor plant. The Workington plant boasted two thirds of a million sq ft of prime modern industrial space, an up-to-date bus assembly production line, a competent design and development team and a healthy export order book.
The bus fleet aged as new operators came on the market with deregulation and the midi bus took off. Thereupon, the Government sold the plant to a management buy-out, which I supported, which set about the rationalisation of the Leyland Bus group with major redundancies.
The management buy-out considered midi bus production but concluded that cheap high wear and tear van chassis and body conversions were not the business of Workington whose expertise was a quality product on a bus-dedicated chassis manufactured to high specification at a competitive price.
The management buy-out led by M'Kinnon and Newbury turned the business round, if not altogether financially, so much so that the company which had been picked up on the cheap was sold for a sum in the region of £20 million, I am told, to Volvo in March 1988. The Leyland press release at the time of the sale said:
"The complementary product ranges of Leyland and Volvo will enable us to strengthen our sales and manufacturing base within the European Common Market and throughout the world. The new Leyland bus facility will enable the newly enlarged Volvo Bus Corporation to significantly increase the chassis production which in Sweden is at full capacity. 'Volvo has increased its investment in research and development by 50 per cent. since 1986', said Lars Erik Nilsson, president of Volvo Bus Corporation at the time. He said, 'We see this latest development, with Leyland engineers joining the team, as a further significant step in a 10-year development programme.' Jurgen Bahr, Volvo Bus marketing director at that time added, 'The greatest impact
824
will however be achieved abroad. I am proud we have been able to join forces with you. Our aim is to preserve the famous Leyland name, uphold the present workforce and strengthen Leyland Bus. I foresee we have the possibility together of becoming one of the biggest and best bus producers in the world. Our aim is together with you to enter new markets and to achieve deeper penetration in the markets in which we are already established.'"
Those were fine words from a company that knew that it was buying into a market reeling from deregulation and where losses would have to be carried for a few more years. It knew that it was buying a business struggling against recession, and such was its desperate need to buy it and secure greater market share that it was paying through the nose for it.
In retrospect, one can only speculate about Volvo's motives. It clearly wanted a potentially profitable spares business which it further reinforced with, in my view, a mistaken property acquisition in the midlands for distribution requirements.
I, along with my constituents, fell for the hype. We believed that that internationally renowned company, known for compassionate but firm management-worker participation, novel production methods, with its John Lewis Partnership reputation, could be trusted. We were badly let down and badly deceived.
Within 12 months rumours broke in the plant of a split between body and chassis production, subsequently to be confirmed by Volvo. It seemed that Volvo wanted out of body manufacture. Then a story broke of a tie-up with Renault in France, with buses being produced at Lyons. Volvo hot-footed it round to the House to reassure me that that rumour was unfounded. It said that the tie-up was a simple, logical market development. What I did not realise was that, at the same time that Volvo was reassuring me, it was busy closing down a project for the redesign of LYNX—a Leyland project.
The redesign of LYNX—a Workington product—included the use of an aluminium body and Volvoised parts. That decision sounded the death knell for LYNX and the last one came off the line in Workington the other day. The company pleaded corrosion problems as an excuse—a nonsense argument as all the problem vehicles had been repaired.
The future of LYNX then became subsumed in the design of a new product which was to be built in Sweden with a BIOR rear engine chassis. The reality is that it had designed a product on a chassis built for a coach with too many steps. It is for the market to decide whether that product will be successful.
There are those who believe that the replacement for LYNX will not be made in Sweden. The bus, currently being designed at Farringdon by a French, Swedish and British design team, may be made in France, in Lyons. Therefore, it will be of no benefit to Workington or to Farringdon. Farringdon's days are numbered. Volvo is no more interested in Farringdon than it is in Workington, and I hope that the workers are beginning to get the message.
The LYNX saga signalled the beginning of the end for Volvo in the United Kingdom. Following Volvo's dreadful miscalculations about the market for spares and the substantial losses throughout Volvo's bus operations in the United Kingdom and Sweden in 1991, Volvo Sweden started the big squeeze on Volvo's United Kingdom operations. Bill Russel, the sales marketing director in the United Kingdom, and no friend of Volvo Bus operations

825
in this country, and Sandie Glennie, the United Kingdom managing director, became obsessed with closing the plant in a desperate attempt to heed their master's bidding.
Crude book-keeping exercises were made to prove that Volvo was losing a fortune and to hide the incompetent decisions that the management had taken, in particular those on spares. Recriminations in Sweden led to clearing out the Volvo management team responsible for the original Workington acquisition, including the removal of Lars Erik Nilsson and Jurgen Bahr, who was transferred to Austria. A new group of hard-nosed Volvo truck men moved in, who with surgical precision began asset stripping Leyland Bus. Their first task was to reveal that a major miscalculation had been made on the redundancy costs of closing the Workington plant. Whereas Volvo UK had budgeted £800,000, the cost was nearly £6 million. When Volvo learned of that major error, it was extremely angry, but not half as angry as the Volvo workers in Workington who found themselves blamed for the losses on the B10 Mark 3 chassis, which had been a design disaster and blamed for the 96 buses which went to Strathclyde and had to be rebuilt. Workington was blamed for losses beyond its control.
Should there have even been losses and was the Workington plant given a real chance? Tracing the order book has been no mean feat, but the evidence is that orders have been diverted. The first inkling of hidden orders came with attempts by Volvo to hide an order for 200 midi buses and 70 Olympians from StageCoach of Perth. What it did not know was that the managing director of StageCoach, Mr. Souter, wrote to me to say that the buses were to be made in the Workington plant.
Volvo thereupon denied that the 200 B6Rs were ever intended for Workington, maintaining that they were to be built in Austria, at the Steyr plant. Obviously, Volvo had forgotten that we had laid down the jigs at the Workington plant for the chassis. As for the 70 Olympians, Volvo said that they were to be built in Workington. I can only say that that was news to Walter Alexanders at Falkirk, which had been told that the buses were to be bodied in Scotland—and which, indeed, was receiving the order to body them. The value of that order was over £4 million—the order for the whole bus, that is.
Then came news of a chassis order for Singapore—order value, £10 million. When I located the order in Singapore, Volvo was furious. It ranted, "That is our business—that is Sweden's business." The fact that Workington had historically supplied buses to Singapore was irrelevant to the firm. It was stealing our trade and our business.
In mid-February, I was told that London Regional Transport had started re-ordering, and that it had bought 40 Olympians—value £4 million—and signed up the order on 7 February. Meanwhile, I was busy ringing round the world, chasing up Volvo's business. Then what happens? A story breaks back in Workington, in the local newspaper—the Times and Star—that a local entrepreneur, Mr. Mike Rawcliffe, who had been working in Turkey, had been approached by a company and told that an order for 200 buses for Turkey was available to the Workington plant. Mr. Rawcliffe approached Volvo, and was told that, if there was any business going, it was business that would go to Sweden. The value was £5 million.
826
News then came in of a further tender from Singapore, for—I am told—between 214 and 218 buses. A deal on that has yet to be struck; I understand that negotiations are still in progress. The coup de grace came, however, when, through the good offices of the Foreign Office—the good old British Foreign Office—I was able to confirm that, at the same time as Volvo was closing the Workington plant, it was signing a deal with Jelcz of Poland to produce buses in a joint venture. Further orders may well be in the offing, from Hong Kong, Lothian Transport, South Yorkshire, Nottingham Caldaire and, no doubt, others.
Where are those buses to be built? Volvo tells us that they are to be built in Irvine—in the truck plant that is to be modified for bus production. Some, no doubt, will go to Irvine, but I wonder how many will end up going to Sweden.
The exercise in Workington has been to strip out the assets, to strip out the work force, the design teams, the jigs and the equipment, and to kick a Workington work force with 20 years' experience fairly and squarely in the teeth. One can only feel great anger.
The question is, were the Government aware of what was happening? The Minister kindly met me, and I took everything that he said at face value. What he told me, I believed; but let us see what Volvo said. According to a Volvo press release of 10 February,
"Sandie Glennie has had meetings with several senior government officials including Roger Freeman … Mr. Freeman has been kept fully informed of our plans, actions and the reasons behind them."
Is Volvo telling us that it told Ministers that it was intending to close Workington, and "screwdriver" assemble in Scotland with Volvo parts made in Sweden? Is it saying that the Volvo relationship with Renault—based, as it is, on an exchange of share capital—has been fully explained to Ministers? Perhaps it also told Ministers why the French Government are expressing such concern about Volvo's activities in Lyons, fanned by the Pro Cordia merger in Sweden. I understand that people in France are asking what is in it for the French now that Volvo has done a deal with Mitsubishi to produce cars at Born in Holland. Perhaps Volvo has handed to Ministers a document that was promised to me in Workington in the office of Rodney Swarbrick, the plant manager, and which set out the financial considerations behind its move to
Irvine. I waited eight weeks for that document which was promised to me by, I understand, the leading Swede in the whole affair. It never arrived. Only then did I begin to campaign publicly against Volvo.
Has Volvo handed to Ministers its own analysis of what productions would be required to maintain a viable chassis operation in Workington? Everyone knows that the figure of Volvo's PR man, Mr. Broadley, of 1,500 chassis per annum is a gross exaggeration of the truth. What are the real figures—not the Broadley figures—about the viability of that plant? I should like to know whether Volvo has discussed with the Government its programme for the Volvoisation of Leyland Bus products which was stated in internal Volvo documents available in Sweden? Ministers should be aware that the Olympian—one of the British products—is being Volvoised to accept Volvo componentry. It is Volvo's intention to switch nearly all Volvo Olympian products to Volvo engines and other components made in Sweden and to drop its purchase of Cummins and Gardner units as soon as possible. That

827
means that more jobs will be lost in the United Kingdom, on this occasion at Shotts, near Glasgow. The reality is that Volvo has stolen the Olympian product from Leyland Bus.
Ministers might do well to consider Volvo's relationship with Walter Alexander, the Scottish body builder, which will clearly be a beneficiary of this strategy. Walter Alexander recorded £700,000 after-tax losses in 1989, and £61,000 in 1990. Its turnover fell from £27·5 million to £19·3 million in the same period. Has Volvo handed to Walter Alexander on a plate a substantial turnover injection without something in return? Have shares changed hands at a corporate level or at any other level? I shall be following that aspect of the decision with great interest in the coming years.
On Friday 27 January 1992, in a reply to me, the Scottish Office was equivocal about matters that I think I should draw to the House's attention. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland
"what is the policy of Scottish Enterprise and local development agencies towards providing assistance to companies which have plants located in England and which they wish to relocate in Scotland."
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), replied:
"Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies would assess very carefully any proposals from companies wishing to relocate to Scotland before considering whether it would be appropriate to offer assistance. Any assistance provided would be within the terms of arrangements agreed by the Government and would take account of factors such as employment displacement."—[Official Report, 27 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 449.]
I do not think that the Government grasped what I was driving at. Is Volvo going to be given public money to close a plant that was built in the main with taxpayers' money in the late 1960s and early 1970s and to transfer its manufacturing operations to Scotland? The answer should be no because we are dealing with taxpayers' money.
Recently, Volvo has announced that Volvo Trucks (Great Britain) will effectively take over responsibility for what remains of Leyland Bus. Many in Workington ask the question, "Why now?" Was the secret Volvo agenda on acquisition in 1988 to close the plant and strip it out and boost the turnover of Volvo Bus Company's other plant? The answer to that question is known only in Gothenburg.
I should like to say a few words about deregulation and its impact on the market. I do not want to enter into an argument with the Minister tonight about deregulation. It has happened. It is a reality. In the words of the public service vehicle manufacturers section of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders:
"Inevitably, falling sales have had their effect on the bus makers. In 1980, there were over 3,000 heavy bus registrations but by 1990 these had fallen to just 1,000. 1991 is now the lowest market historically recorded at just over 600 units and an even lower market is forecast for 1992."
That may well be the case, but I am utterly convinced that there are stirrings in the market. I believe that StageCoach began the shift. It seems to me that the logic of that can follow only when one considers that it is not possible to run old buses for ever.
One of the problems of deregulation was that bus fleets aged as companies competed with the latest cowboy operators on a particular route. But the cowboy operators could run their buses for only so long. In the end the market has to move, irrespective of what party is in power. It might well be that a Labour Government would place
828
greater emphasis on public transport, but all Governments have to be committed to some extent to public transport and cetainly the use of buses.
I believe that there are stirrings in the market. The Volvo strategy should have been to maintain manufacturing in the United Kingdom with a heavy sell in export markets. The business is there and Volvo knows it because it is transferring the operation back to Sweden. It should have held the plant open pending restoration of bus orders in the United Kingdom at the end of what I call the bad trading conditions that have prevailed during the period of deregulation in the market. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), our spokesman on transport, came to west Cumbria the other day. He talked very much in those terms. It is fair to say that it is his view that if there is a change of Government the stirrings will inevitably boom into something more substantial, and quickly.
Of course, the danger is that if the Government do not react to the stirrings in the market and the United Kingdom does not have a capacity to produce buses, there will be an invasion of imports. I fear that in five or 10 years our streets will be covered with buses from Germany, France, Holland and Sweden. There will be Scania and Volvo buses and perhaps even buses from eastern Europe because we do not have the manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom. When Volvo took its decision to close the plant in my constituency, it was meddling in a plant that had a strategic role in bus supply in the United Kingdom. I believe that it did not have the right to close it.
Lastly, I want to ask Volvo a simple question from the Floor of the House of Commons. I understand that two presses for body panels have been removed from the Volvo plant in Workington in the past few days and that they have gone to somewhere in the midlands. I should like to know where they have gone, why they have gone, and what the people who have acquired them intend to do with them.
9.53 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) did me the courtesy of notifying me of the general thrust of his remarks, and I am grateful to him for that. It is also quite a rare privilege not necessarily to watch the clock—although I am sure that the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), would want me to do so—as attentively as one sometimes must during Adjournment debates. This is an important subject. The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of specific points about the Volvo Bus Company. He is an experienced Member of the House. He will not expect me necessarily to proceed by commenting on his specific allegations. Nevertheless, he has raised detailed questions with me as Minister and a number of general comments about the industry with which I shall deal.
I share the implicit assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's speech that buses play an important role in transportation, particularly in urban areas. There are 5 billion passenger journeys a year. That can be expressed most directly as the equivalent of two bus journeys a week by every man, woman and child in the country. Obviously, not everyone uses the bus, but, even expressed in that

829
simple way, the House will realise how important a thriving bus industry is to transportation needs, both business and leisure.
On Volvo, I must say that I share the hon. Gentleman's regret about the closure of the plant in Workington. It undoubtedly is a blow; there is no sense in disguising that. I understand that there are proposals to move the chassis assembly operations to Irvine in Scotland, with a £2·4 million investment at that plant to facilitate it.
The hon. Gentleman wonders what are the motives behind those moves. I shall not speculate; it is clearly not a matter on which a Minister of the Crown should comment. However, the hon. Gentleman referred to the initial investment by Volvo in the company, and I believe that he is right. The order of magnitude is £20 million—indeed, it may be a little higher. I am advised that if we take account of the losses that Volvo has incurred with the Workington plant, at a time, it must be said, of very depressed orders for the industry—1990–91 and perhaps for the first few weeks of 1992, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are stirrings and hopeful signs that the industry may be enjoying some recovery—Volvo has probably invested several times the initial purchase price in the Workington operation and its directly related facilities.
In other words, the original investment plus the losses represent a significant sum. It is not for me to estimate what they are; that is a matter for Volvo. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would find it interesting to press the company on the size of the investment commitment that it has made and may already have lost.
The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about conversations between Volvo and the Department. I recall a letter from Volvo after the decision had been taken, explaining that decision and indicating to the Department—to myself—what the plans were. In no sense can that be described as a detailed discussion of strategy or policy. Indeed, it would not have been appropriate for the company to have entered into such a discussion. It was sensible and courteous information to the Department as to what the plans were.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister confirming that he has not had a meeting?
Mr. Freeman: I have not had a specific bilateral meeting with the management of Volvo. The representatives of Volvo have sat on the bus working group which I chaired and which examined ways in which demand in the bus industry can be stimulated. I shall have a few words to say about that matter in a moment.
In the past, the hon. Gentleman has been concerned about assistance that may be provided for the 50 or so employees at Workington who may be offered jobs at Irvine. I have examined that matter, and I am advised that assistance may be offered by the company in order to facilitate a move to Scotland for those who are employed at the Workington plant. I very much hope that those jobs are saved and that those who wish to go are able to move.
The hon. Gentleman referred to deregulation. It is important, for the record, to repeat some of the essential facts about deregulation, although I shall certainly not take up the time of the House by getting into an argument about the pros and cons of deregulation. According to the
830
latest statistics that I have, in 1985, the bus share of total passenger transport was about 8 per cent., compared with 39 per cent. in 1955. Since the war there has been a gradual contraction in the share of the total transportation loads of the bus. There has been a dramatic contraction as the use of the car has increased.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
Mr. Freeman: The subsidy provided by local government was about £10 million in 1972 and had risen to £500 million in 1982. As a result of deregulation there has been an increase in the total bus mileage of 19 per cent. as the private sector has provided new types of vehicles.
I looked up the figures for the hon. Gentleman, who may be interested to know that, as a result of deregulation, since 1985–86, when there were 10,000 mini and midi buses on the roads, the number has risen to 20,000. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there seems to be a sign that, with the replacement cycle now running its course, the double-deck bus may be being ordered again.
Some 84 per cent. of bus services are run commercially and there has been a one third reduction in bus-operator costs per mile. Revenue support by local authorities has been cut in half in real terms. However, there continues to be a long-term, secular decline in bus patronage outside London. That reflects individuals' desire to use the car, a much more flexible mode of transport. It is the type of transport that people prefer as they become prosperous. I argue that deregulation has made the industry better able to respond to those pressures, but that trend needs to be reversed outside London for the good of the industry and bus manufacturers.
The hon. Gentleman referred to investment. There has undoubtedly been a sharp fall in investment in buses during the past few years. That has been caused by the recession and the immediate impact of deregulation as, in a more competitive market, margins are reduced and affect the cash flow available to companies. I believe that that is a temporary phenomenon. As the industry becomes more profitable and cash flow improves, bus operators become better able to place orders for new buses and replace the fleet. As a result of management buy-outs and the sale of the National Bus Company's subsidiaries, debt has passed on to companies' balance sheets, inhibiting them when they wish to acquire new vehicles. But that effect will run off over time, as the debt is paid.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is now evidence of new orders, and stirrings in the market. The bus manufacturing industry must be flexible in its response to that movement in terms of the type of buses that it produces. In the past, it may have produced midi and mini buses, but there may now be a need for double-deck buses. One of the great strengths of British Leyland—a great name in the bus manufacturing industry—has been the double-deck vehicle.
The Government would also like to see more low-floor buses, not only to help the disabled, but to facilitate quicker boarding by passengers at bus stops in city centres. In addition, manufacturers must make further progress with clean engines. I know that that is the responsibility of engine manufacturers, but standards for the construction and use of vehicles will become tighter and tighter over

831
time. When I visited the 1991 coach and bus exhibition in Birmingham, I saw evidence of exciting new bus and coach designs.
There has been a welcome increase in investment by London Transport—for which I am directly responsible, under my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Its programme totals £24 million this year, which will mean about 300 new vehicles. That is a significant improvement on last year, when the figure was £15 million. The refurbishment of the Routemaster will be welcomed by many in central London. There is clear evidence that London Transport is increasing its investment.
StageCoach has ordered 250, 9·8 m midi buses from Walter Alexander, with an option for a further 100, and 70 double-decker Leyland Olympians. Ensign Citybus has ordered 30 double-deckers to run on newly won contracted services in London, and Plymouth city recently purchased 20 new Mercedes midi buses as part of its replacement programme.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister agree that, despite the Government's hands-on approach, in so far as we are concerned with a strategic supplier—arguments about dual sourcing must be taken into account, for without it, and wider than dual sourcing, there is no real competition unless one includes imports—the Government ought to approach companies such as Volvo, not so much to check on them but to ask penetrating questions as to whether their market analysis is correct? Are they aware of all the considerations that both the Minister and I have in common, in terms of judging the market? Is there not a case for putting to such companies my arguments with which the Minister clearly has some sympathy?
Mr. Freeman: Yes, and I intend to seek from all manufacturers a fresh assessment of the outlook for United Kingdom bus and coach engine, chassis, and bodywork manufacturing in the light of recent developments. I look forward to discussing that aspect with Volvo also, because it has an important role to play. Those discussions will ensure not only that the Department is properly informed about the immediate future, but that it can share with manufacturers certain information. Our view is that the future of the bus and coach manufacturing industry will be best served not by a return to grants, but by helping the operators who are the industry's customers to develop in a climate of growing demand for their services.
On 16 December, I announced a package of measures that received bipartisan support—including that of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which also has an important role to play. Even though the bus companies operate at arm's length, metropolitan authorities are still the shareholders in some cases.
832
The five key measures are £10 million of resources to fund demonstration projects sponsored by local authorities, to show operators what can be done to make better use of buses by way of bus lanes, park-and-ride, traffic light priority, city centre priority, and so on. I have already announced the allocation of £3·5 million of that £10 million. The message to the industry when those in it read this important debate is that it should encourage local authorities to submit bids during the summer for the balance of that money, which will be disbursed for 1993–94. That includes guided buses and trolley buses because they are manufactured by the companies to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and trials of those buses will be helpful.
Secondly, we have published guidance for local authorities on keeping buses moving. Thirdly, we have announced the tightening of the way in which vehicle emissions are measured. There is to be a new instrumented test from 1 September for all buses. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know—I am speculating; I am not forecasting that it would be 20 per cent.—that it is not inconceivable that about 20 per cent. of buses on the road may fail the instrumented test when it comes into operation. That will have implications for the re-ordering of buses with new engines to meet the new, tougher demands. New European Community standards, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, come into operation in 1993, with a further tightening in 1996, for new buses. We have not yet reached a decision about making those standards retrospective for existing buses, but we have it under serious consideration.
Fourthly, I announced further resources for traffic commissioners to check the timetables of private sector operators to ensure that when they say they will run a service, they really run it and do not just cream off peak demand at the expense of other legitimate bus operators. Fifthly, there is research into better passenger information.
The Government believe that the United Kingdom bus and coach manufacturing industry needs to be profitable and thriving. We need a domestic manufacturing industry for buses and coaches in the same way as we need it for the railway manufacturing industry. The Government believe that the best way to help the United Kingdom industry, including Volvo, is to help promote the use of buses. But the operators and manufacturers must be innovative in design, flexible in responding to the needs of the market and confident in the long-term future of the industry.
I hope that this debate will have helped that process. When, in due course, I meet the manufacturers, I hope that I shall be able to share with them my confident belief in a market in which they will all be participating profitably.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Ten o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  French Guyana
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the letter from the Minister for Overseas Development of 18 February to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what is the outcome of the inquiries by the British embassy in Paris about injury to the rain forest in French Guyana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The French Ministry of the Environment has confirmed that the hydro-electric project at Petit Saut referred to in the New Scientist of 25 January 1992 has over some 10 years been the subject of extensive study, including a public inquiry, which looked at all the possible options for power generation. There had been a full environmental impact assessment undertaken on the project in which the Ministry of Environment had participated. The conclusion was that a hydro-electric dam was the best option. The scheme is intended to meet not only the electricity needs of the launch-site at Kourou, but also the wider need for electricity throughout French Guyana. I am writing to the hon. Member with further details provided by French officials.

WALES

  Health Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) on how many days consultants have been paid, or are expected to be paid, more than £1,000 per day in total payments for operations designed to reduce waiting lists in Gwent during the current financial year;

  (2) what is his estimate of the current weekly cost to the national health service of operations being undertaken on their behalf by the BUPA hospital at Pentwyn, near Newport.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Operational information of this kind is not held centrally. It is for district health authorities as commissioners of care to decide on and account for the benefits and costs of any health gain investment, including consultant fees and contracts with private sector health care providers.

  Assisted Area Status, Monmouth
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of those people who met him regarding assisted area status for Monmouth on 2 March; and if he will provide details of the bodies that they represent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 2 March, I met Cllr. W. J. Parker, Cllr. W. G. A. Hathaway, Cllr. J. Lewis and Mr. J. Martin 426
  representing Monmouth borough council County Cllr. C. White, Mr. P. Smith, town clerk of Monmouth town council and Mr. Roger Evans.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to announce his decision on assisted area status for the Monmouth travel-to-work area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am presently considering the issues put to me by local representatives at a meeting on 2 March and shall be responding in due course.

  Surgical Operations
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the number of operations carried out in Wales in 1978–79 and at the latest available date for(a) hip replacements, (b) cataracts and (c) open heart surgery.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information on hipH-Sreplacements and cataracts is given for 1978, 1979 and 1989 (the latest available year) in the following table:

  Principal operations in National Health Service hospitals in Wales1

  1978

  1979

  1989

  Hip replacements2

  1,372

  1,501

  2,407

  Cataracts

  2,232

  2,330

  5,019

  1 Figures may understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical details relating to patient discharge and deaths.

  2 Includes replacement of head of femur for 1989.

  Source: Hospital Activity Analysis.

  Information available centrally prior to 1980 on open heart operations is derived from "Hospital Activity Analysis" and is likely to understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical details relating to patient discharges and deaths. It is not directly comparable to later information. The numbers of open heart operations reported to have been carried out in national health service hospitals in Wales in 1978 and 1979 were 185 and 161 respectively. The latest available data, however, is provided by the centrally funded, regional cardiac centre at the University hospital of Wales and shows that the following number of operations were undertaken in 1991 and up to 29 February 1992.

  By pass

  Others

  Total

  Adult

  1991

  654

  70

  724

  11992

  144

  12

  156

  Paediatric2

  1991

  23

  14

  37

  11992

  9

  1

  10

  1 As at 29 February.

  2 Opened June 1991.

  Hospitals (Car Parking)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals in Wales which impose car parking charges.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for individual district health authorities and this information is not held centrally.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the numbers of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each county in Wales in 1992, to the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The numbers of confirmed cases of BSE in each county in Wales during 1992 to 28 February are shown in the table:

  County

  Number of confirmed cases

  Clwyd

  62

  Dyfed

  288

  Gwent

  31

  Gwynedd

  13

  Mid Glamorgan

  9

  Powys

  47

  South Glamorgan

  17

  West Glamorgan

  2

  Vehicle Watch Scheme
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the operation of the vehicle watch Wales scheme in Gwent.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None. Vehicle watch is a police initiative and it is for the Gwent constabulary to assess its effectiveness in Gwent.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to fund the vehicle watch Wales scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I have received representations from the Gwent police authority about the funding of vehicle watch and these are presently under consideration.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the implications of the MacSharry proposals for dairy farmers in Monmouthshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a number of representations from industry bodies in Wales and individual farmers, including some dairy producers from Monmouthshire, on the implications for the industry of the EC reform proposals.

  Senior Citizens (Security)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to ensure that senior citizens are provided with access to suitable home security equipment to ensure the security of their homes and allay fears of crime.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Assistance for installing home security equipment for senior citizens is already being provided under specific crime prevention initiatives; as part of wider measures to improve conditions for the elderly; and as part of the action being undertaken to renovate dwellings.

  Proposals for improving household security are eligible for consideration as crime prevention measures under the
  428
  urban programme; any local authority in Wales may submit a bid. Projects that have received support recently include the "Cardiff Safe and Secure" initiative, and improvements to the security of the communal areas of flats on the Sandfields estate in Port Talbot. Funds made available to victim support schemes have also on occasion been used to improve household security. In undertaking such projects the needs of elderly people, especially those living alone, attract high priority. Under the Welsh Office elderly initiative scheme some £315,000 is being made available over a three-year period to support a project in Mid Glamorgan that is designed to improve the safety and well-being of senior citizens living in their own homes. In addition to providing improved door and window locks, and door viewers, the project entails the provision of advice to the elderly on how to deal with bogus officials and confidence tricksters.

  Within the renovation grant arrangements those over 60 who receive income related benefits may be able to get help with home security installations in the form of minor works assistance.

  Crime Prevention Panels
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the funding of crime prevention panels in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Crime prevention panels are an excellent means by which local communities can become involved through voluntary activity in the fight against crime. They are encouraged to be self-sufficient and to seek local funding arrangements. Many crime prevention panels obtain private sponsorship from local businesses. Possible sources of funding will vary from area to area. Crime Concern has published a booklet entitled "Attracting Business Sponsorship" which provides detailed advice for panels on how to obtain sponsorship for crime prevention projects. Some panels have been successful in obtaining charity status and any panels wishing to do this can contact the Charity Commission who will advise them on the necessary procedures.

  Although central funding is not made available to support the panels themselves, individual projects that they propose may be eligible for consideration for support under the urban programme, provided that the bids are sponsored by the appropriate local authority.

HEALTH

  Kettering RHA
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the revenue allocation to the Kettering regional health authority for(a) 1982–83 and (b) 1992–93 expressed in (i) absolute terms and (ii) 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information about the funds allocated by regional health authorities to district health authorities is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Dr. Stuart Burgess, the chairman of Oxford regional health authority, for details.

  Mid Cheshire Hospital Trust
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are employed by Mid Cheshire hospitals trust; and what was the number previously employed by the health authority responsible for staffing the equivalent hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Richard F. Lawrence, the chairman of the Mid Cheshire hospitals trust for current nursing levels, and Sir Donald Wilson, the chairman of the Mersey regional health authority, who may be able to provide the historical data.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost per hour of consultants employed by Mid Cheshire hospitals trust; how many patients they see on average in one week's clinics; and what time is normally taken by consultants to visit NHS patients outside the hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Richard F. Lawrence, the chairman of the Mid Cheshire hospitals NHS trust, for details.

  Blood
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the average cost of collection per litre of blood from(a) recovered plasma and (b) plasmapheresis for each regional transfusion centre of the National Blood Transfusion Service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the regional cost of collecting plasma is not held centrally.

  Newmarket Hospital
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of(a) the consideration given by his Department to the report by management consultants commissioned by the Committee for the Retention of Newmarket Hospital, before his recent decision on the future of the hospital and (b) the consultations between the regional health authority and the Committee for the Retention of Newmarket Hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On 10 February 1992 I announced our decision to accept certain proposals put forward by West Suffolk health authority on the future of Newmarket hospital, subject to the health authority agreeing to undertake a further examination of the scope for provision of day surgery, minor accident and maternity services in the new hospital proposed for Newmarket.

  In reaching this decision full consideration was given to the report commissioned by the Committee for the Retention of Newmarket Hospital. Several issues were thoroughly analysed including patient safety, medical staffing, size of catchment area, patient activity levels and effective use of resources.

  The Committee for the Retention of Newmarket Hospital met East Anglian regional health authority members on 24 April 1991 to present their proposals for the future of the hospital. Additionally, the region's finance manager met the committee's management consultants, J. J. Thompson and Partners, on 29 October 1991 to go through their report.

  Contact Lenses
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances contact lenses can be obtained under the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All general opthalmic services patients may put any optical voucher to which they are entitled towards the cost of contact lenses. Under the hospital eye service patients who require contact lenses for clinical reasons will, if they are entitled to an optical voucher, get the lenses free; other patients can take advantage of the maximum charging arrangements.

  Strategy and Objectives
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to publish the goal strategy and objectives in the national health service management executive and the Department of Health priorities and key challenges for 1992–93 and beyond.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have agreed a statement of the aims, goals and priorities for my Department for 1992–93 and the following three years. It covers the whole range of the Department's work relating to health services, health promotion, public health, social services, EC and other international issues, and internal management. It includes our specific priorities for the NHS management executive, which are taken forward in more detail in the management executive's statement, "The Goal and Strategies of the Chief Executive and the Management Executive of the NHS and their Objectives for 1992–93", approved by the NHS policy board. Copies of both statements have been placed in the Library.

  Nurse Education
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support trust hospitals give to post-registration nurse education.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Post-registration training which is designed to provide nurses and midwives with specific professional skills is to be funded from a separate and protected budget held at regional level. Employers are expected to bear the cost of other post-registration nurse education and training because they are in the best position to determine need. Trusts are expected to play their full part in training the staff they employ, in the same way as other employers.

  Mental Handicap Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the mental handicap hospitals planned for closure over the next five years and the district health authority in which each is situated.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for regional and district health authorities and the hospitals themselves. Government policies on the treatment of people with learning disabilities in the community are well known and understood.

  Sight Test Fees
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the gross cost of abolishing sight test fees for all people over 60 years old.
  431
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS sight tests are already free to approximately 40 per cent. of the population, including those pensioners who qualify on medical or income grounds. The estimated additional cost at 1991–92 prices of extending eligibility to all those aged 60 and over would be between £30 million and £35 million in a full year.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated privately under the waiting list initiative from(a) Leeds united hospital trust and (b) the Bradford hospitals NHS trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Anthony Clegg, the chairman of the United Leeds hospitals trust and Mr. Rodney Walker, the chairman of the Bradford hospitals NHS trust, for details.

  National Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total level of expenditure on pay for general and senior managers in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: The grades of general and senior managers were introduced as part of the new arrangements recommended by the Griffiths report in 1983. The cost of staff employed in general management grades is shown in the table:

  England (HCHS) General managers

  £ million (cash)

  Regional/District general managers

  Unit/other general managers

  1985–86

  6·8

  4·1

  1986–87

  8·6

  17·1

  1987–88

  9·0

  20·7

  Vaccination and immunisation (2 year uptake2)

  Year

  Diphtheria

  Tetanus

  Pertussis

  Polio

  Measles

  1Mumps and Rubella

  South Derbyshire

  Number immunised

  1982

  6,333

  6,339

  5,042

  6,342

  5,042

  —

  Uptake rate

  (90)

  (90)

  (63)

  (91)

  (74)

  —

  1990–91

  6,486

  6,486

  6,123

  6,494

  6,332

  6,321

  (91)

  (91)

  (86)

  (92)

  (89)

  (89)

  Trent Region

  Number immunized

  1982

  52,833

  52,925

  34,880

  52,594

  36,904

  —

  Uptake rate

  (88)

  (88)

  (58)

  (88)

  (62)

  —

  1990–91

  56,421

  56,429

  52,740

  56,303

  54,036

  53,797

  (91)

  (91)

  (85)

  (91)

  (87)

  (87)

  Source: SBL 607.KC51. DH Statistics and Management Information (SMI2B), March 1992.

  1 Data was not collected before 1988–89.

  2 The two year uptake rate is the percentage of children immunised by their second birthday.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current negotiations by the United Nations Secretary-General on a united Cyprus and on the role Britain has played since 1979.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Representatives of the UN Secretary-General have recently ocmpleted another round of talks
  432

  Regional/district general managers

  Unit/other general managers

  1988–89

  9·7

  20·8

  1989–90

  10·7

  21·3

  1990–91

  12·8

  25·3

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1990–91 are as yet subject to audit.

  2. The figures are gross pay costs including employer's national insurance and superannuation contributions.

  Source: Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England together with those of the special health authorities for the London post-graduate teaching hospitals.

  Other senior management costs were not separately identified until 1989–90. The cost of staff employed in senior management grades in 1989–90 was £126·9 million and in 1990–91 was £213·3 million.

  Staff employed in general and senior management grades generally hold posts which were previously classified under administrative and clerical, works staff or senior nursing grades.

  Immunisations
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give figures for the number of immunisations carried out in South Derbyshire district and Trent region in 1982 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 6 March 1992]: The numbers of two-year-olds vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, measles, mumps and rubella in South Derbyshire and Trent in 1982 and 1990–91 are given in the table.

  The uptake rates are also given to allow comparisons between the years.

  with all parties in the region. We have throughout given full and active support to the UN Secretary-General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement.

  Turkey (Miners)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what offers of assistance and expertise have been made to the Turkish Government in the search for the trapped coal miners near Zonguldak.
  433
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Government were not approached by the Turkish authorities for help in dealing with the disaster at Kozlu coal mine in Zonguldak on 5 March.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Denatured Wine
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 29, for what reasons Her Majesty's Customs and Excise did not charge excise duty on denatured wine products for culinary uses before 1 January, but did do so from that date onwards.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The excise duty liability of imported wine and made-wine, including denatured wine and made-wine, has not changed in recent years. Customs regret that an importer was incorrectly advised that if wine denatured with 2 per cent. salt was to be used as an ingredient in food manufacture it would not be liable to excise duty at importation. The correct liability has been applied since February 1991.

  Taxation
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what higher rate of income tax would be necessary to raise the same revenue as would be raised by a higher rate of 50 per cent. and removing the ceiling on national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Maude
  At 1992–93 levels of income and assuming statutory indexation of allowances and thresholds, a higher rate of 59 per cent. would raise an approximately equivalent amount of revenue in a full year.

  Taxation (Commercial Properties)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he employs to determine whether a property with a paying guest or guests should be classified as a commercial property for Inland Revenue purposes.

  Mr. Maude
  Unless a paying guest or guests are using the property as their main or sole residence as defined in the Local Government and Finance Act 1988, any short-stay accommodation in excess of six bed spaces or which is not ancillary to the owners own domestic use will be treated as non-domestic property for uniform business rate purposes.

  Share Ownership
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will make a statement on the level of share ownership in Great Britain.

  Mr. Maude
  A joint Treasury/ProShare survey carried out in January and February of this year shows that almost 10 million people, or more than 22 per cent. of the adult population in Great Britain, now own shares compared with 7 per cent. in 1979. I am placing copies of the survey report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on tax revenues(a) in the first year and (b) in a full year, assuming this is introduced in 1992–93 of the introduction of a 50 per cent. top rate of income tax on annual taxable incomes of (i) £31,555, (ii) £33,555, (iii) £36,555, (iv) £39,555 and (v) £42,555, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: The information is in the table.

  Estimated yield in 1992–93 from a 50 per cent. tax rate

  Threshold of taxable income at which 50 per cent. rate is charged £

  Yield in a full year1 at 1992–93 levels of income (£ million)

  31,555

  2,550

  33,555

  2,370

  36,555

  2,140

  39,555

  1,950

  42,555

  1,790

  1 About half of the yield would be collected in the first year.

  These estimates do not allow for any behavioural effect that might result from such changes to the tax system and do not include capital gains tax.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the table in his answer of 12 June 1991,Official Report, columns 547–50, on taxes and benefits, to include information on 1989.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: The information is as follows:

  Taxes and benefits as percentage of income by quintile groups of households1, 1989

  per cent.

  RETIRED HOUSEHOLDS

  Cash benefits as percentages of gross income

  Bottom quintile group

  88

  2nd quintile group

  84

  3rd quintile group

  78

  4th quintile group

  54

  Top quintile group

  23

  Average over all groups

  51

  Income tax, NIC, rates and community charge as percentages of gross income

  Bottom quintile group

  17

  2nd quintile group

  12

  3rd quintile group

  12

  4th quintile group

  14

  Top quintile group

  20

  Average over all groups

  17

  Indirect taxes as percentages of unadjusted disposable income

  Bottom quintile group

  27

  2nd quintile group

  20

  3rd quintile group

  19

  4th quintile group

  21

  Top quintile group

  17

  Average over all groups

  20

  Benefits in kind as percentages of final income

  Bottom quintile group

  44

  2nd quintile group

  34

  3rd quintile group

  31

  435

  per cent.

  4th quintile group

  24

  Top quintile group

  13

  Average over all groups

  25

  NON-RETIRED HOUSEHOLDS

  Cash benefits as percentages of gross income

  Bottom quintile group

  49

  2nd quintile group

  14

  3rd quintile group

  7

  4th quintile group

  3

  Top quintile group

  1

  Average over all groups

  8

  Income tax, NIC, rates and community charge as percentages of gross income

  Bottom quintile group

  15

  2nd quintile group

  19

  3rd quintile group

  20

  4th quintile group

  22

  Top quintile group

  22

  Average over all groups

  21

  Indirect taxes as percentages of unadjusted disposable income

  Bottom quintile group

  30

  2nd quintile group

  24

  3rd quintile group

  22

  4th quintile group

  20

  Top quintile group

  16

  Average over all groups

  20

  Benefits in kind as percentages of final income

  Bottom quintile group

  45

  2nd quintile group

  25

  3rd quintile group

  17

  4th quintile group

  11

  Top quintile group

  5

  Average over all groups

  16

  1 Ranked by equivalised disposable income.

  Source: CSO, from Family Expenditure Survey.

  Unearned Income
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue raised from a 9 per cent. charge on unearned income for those below state retirement age with a(a) £3,000 exemption, (b) £3,500 exemption, (c) £4,000 exemption, (d) £4,500 exemption and (e) £5,000 exemption, giving both full year and first year revenues for 1991–92 and 1992–93, specifying the numbers affected in each case, for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: Latest estimates for 1991–92 are as follows:

  Threshold £

  Yield in a full year £ million

  Numbers affected Thousands

  3,000

  870

  1,130

  3,500

  820

  970

  4,000

  780

  840

  4,500

  750

  750

  5,000

  720

  660

  The amount of revenue collected in the first year would depend on the administrative arrangements for collecting such a charge. The yield in 1992–93 would depend on the levels of investment income for that year.

  These estimates take no account of any possible behavioural changes following the introduction of such a charge.

  Nicholas Young Fraud
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will institute proceedings, pursuant to section 48 of the Banking Act 1987, against Mr. Bengt Bangstad arising from the Nicholas Young Ponzi fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no powers to institute proceedings under section 48 of the Banking Act 1987. That is a matter for the Bank of England.

THE ARTS

  Libraries
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give(a) the total number of books lent by and (b) the total amount of public spending on the library service in England and Wales, for each year since 1962.

  Mr. Renton
  Reliable and comparable information for England and Wales is available only from 1966–67 to 1989–90:

  Public library service

  England and Wales

  Book issues and expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Year

  Book issues

  Cash

  Real terms 1991–92 prices

  Million

  £ million

  £ million

  1989–90

  501

  553

  642

  1988–89

  480

  505

  624·5

  1987–88

  525

  450

  596·5

  1986–87

  524

  432

  604

  1985–86

  566

  404

  582·5

  1984–85

  551

  377·5

  575

  1983–84

  576

  361·5

  578

  1982–83

  574

  338

  565

  1981–82

  578

  310

  556

  1980–81

  579

  276

  542·5

  1979–80

  582

  239

  556·5

  1978–79

  570

  204·5

  555

  1977–78

  566

  184·5

  555

  1976–77

  554

  168

  575

  1975–76

  571

  149

  578

  1974–75

  547

  113

  550

  1973–74

  —

  87·5

  551

  1972–73

  —

  76·5

  478·9

  1971–72

  579

  66·5

  448·9

  1970–71

  562

  57

  418·2

  1969–70

  594

  49

  392

  1968–69

  585

  45

  377

  1967–68

  559

  41·5

  364·5

  1966–67

  533

  37

  335·5

  Sources: Municipal Year Book.

  Public Library Statistics, published by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants and in later years the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Library and Information Service Council annual report.

ENERGY

  Electricity
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from pottery manufacturers about the effects of the regulatory regime established by the Electricity Act 1989 as it affects contract users.
  437
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To date my Department has received one representation—from a pottery manufacturer —about electricity contracts.

  British Coal
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on British Coal's external financing limit for 1991–92.

  Mr. Wakeham
  British Coal's deep-mine and opencast operations have achieved much in the present financial year and the corporation is likely to record a substantial profit after interest for the second year running. Cost cutting through restructuring has, however, been making calls on British Coal's cash resources in the short-term and it has been agreed that the corporation's external financing limit for 1991–92 should be raised from £542 million to £622 million to provide more financial headroom. This increase will be funded out of the existing vote provision for the current financial year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Visits
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has plans to make an official visit to Havering Atte Bower.

  The Prime Minister
  I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Essex among them.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister whether a successor has been chosen to Lord Justice Lloyd as commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Justice Lloyd's second term of appointment expires on 10 April. I am most grateful for his work in carrying out his duties as commissioner. I have decided to appoint Lord Justice Bingham as commissioner for a period of three years with effect from 11 April 1992.

ENVIRONMENT

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The only part of my Department yet to conduct a detailed review of pay and grading structures is the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. That study was assisted by MCP Management Consultants.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authority associations or others, concerning exempting from the community charge those currently qualified to pay 20 per cent. of the full payment.
  438
  Mr. Key
  Few local authorities have proposed exempting all people currently liable for 20 per cent. of the community charge. However, a number of authorities and others have supported bringing forward the principle of 100 per cent. council tax benefit to the last year of the comunity charge.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the cost for the collection of community charge for those on the minimum 20 per cent. rate.

  Mr. Key
  No separate information is held on collection of the community charge from those making the minimum 20 per cent. contribution. However, the average cost of collecting the community charge from all charge payers is about £14 compared to an average 20 per cent. payment of £45.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage figure of reliability for sprinkler systems he took into account when establishing the parameters for minimum periods of fire resistance in approved document B (fire safety) approved for the purposes of the Building Regulations 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  Estimates of the reliability of sprinkler systems vary, and no one figure was used as the basis of the new guidance. However, the opinion of experts at the fire research station, and of the Fire Advisory Panel which the Department consulted while developing the guidance, was that a fire resistance reduction could be allowed over a wider range of cases than hitherto when a sprinkler system was installed.

  Stop Notices
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) of 6 November 1991,Official Report, columns 160–61, when the appropriate ministerial order will be made to implement section 9 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 dealing with stop notices.

  Sir George Young
  My written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor),Official Report, 16 December 1991, columns 68–69, announced that the main enforcement provisions in part I of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 (including section 9) would be brought into force on 2 January this year. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) Order 1991 (SI 1991 No. 2905 (C90)) implemented those provisions accordingly.

  Shopping Centres
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish a working group including English Heritage, the Civic Trust and the Royal Institute of Town Planning to establish ways in which town and city shopping centres may achieve security from crime combined with good visual and aesthetic quality.

  Mr. Yeo
  The type of security measures required to protect shops and the visual and aesthetic qualities which
  439
  would be appropriate are best considered locally, informed by local circumstance and need. The Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations, which came into force on 10 February, require local planning authorities to have regard to crime prevention when preparing development plans. Furthermore, my Department's circulars 1/84—issued jointly with the Home Office—and 22/88 provide guidance on the role of planning crime prevention. Local planning authorities should use this advice to establish local policies which combine the encouragement of effective security and good design.

  Archive Services
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about county archive services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We have received a number of letters about local government restructuring and county archive services. The Local Government Commission to be established under the Local Government Act 1992 will review the structure of local government in the shire counties in England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to direct the commission to have regard to guidance which he will issue about the policy considerations which should underlie its reviews. This guidance will draw the commission's attention to the importance of satisfactory arrangements for existing archive services. Decisions about local government structure and arrangements for services will be for Parliament.

  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to the Liverpool, Riverside constituency.

  Mr. Portillo
  I visited the Liverpool Riverside constituency on 6 January 1992. At the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Hall I announced urban programme support of £3 million towards the hall's refurbishment along with city grant support of £4·5 million towards an office development at Exchange buildings. Later I visited the garden festival site to see work in progress on leisure developments, particularly at the Festival hall. I then met representatives of the Eldonian Development Trust.

  I also visited the constituency on 6 March for a number of official engagements including the signing of Liverpool's city challenge implementation agreement, the launch of a civil service access training initiative for ethnic minorities in Liverpool, and a tour of the Duke street/Bold street areas with potential developers.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities awarded a higher standard spending assessment for 1992–93 per unit of population than the metropolitan borough of Rotherham together with their standard spending assessments per unit of population.

  Mr. Key
  The table shows 1992–93 standard spending assessments for those authorities with a higher amount per head of resident population than Rotherham.
  440

  Local authorities with a higher standard spending assessment per head of resident population than the metropolitan borough of Rotherham for 1992–93

  Local authority

  1992–93 SSA (£/head)

  City of London

  11,266

  Tower Hamlets

  1,445

  Hackney

  1,400

  Lambeth

  1,347

  Isles of Scilly

  1,321

  Westminster

  1,272

  Newham

  1,255

  Islington

  1,239

  Haringey

  1,154

  Southwark

  1,151

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,151

  Brent

  1,077

  Camden

  1,057

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,043

  Lewisham

  1,035

  Wandsworth

  1,017

  Waltham Forest

  978

  Manchester

  963

  Liverpool

  937

  Greenwich

  937

  Birmingham

  910

  Ealing

  904

  Knowsley

  897

  Hounslow

  863

  Bradford

  850

  Wolverhampton

  849

  Sandwell

  806

  Enfield

  795

  Oldham

  793

  Barking and Dagenham

  789

  Salford

  779

  Croydon

  775

  Coventry

  775

  South Tyneside

  771

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  766

  Cleveland

  764

  Harrow

  761

  Rochdale

  757

  Merton

  750

  Sunderland

  743

  Redbridge

  739

  Kirklees

  735

  Wirral

  734

  Bolton

  734

  North Tyneside

  725

  Walsall

  724

  Gateshead

  723

  St. Helens

  717

  Tameside

  708

  Hillingdon

  705

  Calderdale

  699

  Leeds

  699

  Barnet

  696

  Doncaster

  694

  Trafford

  693

  Sheffield

  692

  Bexley

  689

  Sutton

  686

  Kingston upon Thames

  684

  Rotherham

  683

  English Heritage
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made to date, with regard to the relocation of English Heritage to Nottingham; and what is the timetable for the various stages of the move, and the expected time and date for its completion.
  441
  Mr. Yeo
  English Heritage is to relocate its headquarters to Nottingham in 1994. Two city centre sites are being examined in detail before a choice of site is made and submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.

  East Thames Corridor
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the report of his working party on the east Thames corridor.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend has appointed consultants, Llewelyn-Davies Planning, to consider the potential of the East Thames Corridor for development and environmental enhancement. It is anticipated that their study will be completed by June 1992. We expect that the report of the study will be published in due course.

  Housing Stock, Rochester
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the final report of the district auditor investigating the sale of housing stock of Rochester-upon-Medway city council to the Medway Housing Society will be available; and if he will indicate the reasons for the delay.

  Sir George Young
  The district auditor has been carrying out an investigation into the sale by Rochester upon Medway city council of its housing stock to Medway Housing Society in July 1990. The auditor is currently completing the consultation process in accordance with the statutory audit code of practice. He hope to issue his public interest report to the council shortly.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the provisional allocations of the derelict land grant for 1992–93 in England and Wales in descending order according to the size of the grant, within the following categories(a) shire county councils, (b) metropolitan district councils, (c) other district councils, (d) planning boards and (e) others.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested for England is as shown in the table. Derelict land reclamation in Wales is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Provisional Allocations of Derelict Land Grant—1992–93 (a) Shire County Councils

  Region and Council

  Amount £

  EM Nottinghamshire

  2,631,000

  EM Derbyshire

  2,597,000

  NW Cheshire

  2,000,000

  NR Northumberland

  1,700,000

  NR Durham

  1,500,000

  WM Shropshire

  1,257,000

  EM Leicestershire

  873,000

  WM Staffordshire

  601,000

  SW Cornwall

  400,000

  NW Lancashire

  300,000

  NR Cleveland

  120,000

  WM Warwickshire

  29,000

  Total

  14,008,000

  442

  (b) Metropolitan District Councils

  Region and council

  Amount (£)

  YH Rotherham

  5,149,396

  WM Walsall

  3,838,000

  WM Dudley

  2,780,000

  NW Salford

  2,680,000

  YH Doncaster

  2,150,783

  YH Calderdale

  2,000,000

  WM Wolverhampton

  1,981,000

  NR Gateshead

  1,700,000

  NR Sunderland

  1,700,000

  YH Barnsley

  1,646,964

  NW Wigan

  1,500,000

  YH Wakefield

  1,498,000

  MT Liverpool

  1,450,000

  WM Sandwell

  1,426,000

  NW Oldham

  1,250,000

  WM Birmingham

  1,224,000

  MT Sefton

  1,200,000

  NW Tamcside

  1,200,000

  NW Manchester

  1,200,000

  YH Kirklecs

  980,000

  MT St. Helens

  975,000

  NR North Tyneside

  750,000

  NW Bolton

  660,000

  NW Bury

  660,000

  MT Knowsley

  650,000

  YH Sheffield

  559,929

  NW Stockport

  500,000

  NR Newcastle upon Tyne

  450,000

  MT Wirral

  400,000

  YH Bradford

  396,000

  NW Rochdale

  310,000

  YH Leeds

  250,000

  NR South Tyneside

  200,000

  NW Trafford

  150,000

  LR Tower Hamlets

  110,000

  LR Barking and Dagenham

  70,000

  LR Newham

  55,838

  LR Lewisham

  51,475

  LR Waltham Forest

  47,157

  LR Greenwich

  35,000

  WM Coventry

  25,000

  Total

  45,858,542

  (c) Other District Councils

  Region and Council

  Amount(£)

  YH Glandford

  3,000,000

  NW Barrow-in-Furness

  2,000,000

  SW Kerrier

  2,000,000

  EM Corby

  1,927,000

  MT Ellesmere Port and Neston

  1,650,000

  WM Newcastle-under-Lyme

  1,614,000

  MT Halton

  1,275,000

  EM Mansfield

  1,168,000

  EM Erewash

  1,000,000

  NW Carlisle

  900,000

  NW Copeland

  900,000

  WM The Wrekin

  773,000

  NR Darlington

  700,000

  WM Stoke-on-Trent

  695,000

  NW Bury

  660,000

  EM Nottingham

  600,000

  NR Middlesbrough

  550,000

  SW Bath

  530,000

  WM Cannock Chase

  511,000

  NR Stockton-on-Tees

  500,000

  NR Hartlepool

  500,000

  NW Lancaster

  500,000

  NR Wear Valley

  350,000

  EM Lincoln

  334,000

  NR Easington

  325,000

  NW Preston

  300,000

  EM Derbyshire Dales

  260,000

  443

  Region and Council

  Amount £

  NR Langbaurgh

  250,000

  SW Carrick

  250,000

  SW Restormel

  250,000

  EM Amber Valley

  235,000

  EM North East Derbyshire

  204,000

  NW Pendle

  200,000

  NW Blackburn

  200,000

  NW West Lancashire

  200,000

  NW Hyndburn

  200,000

  NW Burnley

  200,000

  NW Ribble Valley

  200,000

  NW Vale Royal

  200,000

  NW Warrington

  200,000

  NW Chorley

  200,000

  NR Sedgefield

  160,000

  NW Macclesfield

  150,000

  YH Boothferry

  140,000

  NR Derwentside

  135,000

  NW Eden

  130,000

  EM Chesterfield

  122,000

  YH Great Grimsby

  106,383

  EM Leicester

  106,000

  WM Lichfield

  103,000

  NR Blyth Valley

  100,000

  NW Congleton

  100,000

  NW South Lakeland

  100,000

  SW Caradon

  100,000

  SW Plymouth

  100,000

  EM Bolsover

  80,000

  EM Newark and Sherwood

  77,000

  YH Kingston upon Hull

  62,386

  NW Chester

  60,000

  SW Penwith

  60,000

  WM Staffordshire Moorlands

  51,000

  EM Daventry

  50,000

  NW Crewe and Nantwich

  50,000

  YH Richmondshirc

  40,000

  WM Oswestry

  33,000

  EM Gedling

  27,000

  EM Derby

  25,000

  EM Rushcliffe

  25,000

  EM Ashfield

  24,000

  SW North Cornwall

  20,000

  SW Thamesdown

  20,000

  NW Blackpool

  18,000

  NR Durham

  10,000

  YH York

  10,000

  SW Torbay

  8,000

  EM South Derbyshire

  7,000

  WM Tamworth

  6,000

  EM North West Leicestershire

  5,000

  SW Woodspring

  1,200

  WM South Staffordshire

  1,000

  SW Teignbridge

  400

  Total

  30,934,369

  (d) Planning Boards

  Region/Board

  Amount £

  EM Peak National Park Joint Planning Board

  71,000

  YH North York Moors National Park

  10,060

  Total

  81,060

  (e) Others

  Provisional allocations are not made other than to local authorities and planning boards.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government have completed their consultations on the proposed new expenditure limits for grant eligible reinstatement works under the housing defects legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I am most grateful to all those who have responded to our consultation proposals; we have, as a result, been able to settle the final figures for each designated house type. Our suggestion that the limits should be revised within a structure of six main cost bands was widely welcomed, as indeed were most of the individual proposals. Some concern was expressed as to whether £32,000 would be sufficient for repairs to Airey and Schindler and Hawksley SGS houses, and we have therefore decided instead to place these types within the £36,000 cost band.

  The new limits will therefore be as follows:

  New limit house type

  Present limit £

  £20,000

  Cornish unit (1 storey PRC)

  17,000

  Gregory

  17,000

  Unity and Butterley (1 storey PRC)

  17,000

  £24,000

  Dorran (1 storey PRC)

  17,000

  Myton (1 storey PRC)

  17,000

  Newland (1 storey PRC)

  17,000

  Tarran (1 storey PRC)

  17,000

  Wessex (1 storey PRC)

  17,000

  £28,000

  Cornish unit (2 storey PRC)

  23,000

  Stent

  23,000

  Unity and Butterley (2 storey PRC)

  23,000

  £32,000

  Boswell

  27,000

  Dorran (2 storey PRC)

  27,000

  Dyke

  27,000

  Myton (2 storey PRC)

  27,000

  Newland (2 storey PRC)

  27,000

  Stonecrete

  27,000

  Tarran (2 storey PRC)

  27,000

  Underdown

  27,000

  Waller

  27,000

  Wates

  27,000

  Winget

  27,000

  £36,000

  Airey

  27,000

  Schindler and Hawksley SGS

  27,000

  Smith

  27,000

  £40,000

  Boot Pier and Panel

  31,000

  Orlit

  31,000

  Parkinson

  31,000

  Reema Hollow Panel

  31,000

  Wessex (2 storey PRC)

  31,000

  Woolaway

  31,000

  £14,000

  All locally designated types

  14,000

  These new limits should enable local authorities themselves to decide the appropriate level of grant, in the majority of cases, without further reference to the Department.
  445
  The parliamentary order implementing these new limits has now been made by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales and, provided that Parliament is content, will come into operation on Tuesday 31 March. My officials will be writing to local authorities, home owners groups, repairers and the professional bodies, to make sure that all those with an interest are fully aware of all the changes.

  Big Ben
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what maintenance work is planned on Big Ben this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The mechanism of the great clock is subject to regular expert inspections and routine maintenance. Included in this year's programme is the replacement of the chime main wheel. The work is expected to start in April and to last about eight weeks. During the period the quarter hour chimes will be silent. The clock itself and the hour strike will not be affected.

  Milton Keynes
  Mr. Benyon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what use he intends to make of his sanction powers under part III of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 in relation to Milton Keynes borough council.

  Mr. Key
  On 15 October 1991, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State served a notice under section 19A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 on Milton Keynes borough council, setting out his view that in 1989–90 the authority has failed to achieve the required rate of return in carrying out the work described in section 10(2)(d) of the Act—maintenance work, other than such works of maintenance in connection with highways or the maintenance of a sewer.

  He has now considered the response which the authority has made to the section 19A notice, and which has acknowledged the failure to achieve the rate of return in 1989–90 and also for 1990–91. The authority has also indicated that performance in the current financial year may culminate in losses between £100,000 and £150,000.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has concluded that the record of financial failure by the authority's direct service organisation is such as to justify further use of his sanction powers. He has therefore today made a direction under section 19B of the 1980 Act, prohibiting the authority from carrying out the work described in section 10(2)(d) of the Act after 1 October 1992, with the exception of emergency work.

  London Borough of Haringey
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet considered the London borough of Haringey's response to the notice served on the authority on 12 November 1991 under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the response which the London borough of Haringey has made to the notice served on the authority on 12 November 1991, and has 446
  today given the authority a direction under section 14 of the 1988 Act. The effect of the direction is that after 1 January 1993 the authority will cease to have the power to carry out refuse collection work itself.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Sir Philip Goodhart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour organisations made significant financial losses in 1989–90, and on which notices were served on 31 July and 28 October 1991.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has now considered carefully the responses of the 14 local authorities on whom notices were served under either section 19A of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 or section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 on 31 July and 28 October 1991. He has today given a direction under section 19B of the 1980 Act to the royal London borough of Kingston upon Thames which prevents it carrying out building maintenance work other than emergency work as from 31 October 1992. He is looking further at the responses of the London borough of Waltham Forest and Portsmouth city council (both building maintenance work).

  He has decided to take no further action in respect of financial failure in 1989–90 against the London borough of Bromley (building maintenance), Worthing district council (building maintenance), Wychavon district council (building maintenance), Warrington borough council (building maintenance), Gosport borough council (other cleaning), Gloucester city council (refuse collection), Lewes district council (refuse collection), Shropshire county council (other catering), Surrey county council (other cleaning), and Waverley district council (refuse collection). He has already announced that no further action will be taken against Crawley district council (other catering).

  My right hon. Friend has also decided to serve notices on the royal London borough of Kingston upon Thames in respect of financial failure in 1989–90 on highway maintenance work, and on the London borough of Bromley in respect of possible anti-competitive behaviour in awarding building maintenance work to its DLO where it was not the lowest tender.

  He is also considering what further action to take in respect of financial failure in 1990–91 following the receipt of local authorities' annual reports for that year.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet received the final report by London Economics on the possible use of market mechanisms in the control of acid rain emissions.

  Mr. Trippier
  The report "The Potential Role of Market Mechanisms in the Control of Acid Rain" is being published today. I am placing copies of the report in the Library.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he intends to take to encourage recycling of CFCs; and if he will make a statement.
  447
  Mr. Trippier
  We are today issuing a consultation paper which contains proposals to ban the import and supply to the United Kingdom market of refrigerant in disposable containers. These containers impede recycling because they cannot be refilled with refrigerant. They are also particularly damaging to the ozone layer, because the heel of CFCs which remains is usually vented to the atmosphere before the container is disposed of. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  We are also intending to issue a consumer leaflet towards the end of March. This will make consumers aware which products contain CFCs and how they can help to improve their environment by encouraging industry and local authorities to provide more recycling services.

  Planning Policy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will revise planning policy guidance note No. 1 to withdraw the general presumption in favour of development as it relates to the preparation of development plans.

  Sir George Young
  [pursuant to his answer, 4 February 1992, c. 134]: We have today published a revised planning policy guidance note 1 "General Policy and Principles" (PPG1) which replaces the 1988 version and advice in earlier circulars. The new document sets out the broad principles within which development plans are to be prepared and the basis on which planning permissions should be given or refused.

  PPG1 reiterates the Government's commitment to sustainable growth and to reconciling development with conservation of the environment. The aim is to secure economy, efficiency and amenity in the use of land. Among other matters highlighted in the guidance note we have drawn to the attention of local planning authorities:
  the enhanced role of development plans in setting the framework for planning decisions;
  the need to eliminate unnecessary delay in determining planning applications;
  the particular categories of development proposals that require a full environmental assessment;
  the importance of design, crime prevention, noise considerations and access requirements, particularly for disabled people, in securing quality of environment.

  Some of these matters will be the subject of more detailed guidance in forthcoming circulars. In the meantime, the new document replaces PPG1 of January 1988 and much of DOE circular 22/80.

  We are also publishing today a revised planning policy guidance note No. 3 "Housing" (PPG3) which replaces the 1988 version of the PPG and advice in various earlier circulars.

  The PPG reiterates the message that the planning system must provide an adequate and continuous supply of land for housing, taking into account market demand and the Government's policies for encouraging home ownership and the provision of rented housing. But in doing so it must also maintain the Government's established policies for the protection of the countryside, the conservation of natural habitats and of the built heritage, and the protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

  The main changes to previous policy are:
  448
  increased emphasis on re-using urban land, particularly derelict or under-used land, for housing as a means of relieving pressure on the countryside;
  encouragement for housing development on sites with permission for other development, but where there is no realistic prospect of that other development taking place;
  greater emphasis on the importance of local choice, through the local and unitary development plan process, in deciding how to meet the needs for new housing development;
  encouragement of closer co-operation between local authorities' planning and housing functions;
  withdrawal, because it is not consistent with a plan-led system, of the special presumption in favour of releasing land for housing where there is less than a five year supply;
  clearer policy on the circumstances in which new settlements may be considered as an alternative to expanding existing towns and villages; on this issue the essential message is the need to respect local choice.

  The PPG also incorporates the Government's planning policies for the provision of affordable housing set out in circular 7/91, "Planning and Affordable Housing", which is now cancelled.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the current charges levied in EC member states for meat inspection.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave on 9 March 1992,Official Report, column 403.

  The position regarding levels of meat inspection charges in other member states remains unclear. It appears that some have yet to introduce national legislation to bring them into line with the EC decision on harmonisation of charges. Certain others, such as Spain and Germany, have legislated at a regional, rather than a national, level. Detailed national information is currently only available with regard to France and Denmark. In France, the published charges in francs per kilogramme for 1991 were as follows:

  Slaughterhouses

  Cutting premises

  Adult bovines

  0·086

  0·011

  Calves

  0·101

  0·011

  Horses

  0·072

  0·011

  Sheep and Goats

  0·063

  0·011

  Pigs

  0·075

  0·011

  Chickens

  0·022

  0·0012

  Turkeys

  0·022

  0·007

  Ducks

  0·022

  0·0079

  Guinea Fowl

  0·022

  0·0004

  In Denmark we believe that charges at exporting slaughterhouses are based on following:

  For pigs— the actual cost of inspection.

  For cattle—the "EC Standard" charge.

  For poultry—approximately 250 per cent. of the "EC Standard" charge (two thirds of the actual cost).

  Bananas
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps the Government are taking to ensure that bananas are removed from the GATT Uruguay round of negotiations;
  449
  (2) how commitments under the Lomé convention towards African, Caribbean and Pacific banana suppliers would be honoured under a GATT agreement based on the Dunkel text of 20 December.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission has made no proposals on bananas in the GATT Round context. It is continuing to study the question. Tariffication, if it simply followed the method set out in the Dunkel paper as we understand it, would not appear to provide sufficient protection for traditional ACP suppliers of the United Kingdom market. We remain committed to fulfilling our obligations under the Lome convention and to bringing the GATT round to an early and successful conclusion; the Government have made representations to the Commission to urge it to ensure that our Lome commitments are not overlooked in the GATT negotiations.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the numbers of confirmed cases of BSE in each county in England in 1992, to the latest available date.

  Mr. Gummer
  For the reasons given in the answer to the hon. Member on 23 May 1991,Official Report, column 559, these figures are currently unavailable.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is available concerning the range of species of mammals to which bovine spongiform encephalopathy has not been transferred by experimental injection.

  Mr. Maclean
  In my answer to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on 4 March I gave details of the species which had been experimentally infected with BSE. No other species has succumbed to experimental infection.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Sir Michael Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards establishing the central science laboratory as an executive agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am pleased to confirm that the central science laboratory will become an executive agency with effect from 1 April 1992.

  Cost recovery will provide us with an important means of judging the efficiency of this agency. Additional performance measures relating to the objectives of the agency will also be used to measure operating efficiency and quality of service.

  The financial and efficiency targets for the central science laboratory for 1992–93 will be:

  100 per cent. recovery of full costs;

  an overall efficiency gain of 2 per cent.;

  a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in real terms of representative unit costs for services.

  The targets for delivery of services by the central science laboratory will be:

  at least 90 per cent. of work completed to time and within budget;

  at least 95 per cent. of contracts delivered to the customer's satisfaction.

  The central science laboratory will implement during 1992–93 arrangements for the independent assessment of the quality of the scientific work and publications.
  450
  The measures of performance for the agency are set out in the framework document, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House by 1 April.

  ADAS
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards establishing the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service as an executive agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are pleased to confirm that ADAS will become an executive agency with effect from 1 April 1992.

  Cost recovery will provide us with an important means of judging the efficiency of this agency. Additional performance measures relating to the objectives of the agency will also be used to measure operating efficiency and quality of service.

  The financial and efficiency targets for ADAS for 1992–93 will be:
  recovery of its full economic costs, through charges to its customers, including the Departments (MAFF and Welsh Office). In the case of certain charged advisory services, ADAS will recover 41 per cent. of the costs from charges to the ultimate beneficiaries and the remainder will be met by the Departments. In other cases ADAS will recover the full costs from the customer;
  an overall efficiency improvement of a 2 per cent. reduction in average total cost per direct hour charged to contracts;
  at least a 6 per cent. reduction in average time taken to collect debts due to ADAS from non-Departmental customers;

  The targets for delivery of services by ADAS will be:
  achieving improvements in customer satisfaction, as evidenced in ADAS surveys, the procedures for which will be developed by 30 June 1992;
  at least 80 per cent. of Research and Development project milestones to be met.

  The measures for performance for the agency are set out in the framework document, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House by 1 April.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Market Testing Programme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Two experienced private sector consultants are currently retained to advise on the market testing programmes of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. As their work involves them in the security field I do not wish to identify them by name but I can confirm that they were appointed after competitive tendering.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much money has been spent on dealing with the effects of coastal erosion(a) along the County Down coast and (b) in all of Northern Ireland, in each of the last five years;

  (2) if he will list the schemes which have been undertaken to prevent coastal erosion within Northern Ireland; and if he will list each of the proposed schemes, with planned commencement dates and costs in each case.

  Mr. Needham
  It is extremely difficult to distinguish between works intended to prevent coastal erosion and works to deal with its effects. The objective is usually the same and the actual works can often coincide.

  The following amounts have been spent by the Department of the Environment's roads service on dealing with coastal erosion in the last five financial years:

  County Down coast

  Financial year

  Amount £'000

  1987–88

  51

  1988–89

  41

  1989–90

  33

  1990–91

  156

  1991–92

  152

  Northern Ireland

  Financial year

  Amount £'000

  1987–88

  159

  1988–89

  167

  1989–90

  122

  1990–91

  241

  1991–92

  221

  In the last five financial years, the following schemes have been undertaken by the roads service to deal with coastal erosion in areas where the stability of a road was threatened:

  Year and scheme

  1987–88

  Barrhall road, Portaferry—new sea wall.

  A2 North of Ballyhalbert—rock armouring.

  Cushendun/Waterfoot/Murlough bay—general routine repairs.

  A2 between Larne/Garron Point—general routine repairs.

  1988–89

  A20 Newtownards/Greyabbey—reconstruction of sea wall.

  Magilligan Point, Londonderry—general routine repairs.

  Cushendun/Waterfoot/Murlough bay—general routine repairs.

  A2 between Larne/Garron Point—general routine repairs.

  1989–90

  Seafront road, Cultra—strengthening of existing sea wall.

  Minerstown, County Down—rock armouring.

  Magilligan Point, Londonderry—general routine repairs.

  Cushendun/Waterfoot/Murlough bay—general routine repairs.

  A2 between Larne/Garron Point—general routine repairs.

  1990–91

  A20 Newtownards-Greyabbey, A20 Greyabbcy-Kircubbin,
  452
  Loughshore road-Portaferry—storm repair work and provision of rock armouring.

  Culmore Point, Londonderry, Benone, Limavady, Cushendun/Waterfoot/Murlough bay, A2 between Larne/Garron Point—general routine repairs.

  1991–92

  Minerstown, County Down, Killard, County Down, Kilclief, County Down—general routine repairs.

  Kinnegar, Holywood—replacement of gabions.

  A20 Newtownards/Cunningburn road—rock armouring and sea wall repairs.

  Shore road, Portaferry—sea wall repairs.

  Culmore Point, Londonderry, Cushendun/Waterfoot/Murlough bay, A2 between Larne/Garron Point—general routine repairs.

  The following schemes are proposed for the 1992–93 financial year:

  £

  Portballintrae

  6,000

  Garron Point

  20,000

  Seacliffe Road, Bangor

  1,000

  Killard, Co. Down

  20,000–40,000

  Other routine maintenance work will be carried out as requested.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken in relation to the introduction of waste recycling schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Legislation for Northern Ireland containing provisions for waste management similar to those in part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is in preparation. It will require district councils to include recycling as part of their waste management arrangements and to provide a recycling plan for the district.

  In the interim, the Government will encourage the growing interest in recycling in Northern Ireland and support the many district councils, businesses and voluntary groups who are participating in recycling materials such as glass and paper.

  Housing Estates
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the age of housing estates built at(a) Shantallow, (b) Bogside, (c) Creggan, (d) Ardcarn, (e) Cregagh and (f) Moat View; and if he will state the number of houses in each estate;

  (2) which of the estates at Shantallow, Bogside, Creggan, Ardcarn, Cregagh and Moat View had metal windows when constructed and which of them have had window replacements; and if he will indicate how many dwellings have had all window frames replaced and set out the cost.

  Mr. Needham
  These are matters for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chairman that the information requested is as follows:
  453

  NIHE Estate

  Date of construction

  Number of dwellings constructed

  With metal window frames

  Metal window frames replaced

  Estimated costs of window replacement £

  Shantallow

  Pre 1945

  1

  —

  —

  1945–1960

  9

  9

  9

  1961–1971

  531

  304

  304

  Total

  541

  313

  313

  316,000

  Bogside

  Pre 1945

  8

  —

  —

  1945–1960

  37

  37

  37

  1961–1971

  448

  419

  318

  Post 1971

  228

  166

  41

  Total

  721

  622

  396

  326,000

  Creggan

  1945–1960

  1,385

  1,385

  885

  1961–1971

  317

  240

  77

  Post 1971

  41

  29

  —

  Total

  1,743

  1,654

  962

  876,000

  Ardcarn

  1945–1960

  152

  152

  136

  46,000

  Cregagh

  1945–1960

  709

  622

  —

  1961–1971

  157

  157

  157

  Total

  866

  779

  157

  157,000

  Moatview

  1945–1960

  55

  55

  —

  —

  1 Scheme is currently in progress.

  Youth Training Programme
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent by each of the education and library boards on YTP provision in each of the last five years.

  Financial years

  Education and library boards

  1986–87 £ million

  1987–88 £ million

  1988–89 £ million

  1989–90 £ million

  1990–91 £ million

  Belfast

  1·264

  1·161

  1·467

  1·415

  2·524

  North-Eastern

  1·099

  1·054

  1·462

  1·304

  2·189

  South-Eastern

  1·116

  1·081

  1·285

  1·284

  2·287

  Western

  1·237

  1·224

  1·230

  1·007

  1·485

  Southern

  1·391

  1·034

  1·080

  1·203

  1·256

  Notes:

  1. The figures represent recurrent and capital expenditure. For the years 1986–87 to 1989–90 they are taken from the boards' audited accounts and for 1990–91 from the unaudited accounts.

  2. The figures do not include expenditure on the salaries of full-time teachers engaged on YTP. For the years in question these were paid directly by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people have been employed on youth training programmes organised by further education colleges in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of trainees fluctuates during the year but the average number of full-time trainees involved on YT programmes in further education colleges was as follows:

  Academic year

  Average occupancy

  1986–87

  1,906

  1987–88

  1,886

  1988–89

  1,812

  1989–90

  1,730

  1990–91

  3,455

  454
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The amounts are as follows:

  Right of Way, Carrivemoragh
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to ensure that Banbridge district council assert the right of way in the constituency of South Down known as the Carrivemoragh mass pad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I understand that following research by its own officers, Banbridge district council obtained senior counsel's advice in the matter of the alleged right of way known as Carrivemoragh mass pad. After considering that advice, the council decided not to assert a right of way on this path.

  There is no reason for me to intervene.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to answer the letter of the hon. Member for Upper Bann of 5 February.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have written to the hon. Gentleman.

  Dentists
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent changes have been proposed for charges by dentists in Northern Ireland; how this relates to the increase awarded by the salary review body; how many dentists withdrew from the national health service in Northern Ireland in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The maximum charge payable by a patient for a course of dental treatment will be increased from £200 to £225 with effect from 1 April 1992. There will be no change in the proportional charge payable by patients, which will remain at 75 per cent. of the cost up to the maximum charge.

  The increase in the maximum charge is not related to the increase recently recommended by the doctors and dentists review body.

  No dentists in Northern Ireland withdrew from providing health service treatment in the 12 months prior to 1 March 1992.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the numbers of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each county in Northern Ireland in 1992, to the latest available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  As of 5 March 1992 the information is as follows:

  County

  Numbers

  Antrim

  15

  Armagh

  2

  Down

  10

  Fermanagh

  0

  Londonderry

  7

  Tyrone

  5

  Total

  39

  There are 1·5 million cattle in Northern Ireland and there have been a total of 342 confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Northern Ireland to date (5 March 1992).

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in re-organising water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  It is planned to transfer the water and sewerage functions of the Department of the Environment to a Government-owned company on 1 April 1993. The necessary arrangements for this, including the preparation of a draft order, are being taken forward as a matter of priority.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is yet in a position to respond to the second report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights "Religious and Political Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity in Northern Ireland" (Cm 1107); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have today written to the chairman of the commission responding to its second report. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  I welcomed the report when it was laid before Parliament and published in June 1990. It is a valuable report which, as I made clear at that time, has required careful study by the Government. The Government will continue to examine the recommendations in consultation with the commission and other interested parties.

  Mr. Peter Duggan
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the RUC on the progress of police inquiries into the identification of the person alleged to have attempted to murder Mr. Peter Duggan in Downpatrick in January 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: There is no record of an attempt to murder Mr. Peter Duggan in Downpatrick in January 1985. The circumstances surrounding the attack on him in January 1988 in the Downpatrick area have been investigated by the RUC, and two women were convicted in September 1988 of the false imprisonment of Mr. Duggan. Apart from this, the Director of Public Prosecutions has considered police reports of their investigations into this incident and has directed no prosecution.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Court of Appeal
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal since 1982 and give the reason in each case.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested on the reasons for quashing individual appeals could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the number of convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal are available but only from 1987. They are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  192

  1988

  223

  1989

  211

  1990

  256

  1991

  269

  Consolidation Legislation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Attorney-General what areas of statute law are currently being considered for consolidation legislation; and if he will indicate at what stage the procedures are in each case.

  The Attorney-General
  During the current Session, 11 consolidation Bills have been introduced into Parliament.
  457
  Seven of these Bills have already received Royal Assent and have become the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992, the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 and the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. Of the other four Bills, the Protection of Badgers Bill, the Radioactive Substances Bill and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill are awaiting their Second Reading in this House, while the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill is awaiting its Committee stage in another place.

  Work is continuing at the Law Commission to prepare consolidation Bills on clean air, education, stamp duties, the armed forces, merchant shipping, the powers of criminal courts and solicitors. Work is continuing at the Scottish Law Commission to prepare consolidation Bills on crofters, the Scottish Land Court, the national health service, criminal procedure, lands clauses and town and country planning. In Northern Ireland, work is continuing on a consolidation Bill on pension schemes.

  Central Taxation Units
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General how many claims for taxation at the central taxation units are still awaiting taxing; what is the change over the last six months; and when it is expected they will be dealt with.

  The Attorney-General
  At the end of February 1992, there were 1,545 claims awaiting determination by the central taxing teams. At the end of August 1991, there were 2,201 claims outstanding. Targets have now been established that 75 per cent. of claims should be determined within three months of the claim becoming ready to tax—when all related claims have been lodged—and that all claims should be determined within six months of becoming ready to tax. At the end of January 1992 three out of five teams were meeting this target. All the teams are expected to be meeting their targets by the end of July 1992.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General what estimate he has made of the effect on public expenditure of the setting up of the central taxation units for barristers and solicitors' fees; and how much of this is due to notional interest saved to the Treasury by reason of changes in the timing of payments.

  The Attorney-General
  The central taxing teams were established last year in order to group together those officials most experienced in the assessment of bills submitted for the most complex and weighty claims for work done by solicitors and barristers in Crown court cases. The purpose of the establishment of these teams was to ensure that these assessments are dealt with in a consistent and proper way, in accordance with the legal aid regulations. No estimate has been made as to how those bills might have been assessed if the teams had not been in existence.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General how many claims, which will be dealt with by the central taxation unit, have been submitted to the local court and are waiting to be called for from those courts by the central taxation units.
  458
  The Attorney-General
  It is not possible to give the information requested. When a claim is submitted which may be for the central taxing team to determine, it is held until all other claims in relation to that case have been lodged. It is not until that stage that a decision can be taken about whether the claim is to be determined by the team or within the court. Under the regulations, practitioners have three months after the completion of the trial in which to lodge their claims.

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what evidence the Director of Public Prosecutions has received in connection with breaches of company law by companies formerly controlled by Asil Nadir, concerning political donations; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the amendments made to the code for Crown prosecution since the publication of the annual report of the Crown prosecution service for 1990–91.

  The Attorney-General
  Five amendments have been made to the code for Crown prosecutors since the publication of the Crown prosecution service's annual report for 1990–91. These amendments were issued to Crown prosecutors in January 1992 and may be summarised as follows:

  The public interest criteria

  The public interest criteria will only arise for consideration once the Crown Prosecutor is satisfied that the evidence itself can justify proceedings.

  (i) Paragraph 8
  The first amendment to this paragraph emphasises that the interests of the victim are an important factor to be taken into account in determining whether or not a prosecution is required, whilst re-affirming the primacy of overall public interest considerations.

  (ii) Paragraph 8
  This paragraph has been further amended by the identification of "racial motivation" as an aggravating feature when considering whether the public interest requires the institution of proceedings.

  (iii) Paragraph 8 (v)—Mental illness or stress
  This part of the code has been re-written. It now clearly sets out that there is a rebuttable presumption that a person suffering from a mental disorder should not be prosecuted unless there is a wider public interest requirement for such action.

  Mode of trial

  (iv) Paragraph 18
  This paragraph has been revised as a result of the Mode of Trial Guidelines contained within the Practice Note issued by the Lord Chief Justice [1990] 1 WLR 1439.

  (v) Paragraph 19
  The decision of the House of Lords in R v. Brentwood Justices, ex parte Nicholls means that the guidance formerly contained in this paragraph concerning the position of the co-accused in mode of trial decisions is no longer accurate. The paragraph has accordingly been deleted and other paragraphs renumbered.

  Arrangements have been made for these and previous amendments to be consolidated and printed in a new booklet containing the code, which is now available for

  459
  distribution. I will cause a copy to be placed in the Library of both Houses. I commend the code in its amended form to all prosecuting authorities and to those, such as the police, who are responsible for the institution of criminal proceedings.

SCOTLAND

  Crime, Glasgow
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what police powers Acts remain available within the boundaries of the city of Glasgow to combat crime.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The powers vested in the police in Glasgow are the same as elsewhere in Scotland and are found in the common law of Scotland and in relevant statutes. Questions about local legislation and byelaws should be addressed to the relevant local authority.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the electorate for each parliamentary constituency in Scotland according to the new electoral registers published on 15 February.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total electorate for each parliamentary constituency in Scotland, as at 16 February 1992, is as follows:

  Parliamentary electors: 1992 register: by constituency (alphabetical order)

  Constituency

  Total

  Scotland

  3,929,112

  Aberdeen, North

  60,623

  Aberdeen, South

  59,230

  Angus, East

  63,637

  Argyll and Bute

  48,436

  Ayr

  66,284

  Banff and Buchan

  65,631

  Caithness and Sutherland

  31,173

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  56,024

  Central Fife

  56,543

  Clackmannan

  49,441

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  47,773

  Clydesdale

  62,684

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  47,155

  Cunninghame, North

  55,490

  Cunninghame, South

  49,745

  Dumbarton

  57,894

  Dumfries

  61,773

  Dundee, East

  59,328

  Dundee, West

  60,386

  Dunfermline, East

  50,452

  Dunfermline, West

  51,310

  East Kilbride

  64,824

  East Lothian

  67,588

  Eastwood

  64,560

  Edinburgh, Central

  56,839

  Edinburgh, East

  46,157

  Edinburgh, Leith

  57,073

  Edinburgh, Pentlands

  56,433

  Edinburgh, South

  61,999

  Edinburgh, West

  59,702

  Falkirk, East

  52,387

  Falkirk, West

  50,631

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  54,977

  Glasgow, Cathcart

  45,149

  Glasgow, Central

  48,383

  Glasgow, Garscadden

  41,675

  Glasgow, Govan

  46,199

  Glasgow, Hillhead

  57,586

  460

  Constituency

  Total

  Glasgow, Maryhill

  48,791

  Glasgow, Pollok

  46,655

  Glasgow, Provan

  36,986

  Glasgow, Rutherglen

  53,325

  Glasgow, Shettleston

  52,381

  Glasgow, Springburn

  46,216

  Gordon

  81,097

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  52,661

  Hamilton

  62,347

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  70,164

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  62,777

  Kincardine and Deeside

  67,216

  Kirkcaldy

  52,191

  Linlithgow

  61,979

  Livingston

  62,122

  Midlothian

  61,178

  Monklands, East

  49,059

  Monklands, West

  49,935

  Moray

  63,944

  Motherwell, North

  58,106

  Motherwell, South

  50,674

  North East Fife

  54,196

  North Tayside

  56,353

  Orkney and Shetland

  31,837

  Paisley, North

  46,867

  Paisley, South

  48,385

  Perth and Kinross

  65,826

  Renfrew, West and Inverclyde

  58,897

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  56,112

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  44,001

  Stirling

  58,814

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  61,924

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  39,907

  Western Isles

  23,015

  Strathclyde Structure Plan
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the source of estimated needs for land he inserted in the Strathclyde regional council structure plan.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend took account of information provided by Strathclyde regional council in its structure plan as submitted, of representations received and of evidence from a range of sources, before reaching his decision to propose the modifications to the Strathclyde structure plan update 1990, announced on 6 February 1992.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to include estimates of land needs from groups other than the Scottish House Builders Association in the modified Strathclyde regional council structure plan.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider representations from any interested parties before reaching his decision on whether or not to approve the Strathclyde structure plan update 1990.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the numbers of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each region of Scotland in 1992, to the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  For the reasons given in the reply by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member on 23 May 1991,Official Report, column 559, these figures are not available.

  Child Care Policy Inquiry
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give an estimate of(a) the total costs incurred to date by the inquiry into child care policy in Fife and (b) of the costs of the chairman, the adviser and the clerk with appropriate office support for a period of three years;

  (2) if he will give an estimate of the costs incurred by (a) Fife regional council and (b) the other principal parties represented at the inquiry into child care policy in Fife.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The estimated total costs incurred to date by the Scottish Office in relation to the inquiry is £792,000. This includes £500,000 in respect of the costs of the chairman, the adviser and the clerk with appropriate office support. I have no information on the costs incurred by others who are parties to the inquiry.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland is he will list those inquiries into child care policy in Scotland which have taken more than two years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Three inquiries have been established under section 99 of the Childrens Act 1975. Of these only the Fife inquiry has extended beyond two years of the date of establishment.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the inquiry into child care policy in Fife will be completed; when the report will be submitted; and whether it will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has been advised by the chairman of the inquiry that he expects to submit his report at the end of April. As soon as he has considered the report my right hon. Friend will make a decision about publication.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will exercise the powers available to him under section 210(8) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to meet the costs incurred by Fife regional council and the other parties to the inquiry into child care policies in Fife from central Government funds;

  (2) if he will exercise the powers available to him under section 210(7) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to meet the total costs incurred by the inquiry into child care policy in Fife from central Government funds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Once my right hon. Friend receives the report of the inquiry into child care services in Fife, he will consider whether and in what way to exercise the powers contained in section 210 sub-sections (7) and (8) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish a report on drinking water quality in Scotland in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A report has been published today by the Scottish Office Environment Department giving a national overview of drinking water quality in Scotland in the period 1 July to 31 December 1990, the first six months of monitoring under the Water 462
  Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library. The report shows that the overall level of compliance with the quality standards was high, some 97 per cent. of all analytical results having met the requirements. For 48 of the 55 numerical standards in the regulations, 99·6 per cent. of all analytical results complied. The failures to meet quality standards fully did not represent a risk to public health.

  Roads Directorate
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to publish the report of the efficiency scrutiny into the Scottish Office roads directorate carried out in 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A copy of the efficiency scrutiny report and of the action plan on implementation of the report's recommendations have been lodged in the House Libraries. Copies of both are available for purchase from the library in New St. Andrew's house.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the income scale which will apply to the assisted places scheme in Scotland in school session 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  For school session 1992–93, I propose to lay regulations before the House in due course providing for progressive parental contribution for one assisted pupil in relation to family income as follows:

  Part of relevant income to which the specified percentage applies

  Parental Contribution (percentage)

  That part (if any) which exceeds £9,218 but which does not exceed £10,023

  9

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,023 but does not exceed £10,842

  12

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,842 but does not exceed £12,467

  15

  That part (if any) which exceeds £12,467 but does not exceed £14,965

  21

  That part (if any) which exceeds £14,965 but does not exceed £18,227

  24

  That part (if any) which exceeds £18,227

  33

  The relevant income scale is open ended, but the remission can, of course, be given only where the parental contribution is less than the school tuition fee.

  Training, Scotland
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were in training through(a) youth training and (b) employment training in each month from January 1991 to January 1992 inclusive in each of (i) Scotland, (ii) Renfrew, Dunbarton and Argyll, (iii) Lothian and Borders, (iv) Lanarkshire, (v) Highlands and Islands, (vi) Grampian and Tayside, (vii) Glasgow city, (viii) Central and Fife and (ix) Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 6 March 1992]: The information sought is not available for the period from January 1991 to March 1991 inclusive, nor is it available thereafter in the format requested.
  463
  The information shown in the tables gives the number of youth training and employment training participants for each month from April 1991 to January 1992 inclusive

  Youth training: Numbers in training April 1991 to January 1992

  Local enterprise company

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  Enterprise Ayrshire

  3,744

  3,602

  3,742

  3,838

  3,701

  3,740

  3,659

  3,980

  3,326

  3,657

  Scottish Borders Enterprise

  669

  595

  621

  595

  603

  601

  672

  657

  642

  643

  Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise

  1,141

  1,094

  1,105

  1,056

  1,105

  1,061

  1,036

  926

  1,064

  1,016

  Dunbartonshire Enterprise

  1,974

  1,939

  1,955

  1,932

  1,946

  1,922

  1,805

  1,802

  1,535

  1,796

  Fife Enterprise

  3,010

  3,016

  3,295

  3,269

  3,363

  3,373

  3,393

  3,330

  3,263

  3,422

  Forth Valley Enterprise

  2,706

  2,613

  2,638

  2,707

  2,621

  2,628

  2,637

  2,629

  2,618

  2,720

  Glasgow Development Agency

  5,856

  5,561

  5,604

  5,664

  5,733

  5,841

  5,753

  5,587

  5,794

  5,800

  Grampian Enterprise

  1,693

  1,419

  1,446

  1,404

  1,439

  1,716

  1,703

  1,748

  1,817

  1,920

  Lanarkshire Development Agency

  3,669

  3,719

  3,891

  3,566

  3,679

  3,579

  3,933

  4,023

  4,089

  4,441

  Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise

  4,257

  4,087

  4,370

  4,180

  4,402

  4,373

  4,359

  4,325

  4,321

  4,173

  Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise

  617

  613

  638

  589

  617

  578

  590

  530

  565

  604

  Renfrewshire Enterprise

  2,432

  2,339

  2,552

  2,501

  2,395

  2,325

  2,301

  2,262

  2,272

  2,334

  Scottish Enterprise Tayside

  2,927

  2,804

  2,840

  2,736

  2,767

  2,763

  2,736

  2,751

  2,717

  2,872

  Highlands and Islands Total1

  2,370

  2,396

  2,511

  2,248

  2,345

  2,478

  2,375

  2,437

  2,496

  2,519

  SCOTLAND TOTAL

  37,065

  35,797

  37,208

  36,285

  36,716

  36,978

  36,952

  36,987

  36,519

  37,917

  1 The Highlands and Islands total includes Argyll but excludes Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey.

  Employment training: Numbers in training April 1991 to January 1992

  Local enterprise company

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  Enterprise Ayrshire

  2,160

  1,891

  1,543

  1,483

  1,472

  1,497

  1,563

  1,772

  1,575

  1,474

  Scottish Borders Enterprise

  191

  213

  196

  183

  183

  195

  194

  199

  176

  198

  Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise

  550

  556

  563

  533

  561

  625

  630

  602

  638

  617

  Dunbartonshire Enterprise

  856

  890

  955

  907

  919

  889

  878

  836

  839

  842

  Fife Enterprise

  1,176

  1,041

  895

  880

  904

  960

  1,043

  1,062

  1,111

  1,127

  Forth Valley Enterprise

  786

  716

  664

  673

  667

  674

  730

  759

  738

  814

  Glasgow Development Agency

  6,264

  5,640

  5,160

  4,780

  4,611

  4,289

  4,272

  4,198

  4,071

  4,100

  Grampian Enterprise

  800

  770

  750

  750

  730

  750

  780

  750

  730

  728

  Lanarkshire Development Agency

  1,768

  1,696

  1,748

  1,769

  1,708

  1,727

  1,828

  1,798

  1,736

  1,706

  Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise

  2,174

  2,050

  2,022

  2,028

  2,006

  2,090

  2,301

  2,400

  2,457

  2,381

  Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise

  337

  315

  284

  236

  213

  212

  222

  237

  220

  234

  Renfrewshire Enterprise

  1,307

  1,240

  1,164

  1,168

  1,144

  1,118

  1,064

  1,115

  1,025

  984

  Scottish Enterprise Tayside

  1,202

  1,155

  1,153

  1,119

  1,138

  1,166

  1,254

  1,313

  1,323

  1,334

  Highlands and Islands Total1

  1,122

  1,069

  988

  988

  1,018

  1,052

  1,077

  1,113

  999

  1,248

  SCOTLAND TOTAL

  20,693

  19,242

  18,085

  17,497

  17,274

  17,244

  17,836

  18,154

  17,638

  17,787

  1 The Highlands and Islands total includes Argyll but excludes Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the most recent figures on air pollution levels in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 March 1992]: The most recent published information on air

  Table 1—Nitrogen Dioxide

  Jan.

  Feb.

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Aug.

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  (a) Glasgow

  1987

  34

  38

  35

  35

  28

  30

  24

  23

  24

  33

  35

  38

  1988

  31

  33

  34

  38

  32

  26

  22

  24

  25

  31

  36

  28

  1989

  23

  23

  25

  32

  24

  24

  26

  20

  24

  29

  35

  38

  1990

  19

  21

  21

  30

  32

  27

  24

  21

  26

  26

  30

  27

  1991

  24

  29

  29

  26

  26

  25

  24

  21

  27

  27

  26

  30

  (b) Strath Vaich—Ross and Cromarty

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·9

  0·9

  0·6

  1991

  2·1

  2·3

  3·8

  1·4

  0·9

  1·3

  2·1

  1·3

  0·5

  1·7

  0·7

  1·5

  Note: All measurements expressed as parts per billion (ppb).
  464
  in each of the local enterprise company areas served by Scottish Enterprise and for Highlands and Islands and Scotland as a whole.

  pollution can be found at section 3 of "The Scottish Environment—Statistics" Issue No. 2 (1989). The next issue will be published shortly.

  Warren Spring Laboratory also compiles data on the atmospheric concentrations of a number of substances from a United Kingdom-wide network of monitoring stations. The available data from the Scottish sites are set out in tables 1 to 5. All data are expressed as average hourly readings for each month for the available years.
  465

  Table 2—Nitric Oxide

  Jan.

  Feb.

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Aug.

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  (a) Glasgow

  1987

  84

  104

  38

  21

  19

  25

  23

  33

  33

  80

  92

  122

  1988

  68

  38

  43

  47

  34

  36

  30

  29

  37

  86

  108

  42

  1989

  24

  28

  36

  46

  25

  31

  31

  25

  48

  38

  126

  195

  1990

  33

  27

  24

  37

  43

  31

  31

  26

  44

  60

  157

  104

  1991

  83

  97

  65

  32

  32

  35

  34

  32

  47

  78

  76

  135

  (b) Strath Vaich

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  1991

  0·2

  0·4

  0·5

  0·3

  0·1

  0·3

  1·1

  0·8

  0·1

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  Note: All measurements are expressed as parts per billion (ppb).

  Table 3—Carbon Monoxide

  Jan.

  Feb.

  Mar

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Aug.

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Glasgow

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·6

  0·7

  1·0

  1·1

  2·2

  3·1

  1990

  0·9

  0·8

  0·7

  0·8

  0·9

  0·8

  0·7

  0·7

  0·9

  1·2

  2·5

  1·8

  1991

  1·2

  1·5

  1·3

  1·0

  1·1

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·4

  1·6

  1·9

  2·4

  Note: All measurements expressed as parts per million.

  Table 4—Sulphur Dioxide

  Jan.

  Feb.

  Mar.

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Aug.

  Sept.

  Oct.

  Nov.

  Dec.

  Strath Vaich

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·7

  0·3

  0·2

  1991

  1·4

  1·7

  1·2

  0·6

  0·1

  0·2

  0·5

  0·2

  n·a.

  1·2

  0·3

  0·6

  Note: All measurements expressed as parts per billion (ppb).

  Table 5—Ozone

  Jan

  Feb

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Aug

  Sept

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  (a) Penicuik

  1987

  16

  18

  27

  36

  34

  24

  23

  20

  20

  17

  17

  17

  1988

  22

  29

  28

  28

  37

  30

  29

  25

  26

  22

  22

  28

  1989

  29

  32

  35

  33

  35

  29

  28

  24

  22

  24

  18

  15

  1990

  28

  34

  36

  35

  31

  29

  26

  22

  23

  23

  19

  24

  1991

  20

  20

  20

  28

  22

  25

  27

  26

  24

  20

  22

  17

  (b) Eskdalemuir

  1987

  16

  19

  21

  31

  30

  21

  21

  19

  15

  17

  17

  18

  1988

  20

  25

  30

  26

  34

  30

  28

  24

  24

  22

  18

  26

  1989

  26

  30

  34

  35

  34

  31

  31

  25

  23

  24

  18

  19

  1990

  26

  35

  35

  35

  36

  30

  28

  22

  22

  23

  19

  23

  1991

  19

  25

  25

  33

  27

  27

  31

  28

  27

  22

  22

  15

  (c) Strath Vaich

  1987

  —

  —

  41

  42

  29

  34

  29

  29

  30

  28

  26

  28

  1988

  28

  36

  36

  37

  44

  31

  32

  28

  34

  32

  33

  36

  1989

  36

  38

  33

  35

  42

  33

  27

  25

  28

  32

  28

  27

  1990

  30

  36

  38

  40

  40

  36

  30

  27

  30

  31

  27

  31

  1991

  31

  32

  32

  43

  39

  34

  35

  32

  27

  25

  25

  20

  Note: All measurements are expressed as parts per billion (ppb).

  Food Industry
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of people employed in the food industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]:The latest figure available, showing the number of people employed in the food industry in Scotland, comes from the 1989 Employment Department census of employment. The figure is 49,400.

  Scottish Economy
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an index of production and construction for Scotland by market sector, indicating an annual figure for each year from 1974 up to and including 1990; and if he will give the figures for the first three quarters of 1991.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: An index of production and construction for Scotland (1985 = 100) by market sector, with annual figures for each year from 1974 up to and including 1990, and quarterly figures for the first three quarters of 1991, is set out in the table.
  467

  Consumer Goods

  Production Industries

  Total

  Durable

  Non-durable

  Investment Goods

  Intermediate Goods

  Construction

  1974

  103·3

  111·8

  176

  105

  92·1

  105·1

  113·9

  1975

  99·7

  106·5

  158

  102

  94·8

  98·8

  119·0

  1976

  100·1

  109–5

  165

  104

  89·9

  100·6

  115·6

  1977

  99·8

  111·8

  160

  107

  88·6

  99·3

  120·3

  1978

  100·5

  115·7

  162

  111

  85·1

  100·8

  119·9

  1979

  101·1

  113·9

  149

  110

  88·2

  101·3

  113·8

  1980

  95·0

  106·6

  124

  105

  86·3

  93·4

  107·5

  1981

  93·0

  101·0

  109

  100

  87·7

  91·3

  93·6

  1982

  93·5

  99·0

  114

  98

  91·6

  91· 3

  96·4

  1983

  93·2

  95·9

  88

  97

  90·7

  93·1

  98·6

  1984

  97·2

  98·1

  93

  99

  95·0

  97·9

  98·2

  1985

  100·0

  100·0

  100

  100

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1986

  97·8

  99·5

  93

  100

  96·5

  97·5

  98·4

  1987

  99·7

  102·0

  93

  103

  98·0

  99·3

  96·3

  1988

  107·1

  106·5

  104

  107

  108·2

  106·9

  101·9

  1989

  111·7

  109·1

  114

  109

  115·4

  111·1

  101·6

  1990

  114·1

  112·5

  111

  113

  114·1

  115·1

  107·0

  19911

  109·6

  105·8

  108

  106

  110·4

  111·4

  105·5

  19912

  109·5

  106·1

  110

  106

  109·9

  111·3

  107·5

  19913

  110·2

  107·2

  112

  107

  112·5

  110·6

  110·7

  Source: Index of Industrial Production and Construction for Scotland

  11st qtr

  22nd qtr

  33rd qtr

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the annual average change in(a) total output and (b) manufacturing output in real terms between (i) 1974 and 1979 and (ii) 1979 and 1990 in (1) Scotland and (2) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: The annual average changes in (a) total output and (b) manufacturing output in real terms between (i) 1974 and 1979 and (ii) 1979 and 1989, the latest year for which all figures are available, in (1) Scotland and (2) the United Kingdom are set out in the table:

  Annual average change

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  1974–79

  Total output

  +1·11

  +2·02

  Manufacturing output

  -1·23

  -0·64

  1979-89

  Total output

  +1 81

  +2·22

  Manufacturing output

  +1·13

  +1·34

  Note: The Scottish and United Kingdom measures of total output are on a different basis and are therefore not directly comparable. Scottish data are output-based GDP and United Kingdom data are average GDP.

  Sources:

  1 The Scottish Office Industry Department.

  2 Central Statistical Office.

  3 Index of Production and Construction for Scotland.

  4 Index of Production and Construction for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an updated table of Scotland's share of United Kingdom gross domestic product per head of population excluding the continental shelf for each year since 1961.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: The information requested is available on a consistent basis only from 1971 onward. The table gives the requested information up to 1990 the latest year for which figures are available.
  468

  Year

  Scottish gross domestic product per head as a percentage of the United Kingdom (excluding continental shelf)

  1971

  93·8

  1972

  93·6

  1973

  95·4

  1974

  95·9

  1975

  96·9

  1976

  98·4

  1977

  97·1

  1978

  94·9

  1979

  94·8

  1980

  94·4

  1981

  96·7

  1982

  97·3

  1983

  97·5

  1984

  96·1

  1985

  95·6

  1986

  94·7

  1987

  93·9

  1988

  92·9

  11989

  92·7

  11990

  92·6

  1 Provisional.

  Source: Central Statistical Office regional accounts.

  Note: A full set of regional accounts figures is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Brussels (Secondees)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were seconded from the Scottish Office to the United Kingdom's permanent representation to the European Community in Brussels, in 1990 and 1991; and if he will break these figures down by Scottish Office department.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 6 March 1992]: A Scottish Office official with a background in the Agriculture and Fisheries Department was seconded to the office of the United Kingdom's permanent representative to the European Communities between April 1987 and

  469
  September 1990; a Scottish Office official with experience in a number of Scottish Office departments was seconded in October 1990 and continues in post.

  ScotRail
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the director or representatives of ScotRail; what issues were discussed; what future meetings are scheduled; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 March 1992]: Regular contact is maintained with British Rail by Scottish Office Ministers and officials. Such contacts cover a wide range of topics relating to rail services in Scotland.

  Applicant households under the homeless persons legislation 1990–91, by type of household

  One person households

  One parent households

  Couple

  Area

  All applicants housholds1

  Under 18

  18–24

  25 and over and under retirement

  retirement age and over

  Parent aged under 25

  Parent aged 25 and over

  Without children

  With children

  Other household type

  SCOTLAND

  31,709

  2,735

  4,398

  5,539

  940

  3,774

  7,670

  1,829

  4,325

  499

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  16

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  3

  —

  7

  2

  Ettrick and Lauderdaie

  17

  2

  —

  2

  1

  4

  5

  —

  3

  —

  Roxburgh

  109

  5

  10

  22

  1

  25

  13

  8

  21

  4

  Tweeddale

  49

  —

  8

  4

  —

  4

  13

  9

  11

  —

  Central

  Clackmannan

  517

  54

  79

  94

  8

  43

  94

  54

  74

  17

  Falkirk

  1,300

  66

  217

  201

  26

  134

  291

  112

  201

  52

  Stirling

  566

  50

  83

  98

  13

  58

  134

  31

  92

  7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  97

  2

  2

  12

  6

  5

  27

  14

  27

  2

  Nithsdale

  600

  26

  89

  119

  17

  58

  111

  73

  102

  5

  Stewartry

  90

  —

  2

  2

  8

  8

  34

  14

  19

  3

  Wigtown

  105

  1

  7

  3

  5

  31

  23

  6

  27

  2

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  308

  7

  19

  31

  12

  61

  96

  16

  61

  5

  Kirkcaldy

  1,325

  77

  163

  183

  29

  185

  298

  128

  248

  14

  North East Fife

  476

  14

  68

  76

  19

  37

  91

  71

  94

  6

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  1,482

  121

  144

  240

  66

  162

  380

  104

  247

  18

  Banff and Buchan

  225

  11

  8

  25

  10

  19

  70

  16

  60

  6

  Gordon

  279

  7

  24

  33

  8

  13

  67

  21

  94

  12

  Kincardine and Deeside

  45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  22

  1

  17

  3

  Moray

  194

  4

  10

  19

  13

  14

  58

  16

  59

  1

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  6

  Caithness

  7

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Inverness

  319

  5

  27

  35

  16

  38

  87

  24

  78

  9

  Lochaber

  75

  2

  12

  8

  1

  13

  14

  3

  21

  1

  Nairn

  40

  1

  1

  2

  1

  6

  12

  4

  12

  1

  Ross and Cromarty

  105

  10

  9

  7

  6

  12

  25

  9

  24

  3

  Skye and Lochalsh

  68

  1

  4

  14

  3

  7

  13

  8

  17

  1

  Sutherland

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  —

  4

  —

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  948

  40

  101

  162

  28

  88

  222

  126

  174

  7

  Edinburgh

  2,253

  271

  207

  226

  68

  476

  667

  76

  236

  26

  Midlothian

  143

  5

  7

  21

  3

  32

  32

  10

  26

  7

  West Lothian

  532

  50

  101

  94

  4

  47

  120

  45

  64

  7

  Strathdyde

  Argyll and Bute

  330

  17

  26

  46

  13

  21

  76

  45

  76

  10

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  81

  2

  8

  9

  5

  8

  19

  1

  28

  1

  Clydebank

  655

  82

  96

  83

  14

  52

  224

  32

  70

  2

  Clydesdale

  446

  30

  57

  89

  15

  28

  98

  44

  80

  5

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  420

  13

  44

  34

  4

  58

  142

  23

  98

  4

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  67

  4

  8

  14

  1

  11

  14

  2

  13

  —

  Cunninghame

  445

  36

  54

  36

  13

  93

  16

  26

  64

  7

  Dumbarton

  1,703

  152

  308

  368

  56

  156

  345

  112

  169

  37

  East Kilbride

  521

  47

  88

  94

  19

  38

  144

  22

  65

  4

  Eastwood

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  1

  3

  1

  Glasgow

  8,459

  1,074

  1,409

  2,277

  231

  893

  1,762

  166

  552

  95

  Hamilton

  329

  18

  18

  36

  13

  52

  113

  15

  63

  1

  Inverclyde

  359

  54

  27

  38

  15

  59

  111

  5

  39

  11

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  440

  23

  72

  69

  12

  53

  110

  26

  71

  4

  Kyle and Carrick

  599

  90

  72

  80

  26

  93

  108

  32

  84

  14

  Monklands

  309

  30

  55

  79

  12

  21

  74

  14

  20

  4

  Motherwell

  983

  41

  173

  182

  30

  90

  188

  111

  150

  18

  Renfrew

  937

  45

  225

  101

  28

  139

  217

  35

  102

  45

  Strathkelvin

  313

  2

  10

  19

  16

  53

  104

  20

  89

  —

  Tayside

  Angus

  467

  48

  30

  47

  10

  57

  173

  15

  84

  3

  Dundee

  924

  79

  171

  65

  4

  137

  354

  22

  91

  1

  Perth and Kinross

  431

  9

  11

  9

  24

  48

  103

  54

  167

  6

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total in each district council area of households applying as homeless, by household type, for 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: The table gives the available information for the 31,709 applicant households in 1990–91 for whom case returns have been received from local authorities. It is estimated that in 1990–91 there were 34,600 applicant households under the homeless persons legislation in Scotland.
  471

  One person households

  One parent households

  Couple

  Area

  All applicants housholds1

  Under 18

  18–24

  25 and over and under retirement

  retirement age and over

  Parent aged under 25

  Parent aged 25 and over

  Without children

  With children

  Other household type

  Islands Councils

  Orkney Islands

  19

  —

  —

  2

  1

  8

  5

  —

  3

  —

  Shetland Islands

  98

  5

  28

  16

  3

  11

  19

  6

  10

  —

  Western Isles

  53

  2

  4

  11

  3

  3

  18

  1

  7

  4

  Sources: Case returns supplied to Scottish Office by district councils.

  1 All applicant households in 1990–91 for whom case returns have been supplied.

  Child Care Law
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to implement the recommendations of the Scottish Office review of child care law in Scotland; and what the timetable is for this.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: Having consulted extensively on the recommendations of the child care law review, we shall take them into account along with the recommendations of the Orkney and Fife inquiries and the review of residential child care, when we come to prepare a White Paper later this year. The White Paper will set out our proposals for a range of reforms in the field of child care.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auction Market Preferred Stock
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has referred the accountancy valuation status and practice of auction market preferred stock to the Accounting Standards Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The Accounting Standards Board raised the question of auction market preferred shares in its recent discussion paper on accounting for capital instruments.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had about the status of auction market preferred stock.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Bickershaw Colliery
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the communities affected by the closure of Bickershaw colliery will be eligible for EC RECHAR funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Bickershaw colliery is within an area eligible for RECHAR grants. The allocation of grants to individual projects within eligible areas is a matter for the programme committees.

  Applications for grants under the Lancashire RECHAR programme should be sent to the office of the Department of Trade and Industry in Manchester.

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he published his Department's inspectors' report on the Animal Defence Society Ltd.

  Mr. Redwood
  On 17 April 1991.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 22 472
  November 1991, Official Report, column 345, if he will propose legislation under which any hon. Members may examine copies of the inspectors' reports given to trade associations but not yet published.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Financial Reporting Review Panel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will launch an independent investigation of the operations of the financial reporting review panel.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Ramor Investigation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 347, if he will provide a breakdown of the total cost of the Ramor investigation, showing fees paid to the inspector from the auditing firm.

  Mr. Redwood
  The accountant inspector was paid a total of £651,609 as follows:

  £

  Inspector and accountancy support staff from his firm

  568,762

  Disbursements including VAT

  82,847

  651,609

  Pre-fitted Plugs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all the bodies he(a) has consulted and (b) intends to consult on regulations to require that all new electrical appliances are sold with a pre-fitted plug.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department is currently drawing up a consultative list from industry, trade associations, the enforcement authorities and consumer bodies, including those representing the disabled, who have an interest in the proposed regulations.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which groups representing disabled groups he is consulting on his proposed regulations to require that all new electrical appliances are sold with a pre-fitted plug.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department is currently drawing up a list of consultees with an interest in the proposed regulations, which will include representatives of the disabled.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official

  473
  Report, column 130, on fitted plugs, what consideration he has given to drafting the regulations in such a way as to make it a requirement for pre-fitted plugs on electrical appliances to meet the requirements of disabled people including those with wasting muscles and other difficulties in manipulating appliances.

  Mr. Leigh
  The proposed regulations will not prevent manufacturers fitting approved plugs to their appliances which are adapted to meet the requirements of the disabled, although it must be expected that manufacturers will in the main fit the standard design 13 amp plug because this is most commonly used in the majority of households.

  Moreover the type of plug and devices which assist the disabled will still be available for people who wish to continue to fit them to their appliances.

  Eco-labelling
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for amending the trade description legislation to take into account eco-labelling; and if he will propose that it should be an offence to claim a product is environmentally friendly if it has not been awarded an eco-label.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: Many environmental claims are clearly within the scope of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. We intend to amend the Act to put it beyond doubt that all such claims are covered as soon as parliamentary time permits. We do not think it would be right to outlaw environmental claims for goods not eligible to bear the eco-label but these claims will be subject to the Trade Descriptions Act.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  UNCED
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals his Department is developing on(a) extending literacy and (b) sharing scientific research costs and results for submission to the United Nations conference on environment and development in June.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government give high priority to basic skills—that is literacy and numeracy-education for adults. The Further and Higher Education Act will strengthen the position of basic skills. The Further

  Durham school leavers maintained schools only

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  All leavers (000s)

  10·04

  9·46

  9·42

  9·93

  9·79

  8·73

  9·34

  8·40

  8·06

  7·76

  FE/HE (000s)

  1·65

  1·77

  1·71

  2·20

  2·16

  2·02

  2·26

  2·32

  1·94

  2·72

  Percentage

  16·40

  18·70

  18·20

  22·20

  22·10

  23·10

  24·20

  27·60

  24·10

  35·10

  No qualification (000s)

  1·41

  1·10

  1·29

  1·20

  1·31

  0·84

  1·08

  0·81

  0·92

  0·74

  Percentage

  14·00

  11·60

  13·70

  12·10

  13·40

  9·60

  11·60

  9·60

  11·40

  9·50

  Source: School examinations survey.

  Infant Education
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now take the necessary steps to impose upon local education authorities an
  474
  Education Funding Councils will be under a specific duty to secure adequate provision of basic skills education for adults.

  The Government also support the sharing of scientific research costs when it is an appropriate and cost effective approach to a particular problem.

  Data Protection
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether school governors and heads who use a computer to perform statutory duties are required to make a separate registration under the Data Protection Act 1984; what steps he is taking to indemnify them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Guidance to schools on the implications of the Data Protection Act, issued last November, was prepared in consultation with the Data Protection Registrar. The guidance contained advice that school governing bodies and head teachers should register if, in connection with their statutory duties, they keep information containing personal data (as defined in the Act) that can be automatically processed. The guidance identified those duties which fall to either the governing body or head teacher.

  The cost of registration under the Act was one of a range of pressures on LEAs which the Government took into account in fixing education standard spending at a level 7 per cent. higher than in 1991–92. Registration lasts for three years, and may cover as many purposes as appropriate, for a single fee.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of young people in the Durham local education authority who have left school without any qualifications, the number going into further education and the numbers achieving higher education for each year since 1981; and if he will give the figures for each group in percentage terms from the total of young people leaving school.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows the estimated proportions of school leavers from maintained schools in the Durham local education authority area who had gained no graded examination results, or whose intended destination was further or higher education for the academic years 1980–81 to 1989–90. Information for further and higher education is not available separately at local education authority area level.

  obligation to provide nine terms' infant, or pro-rata first school education for all children; and if he will make a statement.
  475
  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so. The existing statutory framework enables LEAs to respond flexibly to local needs and priorities.

  Teachers of Deaf Children
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he has given to the need for mandatory qualifications for peripatetic teachers of children with a hearing impairment.

  Mr. Fallon
  Part IV of the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1989 applies only to the employment of teachers at schools. The regulations do not apply to part-time teachers, not to peripatetic teachers. The aim of the regulations is to ensure that teachers of classes of hearing impaired children have a mandatory qualification.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the number of training places in higher education establishments for practising and trainee teachers to become teachers of deaf pupils.

  Mr. Fallon
  Trainee teachers cannot become teachers of the deaf, since a period of post-training experience is required of all teachers who wish to undertake specialist training. The number of practising teachers who might be supported under the grants for education support and training (GEST) programme for training to become teachers of the deaf is currently under review.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he has given to reviewing the procedure for the training of teachers of deaf children.

  Mr. Fallon
  ; The Department has been carefully reviewing the procedures for this and other training in special educational needs. We have now identified a number of technical improvements to the mechanisms for supporting such training, about which we will be writing shortly to the bodies most directly concerned.

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total cost to public funds of the parents charter, listing separately costs to date for(a) preparation, (b) production, (c) launch, (d) all forms of distribution, (e) advertising and (f) total cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  The costs of the parents charter, broken down as requested, are as follows:(a) preparation, £21,000; (b) production, £491,000; (c) launch, £36,500; (d) distribution, £696,000; (e) advertising, £713,000; (f) total cost, £1,957,500.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many copies of the parents charter have been printed.

  Mr. Eggar
  Some 6·5 million copies of the parents charter have been printed. In addition, a total of 326,000 have been printed in eight ethnic minority languages.

  Teachers Pensions Agency
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what performance targets he has set the new Teachers Pensions Agency in 1992–93.
  476
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have set the following key targets for the Teachers Pensions Agency in 1992–93 which together cover its main activities comprehensively and focus on the principles of improving the quality of public services embodied in the citizens charter:

  1. The implementation of a new computerised pensions administration system by the third quarter of 1992–93.

  2. To process 95 per cent. of applications for retirement awards by the payable date or, if later than the payable date, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the application form.

  3. To collect on time 95 per cent. of the total sum of superannuation contributions due to be paid by employers.

  4. To demonstrate that there is a 95 per cent. probability that the error on individual pension-related calculations did not exceed 2 per cent. of the value of each calculation.

  5. Following the introduction of the new computer system, to provide a substantive answer to 95 per cent. of written inquiries within 15 working days of receipt (excluding time waiting for essential information from third parties).

  Special Needs
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is now able to issue the addendum to circular 22/89 on special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  In September 1989 my Department and the Department of Health issued circular 22/89 giving guidance to education, health and social services authorities on the procedures for assessments and statements under the Education Act 1981. Recent developments, in particular the implications of several legal cases, have made it necessary to provide further advice to authorities on certain aspects of those procedures. A draft addendum to circular 22/89 was issued last autumn for comment.

  We have considered all of the comments received during the consultation period and today issued a final version of the addendum. The addendum includes guidance on the form and content of statements and makes clear that, where speech therapy is specified as special educational provision in a statement, the local education authority has a duty to ensure that it is arranged.

  Copies of the addendum have been placed in the Library.

  Swimming
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the findings of the surveys undertaken by his Department of provision made for swimming by maintained schools are now available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Copies of the findings from the surveys of primary schools and local education authorities in England have been placed in the Library. Over 95 per cent. of the primary schools and all the local education authorities consulted responded to the surveys. Of the schools responding, over 80 per cent. indicated that they already provide swimming as part of the physical education curriculum. Of those not providing swimming, only 28 schools (2·3 per cent. of the schools responding) said that they were more than five miles from the nearest swimming pool. The survey of local education authorities revealed that 2,385 primary schools (9–5 per cent.), 855
  477
  secondary schools (21·4 per cent.) and 11 tertiary colleges (11 per cent.) currently have a pool on site in working order.

  Music
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the teaching of music in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 January 1992, Official Report, columns 344–45]: I have today laid the final orders with associated documents setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for art and music in the national curriculum for pupils aged five to 14. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish a draft order setting out the requirements for physical education in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 January 1992, Official Report, column 423]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today laid before the House an order for physical education in the national curriculum.

TRANSPORT

  Light Dues
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on light dues.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My responsibility for ensuring that the finances of the general lighthouse fund are maintained on a satisfactory basis compels me to increase the level of light dues. Now that the objective of reducing the fund's liquid reserves to a minimum necessary level has been substantially achieved, as the payers of light dues have wanted, it is essential to restore the dues tariff closer to the level required to cover the general lighthouse authorities' operating expenses and depreciation charges. The alternative would be an unacceptably high cash outflow which could be corrected only by exceptionally large dues increases at a later stage.

  I am accordingly laying regulations today to increase the light dues voyage tariff by 6·5p to 41·5p per tonne with effect from 1 April; I am also increasing the tariff for periodical payments, including those for fishing vessels, from £192 per annum plus £19 a metre (for 10 metres and over) to £205 plus £21 respectively, with consequential increases in related rates.

  The lower increase for fishing vessels takes account of the continuing special restrictions on the level of the industry's activities. These include the quota management system, the requirement on some vessels to tie up in port for specified periods each year, and the closure of certain fisheries to specific boats to meet conservation requirements.

  I share the concern expressed by the shipping and ports industries over the periodic need for sharp changes in the light dues tariff and over certain other features of the system. I propose to take a number of steps to improve the
  478
  position. First, I am inviting the Irish Government to join with the United Kingdom in an approach to the European Commission over the distortion to competition currently caused by the different methods of financing marine navigational aids within the Community. Secondly, I wish to review with the Irish Government the arrangements for financing the lights service in the Republic with the aim of securing a substantially increased contribution to the fund from sources within the Republic. Thirdly, I am asking the general lighthouse authorities to make cuts of about £1.5 million in their planned expenditure for 1992–93. Fourthly, I am asking my Department to consider, with the general lighthouse authorities and the payers of light dues, whether improvements can be made in forecasting light dues income. Fifthly, I am examining the difficult task of light dues for pleasure craft, but on this I am not yet in a position to make any announcement.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further progress he has made towards establishing executive agencies in his Department under the Government's "next steps" initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am pleased to announce that I shall be establishing two new executive agencies on 1 April Drivers, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology —DVOIT—and the Transport Research Laboratory—TRL. I will delegate to the chief executives clear responsibilities for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and quality of service. These delegations will be set out in the agencies' framework documents which will be published on 1 April; I shall place copies in the Library.

  Each year, I shall set both agencies challenging targets, which will form part of the agencies' annual business plans. DVOIT's business plan for 1992–93 will be commercial in confidence and will not therefore be published. However, the agency's key targets will be published on 1 April, and I shall then place a copy in the Library. TRL's business plan will be published on 1 April, and I shall place a copy in the Library. Both agencies will also publish annual reports; again copies will be put in the Library.

  DVOIT was formerly the information technology arm of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. It has about 500 staff based in Swansea. It will continue to provide IT services to DVLA and to other parts of the Department of Transport, but on a more commercial basis. It will have to compete with external suppliers of IT services for new contracts within my Department. It will also be able to bid for contracts in other parts of the public sector and in the private sector. Agency status will allow DVOIT to develop a more commercial style of operation and, in particular, establish more formal contractual relationships with its customers. I hope this will pave the way for eventual privatisation in a few years' time.

  Following an open competition, I have appointed Mr. David Evans, formerly PSA's director of information technology, to be DVOIT's first chief executive.

  DVOIT's key targets for 1992–93 are to: fulfil service level agreements with its customers; cover full costs with income from customers; reduce prices for existing services to current customers by RPI-3 per cent.; increase revenue per employee by 10 per cent. a year; achieve an annual rate of return of 6 per cent. on total assets employed.
  479
  TRL has about 640 staff based in Crowthorne, Berkshire. It will offer research services to the Department of Transport and to other customers, both in the public and private sectors. From 1 April, TRL will be untied from the Department, with responsibility for commissioning and funding research work passing to customers in policy divisions within the Department who will increasingly place contracts for new work by competitive tender.

  Following an open competition, I have appointed Mr. John Wootton, formerly chairman of Wootton Jeffreys Consultants Ltd., to be TRL's first chief executive.

  TRL's key targets for 1992–93 are: 90 per cent. of projects to be completed to customer satisfaction; net revenue per person year to be a minimum of £40,000; production costs as a percentage of total costs to be greater than 55 per cent.; to recover full economic costs from revenue, while meeting the net control total in supply estimates.

  This will increase to six the number of executive agencies in my Department. Nearly 70 per cent. of the staff employed by my Department will be working in executive agencies, which is good news for taxpayers, customers and the staff themselves.

  I wish the chief executives and their staff every success for the future.

  Pacific Crane
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures are in place for consultation with his Department about crew changes on the United Kingdom-registered ship Pacific Crane, following its arrival in Japan in connection with a cargo of plutonium; and if he will give details of the proposed crew changes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. There is no requirement for shipowners-managers to consult my Department when changing the crews of their ships, this is an operational matter for the owners-managers provided that the legal requirements are met.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the proposed crew changes on the British registered ship Pacific Crane following its arrival in Japan are compatible with the officer nationality requirements of the United Kingdom Register of Shipping.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It would be premature to consider whether a future unidentified crew would comply with the Department's manning requirements, but steps can be taken to ensure that United Kingdom law is observed in this respect.

  Tilbury
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy, upon receiving a recommendation from the Port of London authority as to a buyer for the Port of Tilbury, to consider the credit rating of the recommended bidder before making his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced yesterday in a statement to the House that he has given his consent to the sale of the Port of Tilbury to International Transport Ltd., as recommended by the board of the Port of London authority. My right hon. and 480
  learned Friend explained that, in reaching this decision, he was satisfied that the recommended bid met the agreed objectives of sale.

  PNTL Fleet
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the safety record of the PNTL fleet in carrying radioactive materials.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The PNTL fleet has been used to carry spent nuclear fuel from Japan to reprocessing facilities in Europe for almost 20 years, without any release of radioactive material.

  Rail Fares
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a real fares index for(a) British Rail and (b) Network SouthEast, for each year since 1971, with 1971 G = G100.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 6 March 1992]:The information is in the table:

  Real fares index and real passenger receipts per passenger kilometre: British Rail and Network SouthEast: 1971–91

  Real fare index

  Real passenger receipts per passenger kilometer1

  BR

  NSE2

  BR

  NSE

  1971

  100·0

  100·0

  n/a

  n/a

  1972

  103·6

  103·8

  100·0

  100·0

  1973

  103·7

  104·7

  97·1

  99·5

  1974

  97·4

  98·3

  89·3

  89·7

  1975

  107·2

  108·4

  95·5

  88·8

  1976

  117·2

  120·2

  102·8

  95·1

  1977

  116·7

  123·2

  101·2

  97·8

  1978

  123·2

  131·8

  107·8

  105·9

  1979

  116·1

  127·3

  106·0

  103·9

  1980

  122·4

  131·9

  108·8

  104·7

  1981

  129·0

  139·4

  106·1

  106·6

  1982

  128·8

  139·3

  96·4

  102·9

  1983

  132·6

  143·0

  103·8

  109·1

  1984

  134·3

  145·3

  103·9

  113·1

  1985

  135·0

  146·9

  105·6

  111·2

  1986

  141·2

  152·7

  107·2

  109·8

  1987

  142·5

  153·9

  107·8

  110·3

  1988

  144·6

  155·8

  109·9

  112·8

  1989

  146·2

  157·8

  111·0

  112·1

  1990

  144·6

  156·5

  109· 5

  108·7

  1991

  151·3

  163·9

  111·3

  112·1

  1 The real fares index reflects changes in ticket prices. However, the index of receipts per passenger kilometre, which takes account of the increased use of discounted tickets and travelcards, is a better indicator of the costs of rail travel, and it has remained relatively flat during the 1980s.

  2 Network SouthEast was formed in 1986. The pre-1986 figures apply to the current sector definition.

  Rail Safety
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list(a) the total number of passenger fatalities, (b) the total number of serious injuries to passengers and (c) the total number of minor injuries to passengers on (i) British Rail and (ii) Network SouthEast (1) in each month since April 1989 and (2) in each year since 1962 and for each category the number which occurred in (A) train accidents, (B) accidents through the movement of railway vehicles, (C) accidents on railway premises and (D) trespassers and suicides;

  (2) how many notifiable train accidents have occurred on (a) British Rail and (b) Network SouthEast (i) in each

  481
  month since April 1989 and (ii) in each year since 1962; and how many of these were the result of (1) collisions, (2) derailments, (3) running into level crossing gates and other obstructions, (4) fires, (5) falling from trains and (6) other accidents;

  (3) if he will list (a) the total number of staff and contractor fatalities, (b) the total number of serious injuries to staff and contractors and (c) the total number of minor injuries to staff and contractors on (i) British Rail and (ii) Network SouthEast (1) in each month since April 1989 and (2) in each year since 1962 and for each category, the number which occurred in (A) train accidents, (B) accidents through the movement of railway vehicles, (C) accidents on railway premises and (D) trespassers and suicides;

  (4) if he will list (a) the total number of staff and contractor fatalities, (b) the total number of serious injuries to staff and contractors and (c) the total number of minor injuries to staff and contractors on London Underground (i) in each month since April 1989 and (ii) in each year since 1962 and for each category above, the number which occurred in (1) train accidents, (2) accidents through the movement of railway vehicles, (3) accidents on railway premises and (4) trespassers and suicides;

  (5) if he will list (a) the total number of passenger fatalities, (b) the total number of serious injuries to passengers and (c) the total number of minor injuries to passengers on London Underground (i) in each month since April 1989 and (ii) in each year since 1962;

  (6) how many notifiable train accidents have occurred on London's underground (i) in each month since April 1989 and (ii) in each year since 1962; and how many of these were the result of (a) collisions with buffer stops, (b) derailments of passenger trains, (c) derailments of non-passenger trains, (d) running into obstructions, (e) fires on trains and (f) other accidents;

  (7) if he will publish the total number of fires which have occurred on London Underground and list the number which occurred (a) on rolling stock, (b) at stations, (c) on tracks in tunnels, (d) on open tracks (e) on escalators, (f) on lifts and (g) other locations, (i) in each month since April 1989 and (ii) in each year since 1962;

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 6 March 1992]: The information requested for the years 1962–90 is contained in Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's annual reports on railway safety, copies of which are in the House Library.

  Computer derived figures for information which is readily available for the years 1984–90 are set out in tables subject to the following points:

  (i) Separate statistics relating to Network SouthEast are not available;

  (ii) Statistics relating to London Underground have been shown separately since 1988; for the period 1984–1987, they are included with BR and other railways.

  (iii) Statistics for 1991 will be published in the report for the 15 month period to March 1992.

  Copies of the tables have been placed in the Library and I have written to the hon. Lady with a copy.

  Rail Crimes
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the total number of(a) crimes, (b) assaults on staff, (c) assaults on passengers, (d) indecent assaults, (e) rapes and (f) violent robberies
  482
  which have occurred on (i) British Rail and (ii) Network SouthEast; (1) in each month since April 1989 and (2) in each year since 1971.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 6 March 1992]: This information is only available at a disproportionate cost. The tables show figures for crimes reported in 1990 and the first nine months of 1991, for British Rail as a whole and for Network SouthEast alone; and total crimes reported for British Rail from 1982 to 1990.

  1 January 1991 to 30 September 1991

  1990

  BR

  NSE

  BR

  NSE

  Total crimes

  54,702

  12,440

  68,946

  23,764

  Of which:

  Assaults on staff

  249

  132

  374

  181

  Assaults on passengers

  632

  276

  884

  379

  Indecent assault

  170

  116

  240

  136

  Rape

  8

  4

  15

  6

  Violent robberies

  638

  428

  624

  457

  Total crimes reported on British Rail

  Year

  Totals

  1990

  68,946

  1989

  70,266

  1988

  65,697

  1987

  63,644

  1986

  65,450

  1985

  64,185

  1984

  65,299

  1983

  56,152

  1982

  51,779

  Note. From 1 January 1990 the BTP force brought its crime reporting into line with Home Office counting rules. This change means that exact comparisons with previous years are not always possible.

  British Rail
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responsibility his Department has in relation to the finance, policy and operations of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: The Secretary of State's main responsibilities in relation to British Rail are:

  to appoint the chairman and board members, and determine their pay;

  to set overall policy and objectives for safety, quality and financial performance;

  to discharge various responsibilities on safety through Her Majesty's railway inspectorate;

  to set the external finance limit;

  to set an investment ceiling, and to approve major investment projects;

  to issue a public service obligation and to set an annual grant ceiling;

  to control borrowing;

  to decide on opposed proposals for the closure of stations and services; and

  to exercise various statutory controls on procedure and finance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hotels (Fire Regulations)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what European Community regulations come into force in January requiring self-employed hoteliers with premises of under six bed spaces to conform to fire regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  European Community Directives 89/391/EEC and 89/654/EEC relate to the health and safety of workers at work and contain fire safety requirements for which we must make legislative provision by 31 December 1992.

  We plan to give effect to those requirements by regulations made under section 12 of the Fire Precautions

  Prosecutions for drugs offences involving ecstasy (MDMA). 1990

  United Kingdom

  Number of prosecutions

  Month

  Unlawful possession

  Possession with intent to supply unlawfully

  Unlawful supply

  Unlawful import

  January

  19

  8

  5

  1

  February

  25

  5

  2

  —

  March

  33

  6

  3

  1

  April

  34

  8

  3

  2

  May

  44

  13

  7

  —

  June

  27

  12

  2

  1

  July

  14

  5

  3

  —

  August

  22

  7

  3

  —

  September

  9

  7

  1

  2

  October

  13

  5

  2

  1

  November

  10

  7

  4

  4

  December

  19

  4

  5

  2

  Court of Appeal
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cases he has referred to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 since 1982 and the outcome in each case.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since 1982 to 31 December 1991 the following cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal under Section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 with the result as indicated.

  In respect of conviction:

  Year and name

  Result

  1982

  Saltman, Bernard Brian

  Allowed

  Tarrant, Edward Charles

  Allowed

  Wakefield, Ian Ferguson

  Allowed

  Neal, John Stephen

  Woods, Bernard John

  Cousins, Alverstone Edmond

  Allowed

  Todd, Percival George

  1983

  Bhaskar, Vinod Kumar

  Allowed

  Russell, Mervyn John Scott

  Allowed

  Abrol, Kewal Krishan

  Allowed

  1984

  McDonagh, Michael

  Dismissed

  McDonagh, Patrick

  Harrison, Melvyn

  Dismissed

  Copeland, William Ian

  Dismissed

  Mycock, Geoffrey

  Allowed

  Gilfellan, Ian Charles

  Allowed

  Hartley, Hugo

  Dismissed

  484
  Act 1971. Those regulations will generally apply to every place in which one or more persons work and come into force on 1 January 1993. There will, however, be an extensive public consultation exercise before they are made.

  Ecstasy
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been made in connection with(a) the use, (b) the selling of, (c) the possession and (d) the importation of the drug Ecstasy (MDMA), in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of prosecutions for drugs offences involving ecstasy (M DMA) in each month of 1990 were as follows:

  Year and name

  Result

  North, Norman Berry

  Dismissed

  Sample, Alan John

  Szpythma, Michael

  Allowed

  Gordon, Keith

  Dismissed

  Schnepel, Dieter

  Abandoned

  Asquith, Adrian

  Abandoned

  Harold, Roy

  Abandoned

  1985

  Fellows, Keith Noel

  Allowed

  Clarke, Ernest Adolphus

  Dismissed

  Mycock, Anthony

  Allowed

  Willis, Alan Anthony

  Dismissed

  1986

  Jarrom, Rodney Robert

  Allowed

  Mapstone, Kerry Andrew

  Dismissed

  Livesey, Margaret

  Dismissed

  Edwards, Derek Goronwy

  Dismissed

  1987

  Andrews, Aurilius Benedict

  Allowed

  Hickey, Michael Joseph

  Dismissed

  Hickey, Vincent

  Robinson, James

  Dismissed

  Cahill, Michael Peter

  Dismissed

  Devaney, Phillip

  Allowed

  Callaghan, Hugh

  Dismissed

  Hill, Patrick

  Hunter, Robert

  Mcllkenny, Noel

  Power, William

  Walker, John

  Bargh, Patrick Joseph

  Allowed

  1988

  O'Callaghan, Daniel

  Abandoned

  485

  Year and name

  Result

  Lacy, Gerard Francis

  Dismissed

  1989

  Howard, Mark William

  Allowed

  Oliwiecki, Ronald

  Allowed

  Armstrong, Patrick

  Allowed

  Conlon, Gerard Patrick

  Hill, Paul Michael

  Richardson, Carole Margaret

  1990

  Bateman, Andrew

  Allowed

  Cooper, Mark Simon

  Davis, Anthony John

  McGranaghan, John

  Allowed

  Maguire, Anne Rita

  Allowed

  Maguire, Patrick Joseph

  Maguire, Vincent John Paerick

  Maguire, Partick Joseph Paul

  Smyth, William, John

  O'Neill, Patrick Joseph

  Conlon, Patrick Joseph

  Callaghan, Hugh

  Hill, Patrick

  Allowed

  Hunter, Robert Gerard

  McIlkenny, Richard

  Power, William

  Walker, John

  Parfitt, Raymond Kenneth

  Allowed

  Modhwadia, Malde Mepa

  Re-trial ordered

  Raghip, Engin

  Allowed

  1991

  Darvell, Paul Gary

  Allowed

  Darvell, Phillip Wayne

  Bromell, Michael Thomas

  Jones-Walters, Myles

  Allowed

  Kiszko, Stefan

  Allowed

  Bower, Stuart Nicholas

  No result

  Haughton, Robert Percival

  Ward, Judith Theresa

  Braithwaite, Mark

  Allowed

  Silcott, Winston

  Hare, Delroy

  No result

  In respect of sentence:

  1982

  Moore. Peter Damien John

  Allowed

  Watts, Richard David

  Allowed

  1983

  Cooper, Leonard William

  Allowed

  199=84

  Harper, Andrew

  Allowed

  Bown, Paul Edward

  Dismissed

  Butler, James Edward

  Allowed

  1985

  Lunnon, Khaliq Hossain

  Allowed

  James,Irene Ingrid

  Allowed

  Showell, John Joseph

  Allowed

  McKenna,Dean Robert

  Allowed

  1986

  Jenkinson, Karl

  Allowed

  Lawrence, Roy

  Allowed

  Fountain, Peter

  Allowed

  Bovis, John Edward

  Dismissed

  Celisse, Paul Arthur

  Allowed

  Buck, Kevin John

  Allowed

  Cain, Douglas Roy

  Allowed

  Critchlow, Janine Patricia

  Allowed

  Phelan, Michael

  Allowed

  Chamberlaine, Sharal

  Allowed

  Limb, Martin Ernest

  Allowed

  Meah, Farouk

  Allowed

  486

  Year and name

  Result

  Creary, Shirley Elaine

  Allowed

  1987

  Price, Gareth David

  Allowed

  Valentine, Jason Richard

  Allowed

  Clayton, Shane Stanley

  Allowed

  Lyons, James

  Allowed

  Teal, Graham

  Allowed

  Kite, Christopher Joseph

  Allowed

  Jones, Frederick

  Allowed

  Curtis, Mark Lawrence

  Allowed

  Whitworth, George Edward

  Allowed

  Buswell, David

  Allowed

  Lincoln, Timothy William

  Allowed

  Parsons,Royston Michael

  Allowed

  Tourire, Albert saidu

  Allowed

  Curtis, Anthony Dean

  Allowed

  Gibbon, Christopher

  Allowed

  Cade, Gary Michael

  Allowed

  Blanco, Leopoldo

  Allowed

  Findley, Raymond

  Hayden, Darren Earl

  Heal, Kevin John

  Sheehan, Michael

  Wlodarczyk, Jan

  Wood, Jeffrey

  Walker, Gerald Francis

  Allowed

  Componi, Christina

  Allowed

  Ellington, Clare

  Hardie, John James

  Allowed

  Coaten, Glynn

  Abandoned

  1988

  Rowley, David Alan

  Allowed

  Rathbone, Gary Michael

  Allowed

  Lynas, Gerrard

  Allowed

  Demicol, John

  Allowed

  Seafield, Susan Elizabeth

  Allowed

  Patrick, Robert John

  Dismissed

  Hart, Lesley Jane

  Allowed

  Hudd, Nigel Paul

  Allowed

  Prince, Michael

  Allowed

  Brumwell, Michael

  Allowed

  Seagar, Jeremy Hugh

  Allowed

  Morrison, Everton

  Dismissed

  Brown, Ivan Michael

  Allowed

  Baker, Norman Russrll

  Allowed

  McGrath, Marie Ann

  Allowed

  McDonald, Scott William

  Allowed

  McRea, Angus

  Allowed

  Benham, Robert Steven

  Allowed

  Grant, Alan Adam

  Allowed

  Beevers, William

  Allowed

  Stevens, Susanagh Marie

  Allowed

  Clayton, Andrew Albert

  Allowed

  Ward, Darren Ernest

  Allowed

  1989

  Tolladay, Vincent James

  Allowed

  Steed, Gareth

  Dismissed

  Atkinson, John Peter

  Allowed

  Smith, Robert Brian

  Allowed

  Buttimer, Michael Anthony

  Allowed

  Franklin, John Francis

  Allowed

  1990

  Harris, John Andrew

  Allowed

  Clayton, Kenneth John

  Allowed

  Quentin, Mark Vernon

  Allowed

  1991

  Afzal, Mohammed

  Allowed

  Arshad, Mohammed

  Baker, Alan

  Allowed

  Baker, George

  Cooper, Lee

  Friis, Kirk

  487

  Year and name

  Result

  McAleny, Alan Bernard

  Allowed

  Simons, Leslie Lionel

  Merseyside Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 101, if he will now request the chief constable of Merseyside to make a special study on the number of officers engaged in obtaining admissions from convicted criminals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. It is for the chief constable of Merseyside to decide whether to make a special study of the number of officers engaged in obtaining admissions from convicted criminals. I understand that the chief constable does not intend to carry out such a study at the moment.

  Central European Time
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of moving to central European time.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 18 November 1991,Official Report, column 15.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women being held on remand in police cells in England and Wales on 29 February.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The figures given are for 28 February, data is not collected on Saturdays or Sundays.

  On Friday 28 February there were 1,593 males and 33 females held in police cells in England and Wales. It is not possible, from the information available, to distinguish between remand and sentenced prisoners, but most would have been held on remand.

  Mr. Ian Borovikov
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what legal grounds Mr. Ian Borovikov (xc1225) is currently being detained at Her Majesty's prison, Pentonville.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Mr. Borovikov was released on 13 February 1992 when the Court of Appeal quashed the recommendation for his deportation which had been made by Winchester Crown court.

  Magistrates Courts, Cheshire
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of administration of Cheshire magistrates courts in each year since 1982.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information available centrally about net revenue expenditure (excluding loan charges and revenue contributions to capital outlay) by Cheshire magistrates courts committee is as follows:
  488

  £

  11982–83

  2,162,794

  11983–84

  2,282,496

  21984–85

  2,647,932

  21985–86

  2,671,620

  21986–87

  2,845,720

  21987–88

  3,283,036

  21988–89

  3,022,014

  21989–90

  3,437,294

  21990–91

  3,756,143

  31991–92

  4,741,000

  1 Information from county council's revenue outturn return to the Department of the Environment.

  2 Information from county council's audited specific grant claim to the Home Office.

  3 Committee's forecast outturn.

  Horserace Betting Levy
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the determination under section 1 of the Horserace Betting Levy Act 1969 of the horserace betting levy scheme beginning 1 April.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have today sent the following letter to the Chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and written similarly to the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee. A copy of the scheme has been placed in the Library of the House. The letter reads:In your letter of 1 November 1991 you reported to me that the Board and the Bookmakers' Committee had failed to agree the Scheme to have effect for the 31st levy period and that the Scheme accordingly fell to be determined by me. I have now reached my decision and enclose a copy of the Scheme which I have determined.
  In reaching my decision, I have taken into account all the submissions made to me by the Government-appointed members of the Levy Board and by the Bookmakers' Committee, together with other submissions and representations, including from the Jockey Club and the Horseracing Advisory Council, on which the Board members and the Committee were afforded the opportunity to comment. I have also taken fully into account the reduction in General Betting Duty announced by the Chancellor today in his budget.
  The cash yield from the Scheme will depend upon the level of leviable betting turnover in the 31st Levy period. Assuming turnover of £4,300 million, I have determined a scheme which aims to produce a total estimated levy yield of about £48 million.
  This yield is higher than would have been the case if General Betting Duty had not been reduced, but in determining the Scheme I have only taken account of the reduction in duty on horseracing bets. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the bookmakers can make their levy payments under the Scheme without any increase in their deductions from punters.
  As a result of the reduction in Betting Duty, it has been possible to achieve a substantial increase in the levy yield. I believe that this creates a new opportunity for bookmaking and racing to work more closely together for their mutual long-term benefit. In order to inform that process of closer co-operation, I will be inviting the Levy Board to consider ways in which improved value for money can be obtained from how the levy is spent and, separately, to advise on what steps racing might take to achieve a sound long-term basis for the improved level of levy contribution from bookmakers.
  As part of that general process of closer co-operation, I hope that the two industries will explore further together the alternatives to the present scheme. The process of determining an annual levy scheme is not the vehicle for seeking changes to the basic principles of the levy. The levy was never intended to provide a price for product. Indeed, it is difficult to see how it could do so. But if racing and

  489
  bookmaking can agree changes to the present arrangements, which were originally introduced with their joint agreement, I should certainly be prepared to consider their proposals. In the meantime, the levy must continue to be determined in the normal way and in accordance with the established criteria.

  Crime
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the number of crimes reported and the crime detection rate in each police force area in each of the last seven years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for 1985–89 is published in tables 2.4 and 2.21 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1989". Figures for 1990 are published in Home Office statistical bulletin 4/91. They are annotated as provisional in the bulletin, but only the south Wales figure has since been revised, to 36 per cent. Figures for the number of offences recorded in 1991 were published yesterday in Home Office statistical bulletin 2/92. This includes an estimate of the clear-up rate for England and Wales but this information is not yet available by police force area. Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Upper Bann of 28 January to the Minister of State.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have now written to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to answer the letter of the hon. Member for Upper Bann of 5 February.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 2 March, explaining that since the matters raised in his letter related to the electoral registration system in Northern Ireland, they were the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Civil Debt
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been imprisoned for civil debt each year since 1979 in(a) England and Wales and (b) the Leeds metropolitan district.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information for England and Wales is published annually in Prison Statistics England and Wales (table 6.3 of the latest volume, for 1990, Cm 1800), a copy of which is in the Library.

  The home address of inmates of prison service establishments is not recorded centrally. The table gives details of debtors known to have been committed by courts in the Leeds district.

  Prisoners1 received into prison service establishments in England and Wales following committal for non-payment of civil debts2 by courts in the Leeds metropolitan district 1979 to 1990

  Debtors received

  1979

  58

  1980

  45

  1981

  18

  1982

  35

  490

  Debtors received

  1983

  19

  1984

  6

  1985

  18

  1986

  8

  1987

  8

  1988

  9

  1989

  3

  1990

  3

  1 The data may be under recorded to some extent, reflecting detailed court data.

  2 Wife or child maintenance, arrears under an affiliation order, rates, community charge and other debts.

  Movement within the EC
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the United Kingdom legislation which imposes limitations and conditions, as referred to in article 8A of the Maastricht treaty, to the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The new article 8A which the treaty on European union inserts into the treaty of Rome provides that every citizen of the union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the treaty—the treaty of Rome—and by the measures adopted to give it effect. At present the right of free movement, and the limitations and conditions applicable, are contained in the following directives and regulations:

  Already in force

  Council regulations

  161/68 EEC, 1251/70 EEC;

  Council directives

  64/221 EEC, 68/360 EEC, 72/194 EEC, 72/148 EEC, 75/34 EEC, 75/35 EEC;

  Due to take effect on 30 June 1992

  Council directives

  90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC, 90/366/EEC

  These provisions have overriding legal effect in the United Kingdom.

  Crime Prevention Panels
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the funding of crime prevention panels.

  Mr. John Patten
  Crime prevention panels are an excellent means by which local communities can become involved through voluntary activity in the fight against crime. They are encouraged to be self-sufficient and to seek local funding arrangements. Many crime prevention panels obtain sponsorship from local businesses. Possible sources of funding will vary from area to area but Crime Concern has published a booklet entitled "Attracting Business Sponsorship" which provides detailed advice for panels on how to obtain sponsorship for crime prevention. A few police forces are known to have given financial support for specific initiatives run by panels. In support of the work of crime prevention panels in the areas concerned, grants have also been made under the safer cities programme which brings extra crime prevention resources to 20 selected high crime areas in England. Some panels have been successful in obtaining charity status and
  491
  any panel wishing to do this may contact the Charity Commission which will advise it on the necessary procedures.

  Usk Prison
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has plans to privatise Usk prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are no present plans to contract out the management of Her Majesty's prison Usk.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next proposes to visit Her Majesty's prison, Usk.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Her Majesty's prison, Usk, in the near future.

  Vehicle Watch
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a vehicle watch scheme following the pilot project undertaken in Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  The introduction of vehicle watch schemes is a matter for individual chief police officers. A decision on whether the Home Office should advise the police to extend such schemes throughout the country will be made after the evaluation has been completed later this year.

  DNA Register
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the introduction of a national DNA register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have not had any recent representations about the introduction of a national DNA register. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 7 February, I have sought the advice of the Royal Commission on criminal justice about this delicate issue.

  Reunite
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce his decision in respect of the grant application submitted by Reunite, the National Council for Abducted Children.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Ronald Loco
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons he has failed to answer the letters to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 15 October and 20 December 1991 and 23 January with regard to Mr. Ronald Loco, 18 Cheston road; if he will now send a reply without any further delay; and if he will apologise for the failure to reply to correspondence over this period.
  492
  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend replied on 7 November 1991 to the right hon. Gentleman's letter of 15 October. We have not been able to trace any record of having received the letters of 20 December 1991 and 23 January 1992. If the right hon. Member would care to let me have copies of them, I will look into the matters that he wishes to raise and let him have a further reply as soon as possible.

  Prisons (Privatisation)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the privatisation of prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from hon. Members, organisations and members of the public.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the latest figures for the number of inmates accommodated in(a) Her Majesty's prison, Durham and (b) Her Majesty's prison, Belmarsh.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 9 March, the populations of the two establishments were as follows:

  Number

  Her Majesty's prison Durham

  922

  Her Majesty's prison Belmarsh

  798

  Voters
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce emergency legislation with regard to the qualifying date for registration for the vote in a parliamentary election to equalise the position between people living abroad and those living on the streets.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The qualifying date for registration as an elector is already the same both for overseas electors and for electors living in this country.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications there have been in each police force in England and Wales for increased police manpower; and what are the numbers involved and the numbers agreed to, for the current year and each of the two previous years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of applications received and posts approved are set out in the table for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93. These figures include posts whose costs are fully reimbursed by a third party, for example at major airports.
  493

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Force

  Posts applied for

  Post approved

  Posts applied for

  Post approved

  Posts applied for

  Post approved

  Avon and Somerset

  50

  10

  9

  4

  7

  2

  Bedfordshire

  38

  38

  71

  32

  76

  61

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  7

  30

  22

  10

  10

  Cheshire

  20

  20

  20

  11

  20

  20

  Cleveland

  19

  13

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Cumbria

  50

  19

  35

  8

  24

  4

  Derbyshire

  34

  19

  15

  13

  56

  25

  Devon and Cornwall

  48

  17

  31

  15

  70

  48

  Dorset

  27

  14

  14

  15

  26

  15

  Durham

  Nil

  Nil

  20

  11

  20

  Nil

  Dyfed Powys

  8

  8

  Nil

  Nil

  50

  25

  Essex

  79

  69

  32

  17

  58

  58

  Gloucestershire

  Nil

  Nil

  36

  19

  48

  1

  Greater Manchester

  248

  31

  123

  36

  140

  20

  Gwent

  11

  2

  9

  Nil

  10

  1

  Hampshire

  77

  25

  69

  27

  69

  67

  Hertfordshire

  35

  18

  42

  11

  34

  4

  Humberside

  20

  15

  40

  18

  22

  9

  Kent

  50

  50

  63

  34

  82

  82

  Lancashire

  81

  28

  54

  22

  32

  4

  Leicestershire

  75

  53

  25

  13

  27

  26

  Lincolnshire

  20

  14

  21

  8

  Nil

  Nil

  Merseyside

  Nil

  Nil

  49

  5

  88

  Nil

  Norfolk

  66

  46

  22

  12

  25

  25

  Northamptonshire

  29

  20

  33

  25

  23

  23

  Northumbria

  243

  38

  82

  26

  92

  27

  North Wales

  10

  21

  Nil

  Nil

  30

  17

  North Yorkshire

  35

  25

  15

  6

  25

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  63

  26

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  South Wales

  67

  31

  Nil

  Nil

  44

  Nil

  South Yorkshire

  50

  20

  50

  18

  16

  15

  Staffordshire

  20

  14

  20

  8

  20

  4

  Suffolk

  26

  18

  30

  11

  30

  17

  Surrey

  50

  10

  41

  11

  30

  3

  Sussex

  54

  23

  49

  18

  35

  32

  Thames Valley

  158

  65

  156

  40

  132

  87

  Warwickshire

  35

  15

  23

  8

  15

  4

  West Mercia

  32

  32

  Nil

  Nil

  30

  29

  West Midlands

  350

  63

  148

  63

  121

  19

  West Yorkshire

  47

  20

  73

  14

  79

  Nil

  Wiltshire

  19

  13

  44

  15

  77

  67

  City of London

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Metropolitan

  350

  150

  Nil

  100

  22

  22

  Total

  2,704

  1,120

  1,594

  716

  1,815

  877

  National Transcommunication Limited
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total paid in consultancy fees by his Department during the sale of National Transcommunication Ltd., previously the research and engineering wing of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Total costs for the sale, completed on 24 October 1991, were £2.2 million. The initial proceeds were £70 million and the Government will receive further proceeds under certain conditions, if the company is floated successfully.

  Community Relations
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make available the report of the community relations project of the Council of Europe.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have arranged for a copy of the report, "Community and Ethnic Relations in Europe", to be placed in the Library of the House.
  494
  The committee of experts which produced the report is to be congratulated on its penetrating analysis of the issues faced by multi-racial societies, and of the possible policy responses to these issues.

  Safer Cities Programme
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the safer cities programme.

  Mr. John Patten
  The programme is making good progress. Four new local projects began operating late last year, and the 16 longer-established ones have between them started or planned a total of 2,205 local crime prevention schemes since 1989, supported by £13.8 million of Home Office grant funding.

  The programme's evaluation should be completed in the first half of 1993, but at present I am satisfied that the safer cities programme is working well, and should continue in its present form. I have recently informed chairmen of local steering committees for the 16 longer-established projects that they may plan action and commit grant money for an extended period to March 1994.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what length of time the current longest serving prisoner has been held on remand awaiting trial.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: According to the records held centrally, which are approximate, on 29 February 1992, the longest period for which a person had been held in custody awaiting or during trial was almost two years.

  Assaults on Police
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has reached as a result of the Home Office survey of sentences awarded to persons convicted of assaulting police officers.

  Mr. John Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 January 1992, col. 322]: I have published the results of the survey, which covered the last six months of 1991 and was conducted with the assistance of the Crown prosecution service, in the Home Office bulletin issue 3/92 "Sentencing for Assault on Police Officers", copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The survey demonstrates that the courts clearly recognise that assaults on police officers are despicable and deserve to be punished more severely, immediate custody being imposed for a significantly higher proportion of the assaults on the police covered in the survey than for assaults on all victims in 1990.

  The Government are committed to protecting our protectors who have a difficult job to do on our behalf.

  I am setting up a working group to review the physical protection of the police. I am sure that the group, which will involve police representatives, will have a valuable contribution to make to improving still further the protection from attack available to the police, the need for which has been recognised by the Government and the courts.

DEFENCE

  Surplus Army Tents
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated number of surplus Army tents as at 31 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 31 January there were no surplus Army tents.

  TRIGAT
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about long-range TRIGAT.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Last autumn we decided that the United Kingdom should not continue in the collaborative long-range TRIGAT programme unless we could do so on a basis that was consistent with our future priorities. Negotiations with our collaborative partners have now reached a successful conclusion. As a result, we shall be continuing with the development programme on a revised basis.

  Army Training
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in restructuring the Army's training base in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Command Paper 1595 referred to proposals to restructure the Army's training organisation and, in particular, to our intention to improve basic training for adults and young soldiers, juniors and apprentices at a reduced number of larger and more efficient establishments. The first part of the review is nearing completion, and we now need to begin detailed planning. Starting later this year, we propose to concentrate junior leader training at Bramcote, Harrogate and Winchester and all adult and young soldier training in new Army training regiments to be formed at Glencorse, Lichfield, Bassingbourne, Pirbright and Winchester. To permit these changes to take place, specialist infantry training which now takes place at divisional depots will in future be conducted at Strensall, Ouston and Crickhowell though further reorganisation may follow later. Recognising the importance of the regimental system, we will ensure that training will continue to be organised on a capbadge basis.

  Final decisions on the future use of the establishments concerned have still to be taken, and a number of establishments will be required for use by units of the field Army. It is too early to say what the detailed implications will be for the staff of the establishments affected. With the exception of the WRAC training centre at Guildford, we do not expect any to close as a result of this announcement. Full consultation with the trade unions will take place in the normal way before final decisions are taken.

  Decisions on the future rationalisation of apprentice training have not yet been taken, but from September onwards we shall introduce a one-year standard foundation course at each of the existing Army apprentice colleges in place of the current two-year course. Apprentices will then go on to complete their technical training elsewhere within the Army.

  Work is continuing to develop proposals for the rationalisation of other areas in specialist training and further proposals will be announced in due course.

  Defence Contractors
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the major changes between the basis of calculations used to produce the list of contractors which appear on page 15 of the "Statement of the Defence Estimates Volume 2", and those of similar, previously published, lists which relate to the six years to 31 March 1989.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There have been no major changes.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total amounts paid by his Department to United Kingdom-based contractors in each of the five years to 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Ministry of Defence paid the following total amounts to United Kingdom-based contractors for the financial years 1983–84 to 1987–88:
  497

  £ million

  1983–84

  6,609·33

  1984–85

  7,012·56

  1985–86

  7,458·92

  1986–87

  7,366·12

  1987–88

  7,836·89

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the precise amounts paid to each of the 10 contractors which received the largest share of contracts awarded by his Department in each of the five years to 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The 10 contractors who received the largest payments from my Department in each of the years specified were:

  £ million

  1983–84

  British Aerospace plc

  952·07

  The General Electric Co. plc

  688·77

  Rolls-Royce Ltd.

  484·28

  British Shipbuilders

  399·56

  The Plessey Co. plc

  363·98

  Royal Ordnance

  338·89

  Ferranti plc

  177·73

  The British Petroleum Co. plc

  168·46

  Westland plc

  153·23

  Esso Petroleum Co. plc

  143·58

  1984–85

  British Aerospace plc

  1,004·66

  The General Electric Co. plc

  806·87

  British Shipbuilders

  535·50

  The Plessey Co. plc

  415·43

  Royal Ordnance

  409·51

  Rolls-Royce Ltd.

  408·12

  Ferranti plc

  213·51

  Esso UK plc

  204·59

  The British Petroleum Co. plc

  174·29

  Westland plc

  169·53

  1985–86

  British Aerospace plc

  1,011·00

  The General Electric Co. plc

  799·68

  British Shipbuilders

  590·26

  The Plessey Co. plc

  438·54

  Rolls-Royce Ltd.

  435·78

  Royal Ordnance plc

  369·87

  Ferranti plc

  223·71

  Westland plc

  178·02

  Hunting Associated Industries plc

  161·95

  Thorn EMI plc

  149·97

  1986–87

  British Aerospace plc

  927·05

  The General Electric Co. plc

  850·99

  Rolls-Royce plc

  424·57

  The Plessey Co. plc

  366·12

  Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.

  343·65

  Royal Ordnance plc

  245·50

  Hunting Associated Industries plc

  203·71

  Ferranti plc

  198·31

  Thorn EMI plc

  157·10

  Westland plc

  134·81

  1987–88

  The General Electric Co. plc

  1,035·07

  British Aerospace plc

  875·88

  Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.

  462·64

  Rolls-Royce plc

  418·26

  The Plessey Co. plc

  307·41

  Royal Ordnance plc

  223·06

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  222·61

  Ferranti plc

  200·95

  498

  £ million

  Hunting Associated Industries plc

  193·87

  Thorn EMI plc

  143·54

  Job Losses
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 139, whether he has established how workers at Trecwn heard the news of closure and job losses via the media in advance of the announcement to staff; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that, in future, such decisions are first communicated to the work force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The rundown and closure of Royal Navy Armaments Depot—RNAD—Trecwn was part of a package of measures for the restructuring of the fleet support area proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 16 July 1991,Official Report, columns 148–49 and confirmed, following extensive consultation on 24 January 1992 Official Report, column 377. Details of the final decision were provided to the work force at each establishment affected through a series of management briefings timed to coincide with the answering of the parliamentary question on 24 January. In the case of RNAD Trecwn, it was unfortunate that media speculation anticipated these announcements.

  Falkland Islands (Flights)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason civilian passengers have to bear the loss of seats on flights to and from the Falkland Islands when a change of aircraft results in reduction in the total number of seats.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has agreed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that capacity will be provided for civilian passengers on flights to the Falkland Islands, subject to overriding military requirements. When a change of aircraft is necessary which entails a reduction in the total number of seats, military requirements may dictate that civilian passengers should be off-loaded.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the delayed or diverted flights on which seats were for sale to civilians to and from the Falkland Islands in 1991 and to date, in 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Flights to the Falkland Islands on which seats were for sale to civilians from 1 January 1991 to 28 February 1992 and which arrived more than two hours late at RAF Mount Pleasant, or were diverted, are listed.

  Year and Month

  Dates of Departure from United Kingdom

  1991

  February

  7th

  March

  4th, 13th

  April

  29th

  May

  6th, 9th, 23rd

  June

  10th

  July

  4th, 8th, 18th,29th

  August

  1st, 12th, 26th

  September

  9th, 16th

  499

  Year and Month

  Dates of Departure from United Kingdom

  October

  7th, 21st

  December

  9th, 13th

  1992

  January

  27th, 30th

  February

  10th, 13th

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason 27 civilian fare passengers were removed from the Falklands bound flight on Monday 24 February.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The aircraft earmarked for the Falkland Islands flight on 24 February became unserviceable shortly prior to the scheduled departure time. It had to be replaced with an aircraft offering less capacity and, consequently, some passengers and all freight had to be re-booked to the next flight.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account is taken of the effect on civilian morale when civilian passengers only are delayed for 24 hours or more on flights to and from the Falkland Islands; and if he will make it his policy to ensure such passengers are kept informed about progress on their flight.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Any delays on flights to the Falkland Islands are regretted whether they affect civilian or military passengers. In such circumstances the staff do all that they can to mitigate the impact of the delay. When the time permits, civilian passengers are notified of delays via the Falkland Islands Government office. Otherwise they are briefed by the RAF movements staff at the reporting airfield, or en route, as appropriate.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what increase in total costs was incurred by the use of Britannia Airways to provide flights to and from the Falkland Islands during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is commercially confidential.

  Service Children's Education Authority
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of those schools which have been approved by the Service Children's education authority; how often representatives from the authority pay visits to the schools; what criteria are used for deciding whether schools are listed; and whether on the change of ownership of a school it is required to re-apply for approval.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend.

  Boarding School Allowance
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service and Foreign Office families are currently benefiting from the boarding school allowance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For the spring term 1992, the numbers are as follows:
  500

  Service

  Families

  Number of Children

  Royal Navy

  1,955

  3,076

  Army

  5,318

  7,998

  Foreign Office

  580

  830

  Totals

  11,089

  16,779

EMPLOYMENT

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has made to the representations recently made to him by industrialists on the subject of a statutory minimum wage.

  Mr. Howard
  I have assured business leades that I shall continue to take every opportunity to point out the damage which the statutory minimum wage would cause. Labour's plans could cost up to 2 million jobs in Britain.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to arrest the increase in unemployment.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government's main role is to ensure a sound and stable economic framework within which enterprise can flourish and the battle against inflation can be won. There are in fact more people in work today in Scotland than there were in 1979. We also have in place the most comprehensive range of help ever made available to unemployed people.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement concerning the current levels of unemployment.

  Mr. Howard
  The present level of unemployment clearly reflects the fact that recovery is being affected by world economic circumstances. But the battle against inflation is being won, the foundations are in place for recovery and we are uniquely well placed to take advantage of the opportunities that will increasingly become available as we emerge from recession.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of people who would have been counted as unemployed if the methods of calculation had remained the same as those in use 12 years ago.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is not available. Consistent comparisons can be made over a period from the seasonally adjusted figures maintained by the Department's statisticians.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed in the manufacturing sector of the United Kingdom economy; and what were the figures in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  In September 1991 there were 4,780,000 employees in employment in manufacturing industries in
  501
  the United Kingdom. Over the previous five years, the numbers were 5,200,000 in 1986, followed by 5,176,000, 5,217,000, 5,214,000 and 5,136,000 respectively.

  Unemployment, Bolton and Bury
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the measures he intends to introduce in order to ameliorate the conditions caused by the loss of manufacturing jobs in the Bolton and Bury travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Jackson
  The local Employment Service and the Bolton/Bury training and enterprise council, deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people in the Bolton and Bury travel-to-work area.

  Terms of Employment (Written Statement)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to enforce section 1 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for individual employees who have not received the statement to which they are entitled under this provision to seek redress by making a complaint to an industrial tribunal.

  Training Credits
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the progress so far of the training credits scheme.

  Mr. Howard
  By January, more than 15,500 young people were in training using training credits in the 11 pilot areas. Nine more training credit schemes will come into operation in April of next year, offering a further 10 per cent. of school leavers the opportunity to obtain high quality training of their choice.

  Unemployment (Greater London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage increase in unemployment in Greater London during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the Greater London region, seasonally adjusted unemployed rose by 53 per cent. in the 12 months to January 1992.

  Unemployment, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the figures for manufacturing job losses in the South Yorkshire area in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in Yorkshire and Humberside fell by 25,000 between September 1990 and September 1991. The most recent figures for areas within standard regions relate to 1989.

  Construction Industry
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of persons employed in the construction industry.
  502
  Mr. Jackson
  In September 1991, there were 932,000 employees in employment in the construction industry in the United Kingdom.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce statutory rights for people working less than eight hours a week.

  Mr. Forth
  Employees working fewer than eight hours a week already enjoy important statutory rights, including rights relating to health and safety, sex and race discrimination and trade union membership and non-membership. All union members also have certain statutory protections against misues of union powers.

  Additional protection will be given to safety representatives and others in particular circumstances under the Offshore Safety (Protection against Victimisation) Bill, which has just completed its passage through Parliament, and when the EC health and safety framework directive is implemented at the earliest legislative opportunity.

  Labour Statistics, Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 452, he will give the names and addresses of the three unemployed claimants in the City of Durham under 18 years of age.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of registered unemployed in the City of Durham constituency who have been unemployed for(a) up to three months, (b) six months, (c) one year, (d) two years and (e) more than two years respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested, for unemployed claimants in the City of Durham parliamentary constituency, is contained in the following table and can also be obtained from the NOMIS database system in the Library.

  Unemployed claimants in the City of Durham January 1992

  Duration

  1Total

  Up to three months

  1,029

  Over three months and up to six months

  702

  Over six months and up to one year

  674

  Over one year and up to two years

  541

  Over two years

  445

  1 The figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the total number of the work force in the City of Durham constituency, (b) those in full-time employment and (c) those in part-time employment.

  Mr. Jackson
  Figures for the total work force are not available by constituency. The latest available information about employment in parliamentary constituencies is from the September 1989 census of employment and relates to employees in employment only. The figures for the City of Durham are as follows:
  503

  Employees in employment: September 1989

  Number

  Full-time

  29,500

  Part-time

  8,200

  All

  37,700

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the transportation of all nuclear material, whether for civil or military purposes, is covered by EC directive 89/618; and what guidance is to be given to the emergency services and the general public about such transport consequent upon the directive.

  Mr. Forth
  The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) treaty is concerned only with the peaceful application of nuclear materials. Thus European Council directive 89/618/EURATOM is not applicable to the military use of nuclear materials. Transport of civil nuclear material is covered by article 2 of the directive. The Health and Safety Commission consultative document (CD37) setting out proposals for new regulations to implement this directive outlines the intention to publish Health and Safety Executive guidance. A copy of the consultation document is in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken or proposes to take to implement European Community directive 89/618.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Commission's public consultation on proposals to implement EC directive 89/618 EURATOM ended on 28 February 1992. New legislation will be brought forward as soon as comments have been considered by the Health and Safety Commission and proposals scrutinised by the European Commission under the procedure set down in article 33 of the EURATOM treaty.

  Coach Parking
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the chairman of the London tourist board to discuss arrangements for coach parking.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has no current plans for such a meeting.

  Employment Service Posts
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what level and nature of criminal convictions over the past five years automatically debar an otherwise successful applicant from being offered a post in the Employment Service as an administrative officer.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service Executive Agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Benefit Recipients (Interviews)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions are issued to interviewing officers examining recipients of benefits on the basis of checking that they are actively seeking work; and whether a code of conduct is followed.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Palace of Westminster (Day Nursery)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) what progress has been made in implementing the 1987 recommendation of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in favour of a day nursery in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what provision will be made for a day nursery for children of hon. Members and staff in the new parliamentary buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Orme
  Further progress towards the establishment of child care facilities in the parliamentary estate are dependent in the first instance on suitable accommodation being found. In its recent report on the phase 2 sketch plan, the Accommodation and Works Committee advised that, in common with certain other facilities, it had not been possible to include a creche in plans for the new building. The Committee was confident, however, that more appropriately located space could be found elsewhere in the parliamentary estate without undue delay. The Commission is understood to have invited the Accommodation and Works Committee to continue its search for appropriate space; and until that has been done the Administration Committee is unable to take the matter further. In the meantime, the Establishments Office continues to arrange for Members and staff to be informed of suitable offers of day care facilities elsewhere.

  European Standing Committees
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to respond to the first report from the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1991–92 on the review of European Standing Committees (HC 31).

  Mr. MacGregor
  As my hon. Friend is aware, I have recently sent the Government's reply to the report to him, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I am placing copies in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Expenditure
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer of 15 March 1990,Official Report, columns 335–36, concerning administration costs as a percentage of benefit expenditure.

  Miss. Widdecombe
  Administration costs as a percentage of benefit expenditure for each year from 1978–79 to 1991–92 are in the table:
  505

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  5·0

  1979–80

  4·9

  1980–81

  5·0

  1981–82

  4·9

  1982–83

  4·8

  1983–84

  4·7

  1984–85

  4·4

  1985–86

  4·4

  1986–87

  4·6

  1987–88

  5·0

  1988–89

  5·3

  1989–90

  5·6

  1990–91

  5·7

  1991–92

  15·5

  1 Estimated.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each year since 1978–79 the total amount spent on social security, excluding expenditure on the unemployed, at current prices and in 1991–92 prices, showing the real terms percentage increase or decrease.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of total social security spending from 1978–79 to 1991–92, excluding the amount spent on unemployed people, are given in the table.

  Expenditure £ million

  Cash

  1991–92 prices

  Percentage change in real terms over previous year

  1978–79

  15,228

  41,310

  —

  1979–80

  18,146

  42,190

  2·1

  1980–81

  21,221

  41,695

  -1·2

  1981–82

  24,941

  44,690

  7·2

  1982–83

  27,989

  46,816

  4·8

  1983–84

  31,180

  49,844

  6·5

  1984–85

  33,638

  51,211

  2·7

  1985–86

  36,539

  52,719

  2·9

  1986–87

  39,549

  55,245

  4·8

  1987–88

  42,284

  56,019

  1·4

  1988–89

  44,505

  55,011

  -1·8

  1989–90

  48,539

  56,343

  2·4

  1990–91

  54,143

  57,933

  2·8

  1991–921

  61,133

  61,133

  51·5

  1 1991–92 figures are estimated outturn.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount spent on social security in Great Britain, in current and in 1991–92 prices, for each year since 1978–79; and what was the percentage real terms decrease or increase in each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of total social security spending from 1978–79 to 1991–92 are given in the table.

  Expenditure £ million

  Percentage change in real terms over previous year

  Cash

  1991–92 prices

  1978–79

  16,602

  45,037

  1979–80

  19,616

  45,608

  1·3

  1980–81

  23,751

  46,666

  2·3

  1981–82

  28,963

  51,896

  11·2

  1982–83

  33,000

  55,198

  6·4

  1983–84

  36,881

  58,958

  6·8

  1984–85

  39,957

  60,831

  3·2

  1985–86

  43,502

  62,765

  3·2

  1986–87

  46,859

  65,456

  4·3

  1987–88

  48,934

  64,829

  -1·0

  506

  Expenditure £ million

  Percentage change in real terms over previous year

  Cash

  1991–92 prices

  1988–89

  49,745

  61,488

  -5·2

  1989–90

  52,849

  61,346

  -0·2

  1990–91

  59,183

  63,326

  3·2

  1991–92

  68,493

  68,493

  8·2

  Notes:

  (1) 1991–92 figures are estimated outturn.

  (2) The real terms decrease over the period 1987–88 to 1989–90 is largely attributable to the fall in unemployment since 1986.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer of 15 December 1989,Official Report, column 852, concerning social security spending, to include 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Expenditure £ million

  Per 100,000 population £ million

  Year

  Cash

  1978–79 prices

  Cash

  1978–79 prices

  Percentage of GDP

  1978–79

  16,437

  16,437

  30·1

  30·1

  9–63

  1979–80

  19,416

  16,641

  35·5

  30·4

  9·48

  1980–81

  23,483

  17,008

  42·9

  31·0

  10·06

  1981–82

  28,582

  18,879

  52·1

  34·4

  11·16

  1982–83

  32,451

  20,009

  59·3

  36·5

  11·57

  1983–84

  35,159

  20,719

  64·2

  37·8

  11·56

  1984–85

  39,716

  22,289

  72·3

  40·6

  12·20

  1985–86

  43,237

  22,996

  78·5

  41·8

  12·13

  1986–87

  46,611

  24,001

  84·4

  43·5

  12·15

  1987–88

  48,771

  23,818

  88·1

  43·0

  11·49

  1988–89

  49,419

  22,518

  89·1

  40·6

  10·46

  1989–90

  52,182

  22,328

  93·8

  40·1

  10·18

  1990–91

  56,077

  22,118

  100·5

  39·6

  10·10

  1991–92

  65,116

  24,003

  116·3

  42·9

  11·07

  Notes:

  1. 1991–92 figures are estimated outturn.

  2. Expenditure figures from 1978–79 to 1983–84 are based on the old planning total; those for 1984–85 onwards are based on the new planning total, with statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay, and further housing benefit elements included for the first time.

  Claimant Numbers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give, for each year from 1978–79 to the latest available, the total number of households claiming a social security benefit, excluding the national insurance retirement pension and child benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Reliable information is not available for the period and in the form requested.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the average percentage rise in the number of claimants receiving the main social security benefits and expected to claim in the years 1978–79 to 1992–93 in Great Britain.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information on estimated average numbers receiving the main social security benefits at any one time is shown in the tables. Percentage increases are given where appropriate.
  507

  Benefit

  1978–79

  1979–80

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1980–81

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1981–82

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  Retirement Pension

  8,530

  8,680

  1·8

  8,880

  4·1

  9,015

  5·7

  Widows Benefit

  495

  490

  -1·0

  475

  -4·0

  460

  -7·1

  Unemployment Benefit

  570

  550

  -3·5

  960

  68·4

  1,220

  114·0

  Sickness Benefit/SSP

  560

  490

  -12·5

  435

  -22·3

  445

  -20·5

  Invalidity Benefit

  600

  620

  3·3

  620

  3·3

  660

  10–0

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  270

  270

  0·0

  265

  -1·9

  260

  -3–7·

  Maternity Allowances/SMP

  100

  115

  15·0

  120

  20·0

  125

  25·0

  War Pension

  385

  370

  -3·9

  360

  -6·5

  345

  -10·4

  Attendance Allowance (1)

  265

  285

  7·5

  315

  18·9

  350

  32·1

  Invalid Care Allowance

  5

  5

  0·0

  5

  0·0

  5

  0·0

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  150

  165

  10·0

  175

  16·7

  180

  20·0

  Mobility Allowance (1)

  95

  140

  47·4

  185

  94·7

  210

  121·1

  Disability Living Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Disability Working Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Income Support Supplementary Benefit

  3,020

  2,920

  -3·3

  3,110

  3·0

  3,725

  23·3

  Child Benefit (Children)

  13,480

  13·330

  -1·1

  13,160

  -2·4

  13,145

  -2·5

  One Parent Benefit

  290

  370

  27·6

  430

  48·3

  470

  62·1

  Family Credit/Family Income Supplement

  85

  80

  -5·9

  95

  11·8

  125

  47·1

  Rate Rebate

  3,055

  3,065

  0·3

  3,350

  9·7

  3,700

  21·1

  Rent Allowance

  225

  220

  -2·2

  240

  6·7

  250

  11·1

  Rent Rebate

  1,210

  1,205

  -0·4

  1,330

  9·9

  1,590

  31·4

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Benefit

  1982–83

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1983–84

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1984–85

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1985–86

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  Retirement Pension

  9,115

  6·9

  9,210

  8·0

  9,350

  9·6

  9,400

  10·2

  Widows Benefit

  445

  -10·1

  440

  - 11·1

  425

  -14·1

  410

  -17·2

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,090

  91·2

  1,020

  78·9

  1,020

  78·9

  955

  67·5

  Sickness Benefit/SSP

  395

  -29·5

  410

  -26·8

  420

  -25·0

  405

  -17·7

  Invalidity Benefit

  700

  16·7

  760

  26·7

  825

  37·5

  865

  44·2

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  265

  -1·9

  265

  -1·9

  260

  -3·7

  265

  -1·9

  Maternity Allowances/SMP

  125

  25·0

  110

  10·0

  120

  20·0

  115

  15·0

  War Pension

  330

  -14·3

  315

  -18·2

  305

  -20·8

  295

  -23·4

  Attendance Allowance (1)

  390

  47·2

  445

  67–9

  490

  84·9

  555

  109·4

  Invalid Care Allowance

  10

  100·0

  10

  100·0

  10

  100·0

  10

  100·0

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  195

  30·0

  210

  40·0

  245

  63·3

  245

  63·3

  Mobility Allowance (1)

  265

  178·9

  315

  231–6

  390

  310·5

  420

  342·1

  Disability Living Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Disability Working Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  4,165

  37·9

  4,435

  46–9

  4,665

  54·5

  4,765

  57·8

  Child Benefit (Children)

  12,890

  -4·4

  12,660

  -6·1

  12,430

  -7·8

  12,375

  -8·2

  One Parent Benefit

  510

  75·9

  540

  86·2

  565

  94·8

  590

  103·4

  Family Credit/Family Income Supplement

  165

  94·1

  200

  135·3

  205

  141·2

  205

  141·2

  Rate Rebate

  5,320

  74·1

  7,020

  129–8

  7,230

  136·7

  7,020

  129·8

  Rent Allowance

  260

  15·6

  1,015

  351·1

  1,080

  380·0

  1,150

  411·1

  Rent Rebate

  3,050

  152·1

  3,735

  208·7

  3,745

  209·5

  3·710

  206·6

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Benefit

  1986–87

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1987–88

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1988–89

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1989–90

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  Retirement Pension

  9,575

  12·3

  9,685

  13·5

  9,710

  13·8

  9,795

  14·8

  Widows Benefit

  400

  -19·2

  385

  -22·2

  370

  -25·3

  375

  -24·2

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,005

  76·3

  815

  43·0

  600

  5·3

  375

  -34·2

  Sickness Benefit/SSP

  420

  -25·0

  450

  -19·6

  470

  -16·1

  465

  -17·0

  Invalidity Benefit

  935

  55·8

  1,010

  68–3

  1,100

  83·3

  1,190

  98·3

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  285

  5·6

  290

  7·4

  295

  9·3

  295

  9·3

  Maternity Allowances/SMP

  110

  10·0

  110

  10·0

  95

  -5·0

  110

  10·0

  War Pension

  280

  -27·3

  270

  -29·9

  265

  -31·2

  265

  -31·2

  Attendance Allowance (1)

  605

  128·3

  670

  152·8

  730

  175·5

  795

  200·0

  Invalid Care Allowance

  25

  400·0

  80

  1,500·0

  100

  1,900·0

  115

  2,200·0

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  265

  76·7

  265

  76·7

  270

  80·0

  280

  86·7

  Mobility Allowance (1)

  460

  384·2

  515

  442·1

  560

  489·5

  585

  515·8

  Disability Living Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Disability Working Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  5,095

  68·7

  5,020

  66·2

  4,310

  42·7

  4,155

  37·6

  Child Benefit (Children)

  12,175

  -9·7

  12,040

  -10·7

  12,010

  -10·9

  12,000

  -11·0

  One Parent Benefit

  615

  112·1

  660

  127·6

  705

  143·1

  735

  153·4

  508 509

  Benefit

  1986–87

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1987–88

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1988–89

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1989–90

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  Family Credit/Family Income Supplement

  215

  152·9

  220

  158·8

  280

  229·4

  305

  258·8

  Rate Rebate

  7,050

  130·8

  6,875

  125·0

  5,150

  68·6

  4,320

  41·4

  Rent Allowance

  1,180

  424·4

  1,195

  431·1

  965

  328·9

  955

  324·4

  Rent Rebate

  3,720

  207·4

  3,665

  202·9

  3,125

  158·3

  2,950

  143·8

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  865

  —

  Thousands

  Benefit

  1990–91

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1991–92

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  1992–93

  Percentage increase from 1978–79

  Retirement Pension

  9,895

  16·0

  9,920

  16·3

  9,945

  16·6

  Widows Benefit

  350

  -29·3

  350

  -29·3

  340

  -31·3

  Unemployment Benefit

  425

  -25·4

  650

  14·0

  605

  6·1

  Sickness Benefit/SSP

  460

  -17·9

  465

  -17·0

  465

  -17·0

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,265

  110·8

  1,325

  120·8

  1,380

  130·0

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  305

  13·0

  330

  22·2

  335

  24·1

  Maternity Allowance/SMP

  100

  0·0

  105

  5·0

  105

  5·0

  War Pension

  255

  -33·8

  260

  -32·5

  255

  -33·8

  Attendance Allowance (1)

  875

  230·2

  970

  266·0

  655

  —

  Invalid Care Allowance

  135

  2,600·0

  155

  3,000·0

  170

  3,300·0

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  290

  93·3

  300

  100·0

  315

  110·0

  Mobility Allowance

  620

  552·6

  660

  594·7

  0

  —

  Disability Living Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,255

  —

  Disability Working Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  —

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  4,190

  38·7

  4,820

  59·6

  5,105

  69·0

  Child Benefit (Children)

  12,135

  -10·0

  12,185

  -9·6

  12,340

  -8·5

  One Parent Benefit

  760

  162·1

  835

  187·9

  880

  203·4

  Family Credit/Family Income Supplement

  320

  276·5

  350

  311·8

  420

  394·1

  Rate Rebate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rent Allowance

  1,030

  357·8

  1,115

  395·6

  1,205

  435·6

  Rent Rebate

  2,925

  141·7

  3,085

  155·0

  3,295

  172·3

  Community Charge Benefit

  6,740

  —

  6,570

  —

  6,865

  —

  National Insurance
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mrs. Yvonne Syme of 5 Barber close, Bartestree, Hereford applied for a refund of class 2 national insurance contributions for the period June 1988 to December 1990; and when she can expect payment to be made.

  Mr. Jack
  Operational aspects of the collection and refund of national insurance contributions are matters for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend and copies will be place in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the business plans for all Benefits Agency districts.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The publication of Benefits Agency business plans is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Income Support
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are made to allow a person receiving income support who is participating in a training course provided by a voluntary organisation, local 510
  authority, or training and enterprise council or local enterprise company and which is funded by the European social fund, to be paid a weekly voluntary or charitable payment by his or her training provider without it being deducted from his or her income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Charitable or voluntary payments can be made to recipients of income support in a wide variety of ways without affecting their benefit. For example, regular charitable or voluntary payments which are intended and used for items other than food, ordinary clothing or footwear, household fuel, housing costs covered by benefit, community charge or water charges are fully disregarded. Regular charitable or voluntary payments of up to £10 a week are also ignored, provided that the recipient has no other income which attracts a £10 disregard. In addition, regular payments in kind are disregarded.

  Care Homes
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of benefits will be payable to those in independent residential care and nursing homes on the introduction of the new community care arrangements.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government's policy, set out in the White Paper "Caring for People"—Cmnd. 849, November 1989—is that people already in residential care or nursing homes on 31 March 1993 should continue to be eligible for
  511
  help under the current special income support arrangements which include help towards the costs of care, but that those entering such homes thereafter should receive social security benefits on a basis comparable with what would be available in their own homes. Thus from April 1993, for residents entering such homes, there would be eligibility for income support under the normal rules and for a payment towards housing costs; while care costs would, where appropriate, be met directly by the relevant local authority.

  Having carefully considered how the proposed payments towards housing costs should be made, I have concluded, in consultation with my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Health, for the Environment, for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, that the most practicable, convenient and sensible arrangement will be a residential allowance payable as part of the income support entitlement. Accordingly, we propose to introduce such an allowance for those entering residential care and nursing homes from April 1993. We intend that it should be paid at a rate established by reference to the rents typically paid by people in sheltered housing accommodation, and that there should be a higher rate in the area defined for income support purposes as Greater London. Consultation will now take place with the local authority associations about the detailed procedures for the new allowance.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his latest estimate of the number of people in receipt of income support in(a) residential homes and (b) nursing homes;

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the numbers of people in (a) residential homes and (b) nursing homes in receipt of income support who are over pension age;

  (3) what is the total number of people living in (a) private and voluntary residential care homes and (b) private and voluntary nursing homes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Residential care homes

  Nursing homes

  Total with income support1

  150,000

  104,000

  Women over 60

  89,100

  73,700

  Men over 65

  20,400

  22,100

  1 The figures have been rounded to thousands.

  Source: Income support Sstatistics quarterly inquiry November 1991 residential care and nursing home report.

  Information is not collected on the numbers of people in homes who do not receive income support.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards victims of mesothelioma.

  Mr. Scott
  Diffuse mesothelioma has been in the industrial injuries scheme's list of prescribed industrial diseases since 1966. Disablement benefit is payable where disablement caused by the condition is assessed at 1 per cent. or more. payment of additional industrial injuries benefits is considered automatically where disablement is assessed at 100 per cent.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the annual contributions from Government sources to the independent living fund since its establishment, together with any initial contributions involved in the setting up of the fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living fund was established in 1988 with an initial contribution into its trust fund of £4,500. Provision for the fund in 1988–89 was £5 million. Actual expenditure was £1 million in 1988–89; £10 million in 1989–90 and £26 million in 1990–91. Provision for the fund in the current financial year is £54 million.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the names, backgrounds and associations of the 10 trustees of the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living fund's trustees are as follows:

  Mr. Derek Chislett

  Sir Geoffrey Dalton

  Miss Eilis Gallagher

  Mr. Joe Hennessy

  Mr. Trevan Hingston (Chairman)

  Mr. Stewart Lyon (Treasurer)

  Mr. Bert Massie

  Mr. Jack McGregor

  Miss Pauline Thompson (Vice Chairman)

  Mrs. Winifred Tumim

  Five of the trustees—Mr. Chislett, Sir Geoffrey Dalton, Miss Gallagher, Mr. Hingston and Mrs. Tumim—were appointed by the Secretary of State. The remainder were appointed by the independent living fund's co-founders, the Disablement Income Group.

  Helplines
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the location of his Department's helplines in Scotland and the number of lines available at each location.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The provision of helplines is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, and Miss Ann Chant, chief executive of the Contributions Agency. They will write to the hon. Member and copies of their letters will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Jim Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce the 1992–93 performance targets which he is setting his Department's executive operations.

  Mr. Newton
  I have today announced the targets for 1992–93 which I have set for Department of Social Security executive operations.

  A number of changes have been made to the format and range of the targets to improve the measures of performance and to cover the introduction of the new disability benefits. The targets set challenging standards of performance for the Department and represent an overall improvement over those set for the current year. The clearance time target for disability living allowance claims represents a considerable improvement over the equivalent

  513
  targets for attendance allowance and mobility allowance. The war pensions disablement claims target has been modified to allow for an average 20 days before claims reach the agency and to relate it to continued work load which in 1991–92 has run at double the forecast level. While the target is lower than had previously been planned, it nevertheless represents against the background of the greatly increased number of claims a challenging target entailing a significant improvement in performance.

  The targets support fully the continued success of the Government's "next steps" agencies and the citizen's charter initiative. They are as follows:

  BENEFITS AGENCY

  Benefit Clearance Times1

  Social fund crisis loans—applications cleared on the day the need arises.2

  Social fund community care grants—applications cleared on average in seven days.2

  Income support new claims—claims cleared on average in four days.1

  Sickness and invalidity benefit claims—65 per cent. of claims cleared in 10 days and 95 per cent. in 30 days.

  Child benefit—65 per cent. of claims in 10 days and 95 per cent. in 30 days.

  Family credit—60 per cent. of claims in 13 days and 95 per cent. in 45 days.3

  Disability living allowance—60 per cent. of claims in 30 days and 95 per cent. in 55 days.4

  Disability working allowance (claims from people starting work)—95 per cent. of claims in five days.

  War pensions (new disablement cases)—60 per cent. of claims in 175 days.5

  War pensions (widows' cases)—80 per cent. of claims in 75 days.

  Benefit Accuracy

  Income support—to pay the correct amount in 94 per cent. of cases.

  Incapacity benefits6—to pay the correct amount in 96·5 per cent. of cases.

  Family credit—to pay the correct amount in 94 per cent. of cases.

  Disability living allowance—to pay the correct amount in 96 per cent. of cases.

  Disability working allowance—to pay the correct amount in 95 per cent. of cases.

  Customer Satisfaction

  85 per cent. of customers to regard the agency's service as satisfactory or better.

  Resource management

  To manage the agency's resources so as to deliver its business plan within a total budget of £1,948 million.

  Achieve new efficiency savings worth at least £53·7 million.

  The budget of £1,948 million is net of these savings.

  Keep to gross allocation for social fund loans and grants of £302 million.

  Financial recovery

  Recovery of social fund loans—£175 million.

  Benefit savings from detection and prevention of fraud—£460 million.

  Recovery of income support overpayments—£30 million. 1992–93 to include recovery from estates.

  CONTRIBUTIONS AGENCY

  Performance—Compliance

  Increase aggregate yield by:

  (a) Increasing collection of contribution arrears (excluding central payments section) by £13·3 million over the 1991–92 outturn.

  (b) Increasing class 1 identified from survey (arrears and in-year savings) by £12 million over the 1991–92 outturn.

  Increase the number of surveys to 114,000, including 17,000 employer educational visits.

  Actively identify 40,000 persons with class 2 liability.

  514
  Performance—Records Maintenance

  Process 98 per cent. of available employers' end of year returns by 31 December 1992.

  Correct 83 per cent. of rejects from employers' end of year returns by 31 march 1993.

  Performance—Customer Service/Information Provision

  Clear 99 per cent. of benefit inquiries handled clerically in three working days to 98 per cent. accuracy.

  Dispatch either a full reply, or an informative response, to 95 per cent. of all customer inquiries within 10 working days of receipt.

  Complete action to register acceptable personal pension cases and process straightforward termination notices for 92 per cent. of all cases within 28 working days of receipt.

  Provide a level of public service considered to be satisfactory by at least 75 per cent. of customers surveyed.

  Resource Management

  To manage the agency's resources so as to deliver its business plan within a total budget of £142 million.

  Achieve new efficiency savings of £2·6 million.

  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES AGENCY

  General

  To manage the agency's resources so as to deliver agreed services within the approved 1992–93 running cost and capital allocations and accruals based budgets;

  to achieve running cost business efficiency savings of 3·9 per cent; and

  to produce monthly profiles and actual monitoring data for all general and financial targets.

  Quality of Service
  Service availability—93 per cent of district offices will receive at least the weekly service availability level agreed in the relevant customer service level agreement each month; and
  on-line response time—the average response time for on-line services is set at seven seconds or less across 95 per cent. of all responses.

  Financial
  Unit cost and financial ratio targets are set but are not published for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  RESETTLEMENT AGENCY

  Customer Care

  Not less than 90 per cent. of published facilities to be provided.

  Survey of residents to confirm that not less than 85 per cent. express satisfaction with standards.

  Resource Management
  To manage the agency's resources so as to deliver its business plan within a total budget of £25·517 million, including £14·196 million for the costs of existing resettlement units and agency HQ.
  To achieve £0·3 million in new efficiency savings to be reallocated to grants for replacement providers.

  Disengagement Strategy
  Make satisfactory alternative provision for four resettlement units and then disengage from running them by 31 March 1993.
  Secure commitments to satisfactory alternative provision for a further four units, and then announce decisions to disengage from running them during 1993–94, by 31 March 1993.

  CHILD SUPPORT UNIT
  Responsibility for the Department's existing work on collecting maintenance for children will pass in April 1992 from the Benefits Agency to the new child support unit, in preparation for the launch of the child support agency in 1993. The unit's service delivery and financial targets will be:

  Percentage of lone parents making new and repeat claims for income support for whom maintenance is arranged—20 per cent.7

  Number of lone parents already in receipt of income

  515
  support on 6 April 1992 for whom maintenance is arranged—24,000.7

  Annual Benefit Savings—£320 million.

  To manage the unit's resources so as to deliver its business plan within a total budget of £86 million.

  In addition to the above, agencies also have milestone targets to be achieved during 1992–93. Details of these will be published in agency annual business plans. Some of the above budget allocation figures differ from the plans published in the DSS report—Cm 1914. This is due to recent transfers between budgets.

  1 Clearance times normally cover the period from date of receipt of the claim in the agency to the formal decision by the adjudication officer or equivalent. Notification of the result is normally issued by the following day. All days refer to working days.

  7 Based on "calculated" measure, reflecting work outstanding, work processed and working days in the
  516
  month, measuring from date of entry to date of clearance on statistical record sheet or, for social fund, from date of claim.

  3 The target value is subject to assumption about the number of cases still requiring further inquiries following procedural changes in April 1992.

  4 By comparison, the current targets for attendance allowance is 70 per cent. in 50 days and 95 per cent. in 90 days. The current target for mobility allowance is an average of 37 days, but is not directly comparable.

  5 Based on a forecast workload of 102,000 new cases, compared with an original forecast for 1992–93 of 69,500 claims: the target to be varied subject to work loads.

  6 Incapacity benefits is an overall term used to cover sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance and maternity allowance.

  7These two targets are together broadly equivalent to a target of 27 per cent. of all lone parents on income support receiving maintenance.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
The Earl of Yarborough The Earl of Yarborough —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Rebuilt Cars: Roadworthiness
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What precautions are taken to ensure that motor cars which have been written off as a total loss by an insurance company are not re-registered and put back on the road in a dangerous condition.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, there is no specific mechanism for preventing a rebuilt written-off vehicle from being relicensed. It is, however, an offence to sell, to offer for sale or to use an unroadworthy vehicle. The Road Traffic Act 1991 will strengthen the law on the sale of unroadworthy vehicles by requiring trade sellers to identify positively any vehicle which is unroadworthy. The Act will also enable the police and the department's vehicle examiners to prohibit the use of a dangerously defective car.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would it not perhaps be advisable if a more stringent, special MOT test were introduced when re-registration of vehicles which have been repaired after being written off is sought? This would ensure that vehicles do not find their way back into circulation again in a dangerous condition.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this is a complicated subject. The department has spent some time looking for a solution. If there were the statutory requirement of a safety check of rebuilt written-off vehicles there would need to be a mechanism preventing those vehicles from being relicensed if they had not passed the safety test. At present it is relatively easy to relicense a vehicle without the history of that vehicle being known to the person issuing the licence.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this problem arises not only with vehicles which have been written off as unroadworthy by insurance companies? Is it not a fact that after a certain time all vehicles have to pass an MOT test? The safety of vehicles and the control of vehicles on the road are strictly regulated.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. All vehicles, once they are three years old, have to pass the MOT test which should identify any problems with the vehicle. My noble and learned friend is also right in saying that this Question relates only to vehicles that have been written off by insurance companies. About 30 per cent. of cars are insured only against third party risk and therefore the
1212
insurance company would not necessarily know whether the car had been badly damaged and rebuilt. Therefore those cars would not be caught by a scheme such as the one proposed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in so far as insurance companies are aware of these matters, would it not be of great value to place a legal obligation on those companies to advise the relevant authorities, in particular the DVLA, of any write-offs that have come to their attention? Would that not help the situation in a material way? Are we to understand from what the Minister said that the Government do not propose to go further than the existing legislation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, one way forward would be to ensure that registration documents for seriously damaged written-off vehicles were surrendered to the department by insurers. That happens now for many vehicles under voluntary arrangements aimed at combating the ringing of stolen vehicles. The problem is that so many people —well over I million each year—either buy or relicense a vehicle without a registration document.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in a recent test of 3,400 accident-damaged vehicles no less than 32 per cent. were found to be unfit for use on the roads? Does he recall that on 10th June last year, during the course of the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill, he gave an assurance to my noble friend Lord Tordoff that the Government would seriously look into the question of proposing a scheme to deal with the issue? Has any progress been made in that connection?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said earlier, we are indeed looking at a scheme but it is difficult for the reasons which I tried to outline. As I said during the debate to which the noble Lord referred, statutory controls over rebuilt damaged vehicles would do little to reduce the toll of deaths and injuries on our roads. Most casualties are the result of road user error. Only a very small percentage of casualties is directly caused by vehicle defects. Of the minority which result from defective vehicles, an even smaller number is likely to result directly from the inadequate rebuilding of seriously damaged vehicles.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether a written-off car which is rebuilt and re-registered counts as a new car in the sense that it may not have to have a test for three years, or is the original date of registration used so that it has to be tested annually?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question, but I believe that the vehicle would remain of its original age. If I am wrong, I shall write to my noble friend.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does not the process known as "cannibalising" present great administrative difficulties in controlling this problem because one can end up with a car composed of a

1213
chassis from one car, the engine from another and the gearbox from a third and yet collectively it can be quite roadworthy?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is of course no reason to suppose that a car that has been written off by an insurance company cannot perfectly properly be rebuilt and still be roadworthy.
Lord Brain: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a scheme is being test marketed in the north of England whereby a potential purchaser of a car can, with the assistance of the insurance companies, ring a certain telephone number to find out whether that car has been accident-damaged?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is very helpful and shows the sort of co-operation from the insurance companies that we would welcome. Generally, I would advise noble Lords who might be prospective purchasers to have an independent expert look over the car. Many commercial and motoring organisations offer that service for a relatively modest fee.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, before my short intervention, perhaps I should declare that I am president of the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association. "Write off" and "total loss" are emotive words which really mean that it is not economic for the insurer to repair the vehicle. A reputable firm, such as one of our members, will make the damaged car totally roadworthy, using special equipment. Does my noble friend agree that the documents should be returned to Swansea for the damage to be recorded and that the car should then be inspected by an independent authority, such as an Automobile Association or a Royal Automobile Club engineer?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that the members of my noble friend's organisation operate only in the best possible way. As I said, I advise people to have an independent check carried out.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many people would regard this issue as having nothing whatever to do with the insurance companies? Is it not the Government's job to ensure that there are MOT regulations to meet all such dangers? Does he agree that we should not try to fob things off by putting an extra obligation on, or giving an extra power to, the insurance companies whose job is not to look at that sort of thing?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not really agree with my noble friend. The Government have their own MOT regulations, but it is in the insurance companies' own interests to know about such matters also.

Special Training Needs: Funding
2.45 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they are making to ensure adequate funding for special training needs groups, especially those with learning difficulties, within youth training and employment training programmes in 1992–93.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, training and enterprise councils make funding decisions according to local needs and priorities. All TECs are required to set out in their plans how they intend to make suitable provision for people with special training needs. There is a framework of rules and incentives bearing on the provision of training for those with special needs.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for that reply. However, is she aware that the future of small schemes, such as the Harington scheme about which we have been corresponding with the Government, which provide a desperately needed service for young people with disabilities, is being jeopardised by the latest changes to the funding arrangements of the TECs, which include insistence being placed on unrealistic and inappropriate levels of literacy and numeracy qualifications? What assurance can the noble Baroness give me that those schemes which are concerned with special needs will continue to receive adequate funding?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, obviously I cannot comment in detail on the Harington scheme but I shall be happy to look into that. Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that 25 per cent. of training funding is paid for the achievement of agreed outcomes. Those arrangements take account of the fact that not all trainees achieve a positive outcome or attain a national vocational qualification. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that, from April this year, the Department of Employment will recognise two new measures of achievement that will attract output-related funding. They are foundation levels in literacy, known as Wordpower and Numberpower.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, what steps can the Government take to ensure that there will continue to be placements for disadvantaged young people, given that employers are facing a recession? I know that there has been criticism of the quota scheme, but at least that scheme provided some kind of basis for making such placements. Can steps be taken to ensure that placements are available for those who are disadvantaged in this way?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to reassure the noble Baroness that there is great consciousness of that matter. A survey last year by Skill Survey showed a high level of awareness among TECs, with 90 per cent. having a named staff member responsible for matters such as special

1215
training needs and placements, and 80 per cent. having a working party or subgroup. Much attention is therefore being paid to this matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend give me an idea of the extent to which employers are co-operating in providing employment for mentally handicapped people who have had some training? Is she aware that such people have frequently proved their worth in agriculture and horticulture? Will the Government bear in mind that that is an advantage to them?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I hear my noble friend's comment on the advantages that such people can bring to agriculture and will pass on that message to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Negotiations between industry and the training organisations involve the training and enterprise councils at a local level. Therefore, the results are known to them, and needs are met in the local area.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I have a letter from the chairman of the Leeds TEC in which he makes it clear that, as a result of a substantial cut in funding, it has been necessary to cut two training centres, at least one of which is for special needs? In the light of that, how can the noble Baroness deny that the matter is largely one relating to funding for the TECs?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the objective is to move money for TECs to where it is needed so as to reflect value for money. That must be the job of the TEC chairman. I am also aware that in that instance arrangements have been made, or are in the process of being made, for the training of everyone on the training scheme mentioned by the noble Baroness to be continued.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there are performance-related bonuses which require TECs to achieve special targets for special needs before the payment is made? Is not that highly inappropriate for people with special needs? Does not it also mean that some at least, perhaps a majority, will not receive what anyone would consider to be adequate training?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it does not follow that it means that people will not receive adequate training. The experience the TECs have had since being set up proves, as a result of exchanges among them, in particular through the chairman's group, that they are giving good value to the benefit of the taxpayer and the trainee.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that since the beginning of last year the number of training centres for ex-offenders, run by the two main providers—NACRO and the Apex Trust —has been reduced from 95 to 48? That is said to be due to cuts in the employment training budget and the system of funding allocation through TECs to which
1216
the noble Baroness has referred. If those figures are correct, what do the Government propose to do to remedy the situation?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the DES has made substantial payments to the Apex Trust and NACRO in the current financial year to help them reduce the scale of their ET provision. All TEC chairman and council are well aware of their responsibilities in that area. I shall quote one scheme which illustrates that point. The Sheffield TEC has established a task force, involving the probation service and NACRO, to look at the training and employment needs of ex-offenders. The work is not being neglected.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, having cut some 5,000 places last year in NACRO, will the noble Baroness find out whether there has been any replacement? My information is that most of those disadvantaged young people who have recently come out of prison now find it much more difficult to obtain a job or training than they did when those 5,000 places were available to them.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's interest in this special area, but I would point out that YT and credit budgets, which cover that area, will be virtually the same next year as this, despite falling numbers of 16 and 17 year-olds and the increasing numbers staying on at school. Every effort is being made.

Children's Health
2.53 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that adequate steps are being taken to ensure the healthy physical development of the nation's children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, there is widespread and very welcome evidence to show that there has been a highly significant improvement in the health of our children over the past decade. Rates of perinatal, infant and child mortality have fallen to the lowest levels ever achieved, take-up of immunisations against communicable diseases like polio, diphtheria and measles has never been higher, and measures we have taken to improve the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of illness among children are already showing benefits.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It will be hardly acceptable to those important people—the directors of physical education—who recently pointed out that the standard of physical education for the majority of children has fallen to such an extent that some have died because they received no physical education in their early years but had it piled on to them in their latter years. The directors are asking for a thorough examination the matter to ensure that children receive physical education from the moment they enter school and right the way through their education, otherwise

1217
they may have serious physical defects when they become teenagers and adults. The directors believe it is an important point which is worthy of examination.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be delighted to hear that the Government have identified physical education as one of the 10 foundation subjects of the national curriculum which will be taken by all pupils from the age of five to 16. That process will start in September this year.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would it not be useful towards achieving the ends implied in my noble friend's question if all disposals of school playing fields were forbidden without the consent of the Minister involved, for which he would take personal responsibility?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware from my experience in the DES that that aspect of the matter was carefully looked into, but it remains a fact that a number of children can enjoy sporting activities outside school. There are a number of organisations, voluntary sector sports clubs and so forth which cater for the needs of young people of that age group.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will my noble friend be cautious before she goes too far down the road of encouraging physical exercise such as jogging? Can she tell me how much jogging will eventually cost the NHS in terms of replacement hips, knees and ankles?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that supplementary question is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper; but it is one that I should be delighted to answer if my noble friend cares to table it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that evidence recently presented to the parliamentary all-party food and health forum has suggested that a higher take-up of school meals would make a major contribution to the health of our children? What is her department and what are other departments doing about that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the noble Lord is well aware, the provision of school meals is a matter for LEAs. Under the Education Act 1980, we removed the requirement to conform to prescribed nutritional content; but we are aware that a large number of LEAs are providing healthy eating choices as part of the promotion of a healthy lifestyle.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that young people are now adequately aware of the dangers of smoking?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, because health education is also a cross-curricular theme in school programmes, and we have directed a specifically targeted campaign to show young people the dangers of smoking.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that enough time is being given through LEAs or schools themselves to what is generally termed outdoor
1218
education in its broad, social, environmental, physical and recreational sense? My information is that a number of outdoor recreational, information and field study centres are being closed due to a lack of funds, and that not enough time is being given out of school hours to take young people into the countryside.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, two recent surveys into that matter have been carried out. I understand that the DES is currently considering them. The national curriculum physical education subject, to which I referred earlier and which is due to start in September of this year, will include a whole range of requirements in respect of health-related fitness which I am sure will take place within the school environment as well as outside it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report of the National Children's Bureau for the United Nations entitled Child Poverty and Deprivation in the UK found that during the 1980s more children were living in low income families and that the number of children living in poverty has doubled? Is the Minister satisfied that the millions of children mentioned in that report have any chance of a healthy, physical development?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, he referred to the National Children's Home report which was published last year. It criticised benefit levels and cited instances of hardship where families had allegedly gone without food. In fact, the report represents a small percentage of low-income families, 41 per cent. of whom were not on income support; 36 per cent. of those surveyed were in employment. Families on income support are generally able to manage, although there will always he some who need additional help. In 1992–93, over £600 million extra a year in real terms will have been made available through the income related benefits to families with children, compared with the position before 1988.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Baroness is referring to the wrong report. I spoke of the report by the National Children's Bureau for the United Nations Children's Fund, entitled Child Poverty and Deprivation in the UK.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the report I mentioned covers the same point.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that some local authorities have banned competitive games on ideological grounds? Does she think it wise to replace this by the fearsomely boring activity, callisthenics?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my own preference would be against the latter option. As I said at the outset, this is a matter for local education authorities. They receive help, advice and encouragement, and I hope that they will note the comments made by your Lordships on this Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the matter could be examined by her

1219
department and the Department of Education and Science, as recommended by the British Heart Foundation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we take the recommendations of the British Heart Foundation very seriously. There is co-operation going on between the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority.

NHS: Employment Figures
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the figures for 1986 of the number of nurses and clerical, managerial and accounting staff employed in the National Health Service, and also the latest annual figures available for those categories.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in September 1986 and September 1990 the numbers of nursing and midwifery whole-time equivalents in the hospital and community health services were 511,000 and 512,300 respectively. But this is not comparing like with like, since the recent 1990 figures exclude many nurses now doing senior management jobs and the Project 2000 students. The clerical, managerial and accounting whole-time equivalents were 137,200 and 159,200 at the same dates.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for those figures. Is the noble Baroness aware that authentic figures have recently been produced showing that over the past five years there has been an annual increase of approximately 4,000 people employed in the health service in clerical, financial and management grades? The figures show a downturn of nearly 2,000 nurses —and only nurses—annually. Does not this trend appear to be contrary to what we would expect in an improving health service? Are we not in danger of creating clerical jobs at the expense of nurses' jobs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the figures that I quoted show no downturn in the numbers of nurses. The important point about the increases in clerical and administrative staff is that over a quarter of the staff work in direct support to clinicians. Thus, a greater proportion of health service staff are employed today in direct patient care than ever before.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Government are quite rightly accused at times by the Opposition of being the enemy of the National Health Service. It is suggested that they wish to destroy it and privatise it completely with the resulting consequences. I wish to ask the Minister a simple question: how many nurses, doctors and other staff were employed 10 years ago compared with today?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are far more today. The numbers in many categories have more than doubled in the 12-year period.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Baroness may have been quoting from memory but she was not quoting the facts. Will she confirm that the total number of staff working for the National Health Service has fallen from 824,000 full-time equivalents in 1981 to 796,000 in 1990? That is a substantial fall. Perhaps she was not considering the part-time equivalents. Those are the figures for full-time equivalents confirmed by her own department.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper which I am answering relates specifically to nurses. The further question to which I responded from the noble Lord related to doctors and nurses. Those numbers have increased dramatically since the Government took office and since the period during which the noble Lord served as Secretary of State for health. The numbers of clerical, managerial and accounting staff to which we referred have increased in order to free the medical staff to concentrate on their important job of looking after the patients and their health needs.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that in this country we spend far less on the management of the National Health Service than any other western country? Will she further agree that as it was the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who introduced cash limits to the hospital service, it is rather inappropriate for the Labour Party to attack the group of workers charged with keeping the hospitals within cash limits?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reforms that we introduced into the health service were specifically to make it more cost-effective and more efficient in order to enable more patients to be treated. That has happened.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the increasing load of administration and accounting now placed on doctors to meet the demands of the increased number of accountants and managers who, as the noble Baroness agreed, are required to operate the internal market? Is she interested to know that a leading cardiologist in the West Country has written to me saying that the extra 10 to 12 hours a week which he has to spend on administration means that he has given up any attempt at research work? The six research papers that he should be writing will have to wait until next year when he takes early retirement. I ask the Minister: is this the best use of scarce resources? Can she tell the House what it has to do with improving patient care?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recommend the noble Lord to read a publication called: NHS Reforms —The First Six Months. It shows beyond doubt that as a result of our reforms there have been dramatic improvements in the numbers of people treated. The numbers of patients waiting for treatment have been reduced equally dramatically. Thus there are more heart bypass operations, more cataract operations and more hip replacement operations being carried out by doctors, backed up by nurses, to the improvement of the nation's health.

1221
Naturally, when changes are introduced there is a transitional period when people have to become accustomed to the new arrangements. If, after the first six months, there are such dramatic improvements, what may we expect after the first year or two years?

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Education (Schools) Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Business of the House: Debates, 11th March
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead set down for Wednesday the Ilth of March shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Baroness Robson of Kiddington set down for the same day to two hours.—(Lord Waddington.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us very much regret the application of time limited rules to the first of the Motions with which we are dealing; that is, the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead? Is my noble friend aware that experience shows that when one is dealing with highly controversial issues of great importance on which strong political feelings are aroused, time limits inhibit and sterilise debate? That is so, if only because it is impossible for someone who is limited to five or six minutes to follow the good custom of the House in giving way to an intervention and then doing his or her best to deal with it.
I appreciate that this Motion on timing is moved, no doubt, at the request of the party which put down the original Motion. However, I hope that my noble friend will, in the longer term at any rate, give consideration to the weakening of the debating standards of the House as a result of applying time limits in cases where there is strong feeling, a large number of speakers and real and genuine controversy. The strength of this House in debate comes particularly where one speaker can give way and there can be a proper give-and-take.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, your Lordships will no doubt take the view that the point raised by my noble friend is important. Tomorrow the subjects for debate have been picked by the Liberal Democrat Party in the usual way. It would perhaps be odd if the House were not to accept the wishes of that party that the debates tomorrow should be time limited.
1222
Obviously these matters are entirely for the House to decide. Your Lordships can do precisely what you think is right. However, up to now it has been left to the party whose debates are on the Order Paper to decide whether it will be to the convenience of all to apply to the debates the normal rules regarding time limits on debates.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just said, that this is a matter for the House to decide, if the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, feels that he would be inhibited by a three-hour debate, would it not be in order for him to move that the first debate should last for five hours and the second debate for two hours as an amendment to the proposal that is before us?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have not the slightest doubt that it is open to any noble Lord to raise any point he wishes and to oppose the Motion I am now proposing. However, I have already pointed out what has been the practice in this House. I believe noble Lords would think it odd if the party whose right it is to choose the debates for tomorrow was overruled on the question of whether they should be time limited. I am advised that this point will be considered by the Procedure Committee in due course. It is perhaps best for us to wait to discover the conclusions of that committee's deliberations.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the last thing I want to do is to inhibit the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in deploying his arguments fully, or anyone else for that matter. However, I did not understand that we had an option under the conventions which apply to this House to go above five hours. We decided to have the two Motions and we did not know how many speakers would add their names to the speakers' list. When a number of speakers tabled their names for the first Motion, we took the initiative in changing the time limits for the debates from two debates of two-and-a-half hours length to one debate lasting three hours and the other lasting two hours. On the spur of the moment it is a little difficult to move further than that at the present time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as regards that intervention, is my noble friend aware that as far as I know the total limit of five hours is simply imposed by these Motions? On a day when a party has a choice of subject, the time can be unlimited if that party so wishes.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. These debates do not have to be time limited. It is just that in recent times the parties who have chosen the debates have usually found that time limiting the debates is to their convenience and to the convenience of the House. After all, if a debate is time limited it has the advantage of allowing those who may wish to take part in it to know when the debate will draw to a conclusion. They can then make their own arrangements and be present for the winding-up speeches. However, I repeat that this matter will be

1223
considered by the Procedure Committee and perhaps we can leave it there and return to it when we have read the conclusions of the committee.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before we leave the matter, is it not nevertheless right and fair to make the point that the five-hour rule has been a success throughout the past few years? Is it not further the case that there are occasions when subjects have been chosen and five hours has passed when there have not been enough speakers to fill the time allocated?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an important point. Again that is one of those matters which can be taken into consideration by the Procedure Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 7,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 8 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 16,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clauses 17 to 34,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 35 to 37,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 38 to 63,

Schedules 8 to 10.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Wales) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Cheques Bill
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. — (Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a
1224
manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. — (Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.16 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Chief Inspector for England]:
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for bringing to the attention of the House the case for his amendments on spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. He was concerned that under the Bill as drafted it might be possible for inspectors to neglect the important issue of how far schools are providing for pupils' development in these key areas.
Section 1 of the Education Reform Act makes it clear that the school curriculum must promote pupils' spiritual, moral and cultural development. HMI already has regard to all those aspects in its inspections. However, it is true that the current drafting of Clauses 2, 6 and 9 does not mention those topics. We have been impressed by the case which has been made for giving them greater prominence in this legislation. Therefore we propose these amendments. Their effect is to place on the face of the Bill a requirement for the chief inspectors to have, as part of their general duty, a duty to keep the Secretary of State informed on these matters and for registered inspectors to report on them when carrying out their inspections under the Bill. That means that parents will be given an objective assessment of the values espoused by their child's school and their impact on the pupils.
We have added the word "social" to ensure that matters of discipline and behaviour, and relationships between pupils and staff, are fully covered. The public at large will, through the chief inspector's annual report, have an oversight of how all the nation's schools are performing in this respect in each year. I hope that the way in which the amendments are worded will set at rest any fears that the inspectors are being asked to judge the values which underpin the life of each school. It is for the governors to determine a school's values and a school's ethos. However, the inspectors will have to report on what those values are and how they affect the development of pupils at the school. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who was concerned about this issue at an earlier stage, will accept that this is a proper part of an inspector's job. I trust that these amendments are acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, unfortunately appears not to be

1225
present, someone ought to say how welcome this movement by Her Majesty's Government is. It addresses a concern that is close to the hearts of a great many people involved in our education system and whose children are involved in our education system. It is entirely to be welcomed.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I only wish to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said. As one whose name was associated with the amendments which were moved originally by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I wish to express my gratitude to the Government for ensuring that this matter is placed on the face of the Bill. That can only be to the advantage of the whole system of inspection and information about schools which we need. I am grateful to the Government for the action they have taken.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for commenting on the point which I raised. I am very relieved to hear that the emphasis will be on the information being purely informative and in no sense judgmental. Any judgmental comments could lead to considerable abuse.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments from noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, this is a purely drafting point. Will the new words be added to paragraph (c), or will they form a new paragraph (d)? The Marshalled List shows brackets but nothing inside them. Will that be paragraph (d)?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is my understanding that that is the case, but if I am wrong I shall come back to the noble Lord. Certainly those words will be added to the Bill and I can confirm that the information will be commentary and will not be judgmental.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 6, after ("efficiently") insert ("and
( ) the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at those schools.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert ("and
(d) the adequacy of financial resources available to appropriate authorities (including the Chief Inspector) and to local education authorities for the purposes of inspections under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a minor technical point arises in respect of Amendment No. 3, and therefore also Amendment No. 10, as a result of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Glenamara. The amendment sets out a new paragraph (d). If the amendment of the noble Baroness turns out to be paragraph (d), then my amendment will be paragraph (e), but that is not a fundamental point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and I have put down the amendment in order to elicit a further response from the Government on the question of
1226
adequacy of financial resources for inspections. On a number of occasions we have expressed our fears that overall the sums being set aside for inspections will not be sufficient to make sure that inspections will be of high quality.
I was worried by my initial calculation in which I was able to demonstrate clearly that there was no profit to be made in the inspection business. I was also concerned by the fact that one or two consultancy firms which might have been expected to enter the inspection business had made the same calculation and come to the same conclusion. Such inspection bodies will have to receive a return on the capital invested and therefore the business must be profitable. I hope that the Government may be able to tell us more about that.
Equally, I raised the question of how resources will be managed and I do not feel that I have received a satisfactory answer. Will there be a fixed inspection scale so that schools will have to have inspections undertaken for that sum or will there be room for manoeuvre? That possibility worries me because, whatever the scale, it would have to be fairly standard and could not be fine-tuned to the different circumstances of individual schools.
Since, on the whole, the Government are responding positively today to suggestions that have been made, I do not want to introduce an acerbic note into the proceedings. However, I feel that the area of finance has not been fully thought through. Therefore I hope that either the Government will be able to make a more positive statement today about financial resources or some way will be found between now and the implementation of the Bill to clarify the matter. It may be that something can be done by regulation.
The matter is serious. Given that it now appears that the Bill will become law, we have to take the financial side particularly seriously. Given that the Government are intent on going ahead with the privatised inspection teams, despite the fact that we have tried to persuade them to the contrary, they have to face up to the need to provide appropriate incentives.
I accept the point which the noble Baroness made in Committee that in the public interest the Treasury must not make it too easy to make money. I agree entirely. However, on the other hand one does not want to create a state of affairs in which it is not just not too easy but is impossible to do so, in which case the arrangements would be unworkable.
I hope that the Government will be able to give some assurances on those points. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, on this occasion at least I am only too happy to leave the arithmetic to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I should like to support the amendment on the rather boring grounds that, because we are moving into a very new field in education involving the introduction of many new experiments, it would be false economy of the most foolish kind to economise on the inspectorate. We need the best inspections we can possibly achieve in order to identify errors in the schemes which

1227
ultimately would prove very much more expensive than paying for a really first-class inspectorate. That is why I want very strongly to support the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I note the concern which the noble Baroness raised, and I hope that I can continue in the spirit of good will to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred.
Whether it is paragraph (d) or (e), we do not need to add this provision to the Bill in support of the other changes which have been and are to be made. I am sure that noble Lords have noted the number of amendments we have brought forward to meet anxieties expressed at earlier stages and to give full and proper effect to the intention of amendments already made. I am certainly not in the business of arguing against change on principle, but the amendment before the House does not fit into the scheme of the Bill as it will leave your Lordships' House.
First, it suggests a need for the chief inspectors to keep the Secretary of State informed about the availability of resources for regular school inspections. Under the Bill as amended that will not be a matter for the Secretary of State. He will not, as we had envisaged, be adjusting the schemes of local management so as to direct the necessary resources to schools. The chief inspectors will be responsible for arranging inspections and the sums required will need to be included in the budget which the chief inspectors will negotiate with the Treasury each year. They will be able to comment publicly if they feel that the sums involved are inadequate, but it does not make sense under the new arrangements to put the chief inspectors under a duty to advise the Secretary of State on a matter which is not within the latter's direct control.
The chief inspectors will of course be under a duty to keep the system of school inspections under Clause 9 under review and that must include reviewing how it is affected by the resources made available.
As for the sums available for such inspections as LEAs will carry out, under the powers to be made explicit in the Bill that will be one of a number of aspects of LEA activity on which the chief inspectors will report if it affects the standards and quality of education. However, we see no need to single it out in the Bill when advisory work, training or other LEA activities are not to be covered in explicit terms.
As the noble Lord said, during Committee stage we debated at some length the sums to be made available for inspection. I would not want to go over all the exchanges again. Our reforms involve making better use of existing funds for local inspection and advice. Some £135 million is spent by local authorities each year on inspectors and advisers. We estimate that just over half that total, some £70 million, will be needed to meet the cost of inspection for the quarter of the schools which must be inspected each year. We shall need to ensure that the appropriate sum is transferred from local authorities to the chief inspectors to meet our timetable.
Of course financial estimates must remain tentative until the chief inspectors' guidance is known, and we are still some way from the first inspections in
1228
September 1993. However, they are based on a range of costs—from £6,000 for a small primary school to £30,000 for a large secondary school—which reflect current HMI practice in terms of the length of the full inspection leading to a published report. There will not be a fixed scale but there will be a minimum rate. Those are substantial sums. They are based on inspection costs of over £400 a day, including VAT.
We remain confident that there will be no shortage of competent inspectors applying for registration both within and outside local authorities. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will consider it possible to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may ask the Minister, since the Government have opposed the amendment, whether it means that the chief inspector would be prevented or forbidden from commenting on the adequacy of resources for inspection because there will be no express duty to do so in the Act? Does that mean that he is prevented from commenting on the adequacy of the resources?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that, after negotiating with the Treasury, the chief inspectors will be able to comment publicly if they feel that the sums involved are inadequate.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. It was very clear, especially her answer to my noble friend. It dawns on me that she understands the consequences of my amendment better than I do. Therefore I find her answer quite convincing. It is clear that if the chief inspector now has the lead role, he will also have a lead role when it comes to the matter of resources. I apologise to the noble Baroness because that ought to have been clearer to me at the time. I take her to be saying that although she believes that the sums set aside are adequate—we could argue about that, but it is pointless to do so now—if the chief inspector cannot get the job done on those resources, he or she will simply say, "I want more resources."
We have placed on record our view. I accept the point which the noble Baroness made. I should have liked to see this matter on the face of the Bill, although it is not that vital, given what she said and especially in the light of her reply to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 19, after ("schools") insert ("in England").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 11. The first amendment relates to the Chief Inspector for England and the second amendment to the Chief Inspector for Wales. They are simply drafting amendments: they make clear that the Chief Inspector for England is responsible for giving guidance about the inspections of schools in England

1229
and the writing of inspection reports on such schools while the Chief Inspector for Wales has similar responsibility for Wales. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that these are sensible amendments which improve the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 15, 17, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 41, 42, 43, 47, 49, 57, 58 and 59. These amendments put the heart back into the Bill. I am sure that they will meet with general support. They are designed to meet and build upon the spirit of the two amendments made to the Bill last week. They replace those amendments in a way which, I believe all noble Lords will agree, improves the clarity and consistency of the Bill. The amendments are not watered down in any way. They simply give full effect.
I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for withdrawing their package of similar amendments, which suggests that they accept the amendments now before the House. I expect that in their turn they will be keen to represent the changes to the Bill as a major disaster for the Government. I fear that I gave them some false hope last week by saying that one amendment that was passed struck at the heart of the Bill. That was in the context of just one amendment which, as it stood, removed all responsibility from the governors; and we have always believed that governors and parents are central to our plans for inspection. Whatever noble Lords said about their real intention, the amendment would have given the chief inspector power over not only the choice of inspectors but also the preparations for the inspection and its follow-up. It is an amendment which would have removed governors entirely from the picture.
We believe that governors must be at the heart of any plans to improve standards in our schools. Our amendments place them back at the centre in all but one respect. I hope that that will be welcome. The amendment on local authority inspection powers which is essentially presentational is one which in any event we were prepared to make at this stage. I shall speak to it at the end of my remarks and hope that our version will also be welcomed.
If we look carefully at what will be achieved by the substantive revisions to the Bill which have been pressed upon us, the main losers seem to be the local education authorities and not the Parent's Charter. The arguments on which noble Lords opposite were pleased to win last week fly in the face of all that they have been arguing for during the passage of the Bill: continuing control for local authorities and a corresponding weakening of the chief inspector's role. As amended, the Bill will still meet the Parent's Charter. It will meet the commitment to have regular independent inspection of schools followed by published reports and action plans. It will meet the Parent's Charter commitment to HMI oversight of inspection standards. It will break the LEA monopoly
1230
of inspection provision and will allow governors a say in what they want from their inspection team. It will also allow parents a role in setting the agenda for inspections.
In fact, the only change from the position reached two weeks ago, after we accepted the amendment so helpfully moved by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, is that instead of the chief inspectors having to approve the governors' choice of inspector, school by school, they will have to consult the governors and make the choice themselves. While we regret that further shift of balance away from the governors, nevertheless we are prepared to accept your Lordships' wish to proceed more cautiously with these radical reforms.
This will have major consequences for local authorities. It would be a nonsense to have the chief inspectors seeking tenders and choosing inspectors if the funding were left with local authorities and schools. We shall need to remove from local authority budgets that proportion of the inspection and advisory funds which is required to run the system. We have estimated it to be around £70 million at 1991–92 prices. That will form part of the budget of the chief inspectors.
I suspect that the chief inspectors may be more dispassionate and critical judges of local authority tenders than many schools would have been in the early days. Many authorities will need to work very hard indeed to bring their standards up to the level of the best competition.
The simple fact is that the Bill remains nine-tenths or more intact, meets almost all our objectives and will get the new inspection system up and running by September 1993 as we had planned. We regret the fact that a whole new bureaucracy will need to be established to run a centralised system, but we shall make it work. My right honourable friend has said that he will keep that aspect of the new arrangements under review and may reconsider the matter in due course.
The amendments that we have tabled in this respect are a self-contained package which amends the Bill along the lines for which your Lordships voted last week. In fact they build on the amendment then passed and for that reason go slightly wider than the similar amendments—now withdrawn —from noble Lords opposite.
First, there is the matter of consistency. The amendment passed last week removed the power from school governors to appoint inspectors. But it would still have allowed the proprietors of city technology colleges or independent schools which take pupils with special needs to choose their inspectors. Such proprietors and local authorities managing schools directly, whether special schools or nursery schools, should be put in the same position as governors who are responsible for school management. Our amendments secure consistency in that respect and give the duty to arrange inspections in all cases to the chief inspector.
Secondly, there is the matter of consultation. An amendment tabled but not moved last week by the noble Lords, Lord Ritchie and Lord Peston, would have required the chief inspectors to consult governors

1231
when appointing inspectors. I am sure that it will be necessary for governors to give the chief inspector detailed factual information and also to explain features which might require some addition to the otherwise standard specification. The aim is to require consultation before the tender is drawn up—consulta-tion on the job to be done rather than on who should carry it out. Our amendments secure that. I hope that the rest of the consequential changes on these points are self-explanatory and will commend themselves to your Lordships' House.
Amendment No. 49 is rather different. It replaces the separate provisions on local authority inspection powers added to the Bill last week, which were moved by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. At that stage I said that we would consider bringing forward an amendment to meet his point. But the noble Earl decided to press on with his original draft. I have to say that the drafting of his amendment is not acceptable as an addition to statute, since I am advised that its effects are far from clear. That view is supported by the record of last week's debate. Therefore, we asked the parliamentary draftsman to produce a new clause which met the intentions clearly expressed by the noble Earl when he moved his amendment. Referring to the local authorities' existing power of inspection, at col. 666 of the Official Report he stated:
"This amendment seeks to restore that power but only where it is strictly necessary".
The new clause before your Lordships is the result. It makes explicit the LEA's right to inspect where it needs to know more about a school or to find out more quickly than it can discover from other reliable sources.
The consequential amendments now before your Lordships' House I believe meet with acclamation from all sides of the House. I hope therefore that the House will accept this package of amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and indeed to the Government for accepting the principles underlying Amendments Nos. 111 and 111A that were moved in Committee last week and supported by the House.
I was a little surprised to hear the Minister refer to putting the heart back into the Bill. I thought it a somewhat defensive remark. However, I am grateful that the Government have undertaken all the tidying up that is necessary and have tabled a number of consequential amendments.
At the end of last week, we on this side of the House were uncertain about what would be the Government's attitude to the amendments on which the Government were defeated in Committee. We therefore put down a substantial number of consequential amendments. They were tabled in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am glad to say that on seeing the Government's own amendments, we felt able to withdraw our amendments. However, perhaps I may correct one thing that the noble Baroness said. In moving the original amendments in Committee, we never intended to give Her Majesty's chief inspectors the role of all preparation and follow-up to
1232
inspections in primary and secondary schools. We intended to come back at Report stage with tidying up, consequential amendments. I believe that that is demonstrated by the amendments that we put down. I wish to correct the noble Baroness on that point.
We welcome the fact that the Government's amendments go somewhat beyond the solution adopted in the original Amendment No. 111 by providing that the chief inspectors for England and Wales shall arrange inspection for all schools referred to in Clause 9. We believe that it makes sense to shift the concept of "appropriate authority" into Schedule 2 where it applies to the organisation of parents' meetings, the distribution of the report, action plans and so on. We endorse entirely the Government's proposals in the amendments that governing bodies should remain the appropriate authorities for the purpose of Schedule 2. That was our intention. We endorse the proposal that they should keep the function of making ancillary and follow-up arrangements to inspections.
We also very much welcome the removal of the rather awkward references in Clause 9(8) to the intervals for inspections being linked to the availability of funds to governing bodies, replacing them with a more general power for the Secretary of State, in prescribing intervals, to name the period within which the first inspection is to begin.
We are glad too to see the demise of Clause 2(13) which we considered somewhat flawed. We are also glad that the distinction between appropriate bodies has been abandoned, leaving HMCIs with the statutory duty to arrange inspections. That includes those categories of schools for which the governing body did not have the duty in the Bill debated in Committee.
However, there are a couple of questions that I wish to put to the Minister. I understand from what has been said today that HM Government intend to fund inspections directly. That was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, and confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who also implied that £70 million will be transferred from the local authorities to Her Majesty's chief inspectors to carry out inspections. I wish to know the implication of that transfer for local authorities which may need—it is implicit in Amendment No. 49, to which the noble Baroness spoke—to carry out inspections. Is all the money that the local authorities currently have for inspections to be removed from them? Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify that; I may have it wrong. I should also be grateful if the Minister will say whether the statement on the financial effects of the Bill will be changed. Are there any implications for local management schemes? For example, will there be a change to the requirement that LEAs have to delegate 85 per cent. of the potential schools budget by as early as 1st April 1993? It would be helpful if we could have answers to those questions.
There is still a great deal to criticise about the Bill. Indeed in our view it is still a very bad Bill. On this side of the House we regret that nine-tenths of the Bill is still intact. However, at least two of its worst features have been removed by the amendments. Schools can

1233
no longer choose their own inspectors. Her Majesty's chief inspectors will now do that. I do not accept what the Minister said: that it will create a whole new bureaucracy. On the contrary, it now means that the long experience and expertise of Her Majesty's Inspectorate can be maintained to ensure that inspections are properly carried out without collusion or connivance between head teachers and governors and privatised inspectors. That is a matter which many people feared.
I am also extremely glad that local education authorities can now undertake inspections where they need to do so in the proper exercise of their functions as the providers of primary and secondary schooling at the local level. I have no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will wish to comment on that. Apart from those reservations, I welcome the amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, perhaps I may also express some apprehension about the financing of inspections. I raised the matter last week. In the Explanatory Memorandum—we do not have that in this publication of the Bill—it was stated clearly that the new inspectorial system would be paid for out of the amount which local authorities now spend on their inspection and advisory services. The noble Baroness today put a figure on that of £70 million which is to be withdrawn from the local authorities and given to the chief inspectors. Does that not mean that local authority advisory services are likely to end? The noble Baroness shakes her head. Perhaps she will tell us how much the local authority advisory services cost. As I understand it, local authorities which are now strapped for cash will be in the greatest difficulty if that is withdrawn.
Very often, the advisory and inspectorial services are intertwined in local authorities. But very often they are quite separate. The advisory services in practice represent expert teachers who give advice to teachers in schools about difficult subjects. Very often, that advice is to young teachers. It is an important aspect of our education system. Will the noble Baroness give us some reassurance? Local authorities throughout the country are extremely worried that they will have all that money taken from them with nothing in return.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps it would be helpful if I respond to that point. The figure is £135 million. It is £70 million of that £135 million—the purely inspectorial sum—which will he taken. The money that is left will continue to fund limited inspection because the need for inspection from LEAs will be much reduced. However, the advisory function and its importance, which has been so well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will continue to be a role for local education authorities.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that local authorities now spend £135 million
1234
and only half of that is being withdrawn? That is certainly not the information that I received from local authority sources.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry about what local authorities are saying to the noble Lord. However, I said that a number of times during Second Reading and in the early Committee stage of the Bill.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches are glad that the Government have accepted the spirit of the two amendments that were passed last week. In consequence the Bill is greatly improved. As regards the local authorities, £70 million from £135 million leaves £65 million for the advisory services. However, the local authorities have continuing inspection expenses. What will be the amount left relative to what they now spend on advisory services after an allowance has been made for their inspectorial and advisory cost?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the amount will be different for the various authorities. Some authorities carry out a great deal of inspection and therefore the need for that quantity of inspection will be much reduced. It was thought that as regards the primary inspection role of local authorities the figure was about £70 million. How the remaining money is spent will be a matter for each authority. As a result of Amendment No. 49 to which I am also speaking, if local authorities have good reason to be anxious about a school they will continue to carry out some inspection and they will have the funds to apply to that. They will also continue with advisory services. I am sorry that local authorities are not admitting to the full amount of £135 million.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I must admit that I had a moment of confusion when the noble Baroness forgot to mention that she was speaking to Amendment No. 49. We plainly are doing so and I am glad that we are at this time. On behalf of those noble Lords who put their names to the amendment tabled in Committee, which brought about the second change to the Bill—it was Amendment No. 111A dealing with the LEAs' right to inspect —I wish to say that we have looked at the change in the wording that the Government are putting before us today in Amendment No. 49. We are satisfied that it produces the effect that was intended and to which the Committee agreed. As the Minister said, it is just a preferred form of words as advised by parliamentary counsel and as such we are happy to accept it. Meanwhile I associate myself with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said about the Bill in general.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I wish to ask a further question for clarification. It relates to the points being raised about the financing of the local authorities' inspectorial services. Will it be in order for the chief inspector to make use of local authority advisers and inspectors as agents for conducting inspections wherever he believes that to be the best way of carrying out the job? It is important that local authorities should be quite clear about that matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the answer is yes. If the inspectors are registered under Her Majesty's Chief Inspector they will of course be used, and I suspect substantially used. That was the case under the Bill as it previously stood and it is the case as it now stands.
In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, I wish to place on record the fact that the situation is unfortunate. During the course of speaking to his amendment I said on at least three occasions that we would come back with a form of words that was an improvement on those which then appeared in the Marshalled List and that it would achieve the objectives of his amendment. I said that a number of times but the noble Earl chose not to believe that I would do so. I hope that the House will accept my amendment.
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords broached the question of funds and the consistency between them and the financial memorandum. In a previous amendment we agreed to what we called the Renfrew inspectors. They are no longer required because they do not have to be in place to oversee the arrangements between a school and the contracted inspectorate. They now disappear from the Bill as does the funding. When I responded to that amendment it was the only amendment on the Marshalled List which related to that matter. Only in a subsequent debate was it hinted that there would be consequential amendments because it was pointed out that the amendment in itself made an all-powerful and impractical HMI. I opened my reply with the statement that the amendment on its own would have affected the Bill most seriously.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believed that the Minister was aware that the Opposition tabled a number of consequential amendments at the end of last week. They were in the Public Bill Office and available for the Government to see. If the Minister was not aware I am surprised that they were not drawn to her attention. Perhaps I may have an answer to my question about the local management scheme. If the Minister is unable to reply now I shall be happy if she will write to me.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the scheme will not affect local authorities because no money for the inspections passes from the school or the local authority. Those inspections will be paid for by HMI.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The Chief Inspector for England may at any time give advice to the Secretary of State on any matter connected with schools, or a particular school, in England.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. The amendments address an issue that was raised in Committee by a number of noble Lords. They relate to the question of the right of the chief inspectors to give advice. We promised to consider further the anxieties which noble Lords expressed on the matter.
In Committee we made our views clear. We stated our firm belief that the chief inspectors already have an implicit right to give advice on matters within their remit, whether or not asked to do so. We have not changed our view but we appreciate that a number of noble Lords were concerned about the matter. By tabling the amendments we are making the power to give advice explicit. I trust that noble Lords will be satisfied with the amendments and will be happy to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one of those who urged Her Majesty's Government to put this function on the face of the Bill I am extremely grateful.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in saying that we on this side of the House also welcome the amendments. We regret that the Government were not willing to accept them at a previous stage. I remember that in Committee the Minister vigorously rejected the suggestion that the provision should be on the face of the Bill. We are glad that at last the Government have seen fit to change their mind and we are grateful for the new amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 39, after ("be") insert ("specified in regulations or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I sought to persuade Her Majesty's Government that the arrangements for the inspection of schools might be greatly improved by the Bill. However, I said that the arrangements for the inspection of teacher training institutions would be untouched by it and that that was not satisfactory. In reply the noble Baroness made it clear that the process of accreditation would ensure that new courses were up to standard. In my reply I pointed out, first, that courses were different on paper from what they were in practice and, secondly, that saying a measure was good at the outset gave one no confidence that it would continue to be good for an indefinite period thereafter.
I sought a different approach to the problem and have tabled a different amendment. It enables the Secretary of State to lay down regulations which will set out how the training of teachers is to take place. I believe that some regular inspection of teacher training institutions is important, whether they be universities or colleges of education or of further education. It must be clear from my amendment that there is no intention to introduce the inspection of attributes or activities in such institutions other than the training of teachers.
As the quality of our schools ultimately rests entirely in the hands of our teachers it must pay us to ensure that the teachers are fully and properly trained and, if necessary, re-trained later in their careers. I hope that having had time to reflect on the matter the Government will give me an answer that is slightly different from that which they gave in Committee. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's anxiety and I believe that I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. Under the Government's proposals for the reform of initial teacher training, which are now out for consultation, accreditation of courses would be for a fixed period of up to five years and would apply for that period to a whole programme of courses in each institution or department. Therefore, I can give my noble friend an assurance about the idea of regular assessment.
To support this process, all teacher training establishments will have to be inspected regularly by HMI—a four-year cycle is currently planned—and the evidence from HMI would be taken into account by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education in considering whether to recommend initial or renewed accreditation. Teacher training establishments may of course be visited, formally or informally, at other times by HMI. This will give us a much better oversight of the training system than we have at present.
Where institutions are not, at least initially, granted accreditation for a particular programme of courses, those courses will have to be approved by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education —backed up by HMI's findings—as now. Those courses too will be subject to inspection by HMI.
Our intention is that under the new arrangements HMI will remain responsible for inspecting provision for in-service training and checking the follow-up to it in schools. The details of how that responsibility is to be discharged will be for HMCI to consider in due course. I hope that with those assurances, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that elaboration of the system which is about to be put in place. That will be extremely beneficial to teacher training generally. I hope that the Government will continue to give it a suitable level of priority. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Functions of the Chief Inspector for Wales]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("and").
Page 4, line 6, after ("efficiently") insert ("and
( ) the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at those schools.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 19, after ("schools") insert ("in Wales").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 13:
1238
Page 4, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The Chief Inspector for Wales may at any time give advice to the Secretary of State on any matter connected with schools, or a particular school, in Wales.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Inspection of certain schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 25, leave out from second ("the") to ("is"), in line 26, and insert ("Chief Inspector for England to secure that every school in England to which this section applies").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert ("and an inspection team including at least one lay person who is a parent of a pupil at any other school in the area covered by the local education authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment attempts to deal with what seems a not very satisfactory arrangement about the inspection team. The inclusion of a lay member in the inspection team does not have many precedents. There are rightly lay members on the bodies which organise many areas of public life. School governing bodies largely comprise lay members. Local education authorities have councillors who are lay members. Health authorities have lay members. However, to ask the lay members to take part in the day-to-day technical work of a body such as the inspection team is something new and is possibly not a very good idea. It has been suggested to me that it is rather like asking a lay member of a health authority to take part in the operations on the operating table.
Obviously, there is need for an outside approach to the work. We suggest that it may be a good idea to have as a member of the inspection team a parent of a pupil in another part of the area dealt with. There is nothing like having people of the age of parents of the children in the school who can report back and who can bring knowledge of their children and their children's friends to bear on what they see.
This amendment would require a parent to be involved in the inspection of schools instead of a lay person as such. At least parents, as representatives of consumers, would have a direct involvement in the quality of education in local schools.
In the Commons at Committee stage, the Government opposed a similar amendment because of the danger that the lay member would be a teacher and part of the educational inside track. However, the Government did not make clear whether they were against a parent being involved per se or merely because a parent may also be a teacher. If the latter were so, that could be put right. I believe we need to press the Government about that.
In practice, the reason behind suggesting the appointment of a lay person tends to disappear with experience. How many inspections must a lay member take part in before he or she ceases to have a fresh perspective and becomes someone who has considerable experience of school management? I am not sure

1239
that this matter has been thought through and I should be grateful to hear what the Government have to say about it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord said. There has been a good deal of criticism about this lay person who is to be part of the inspection team. I seem to remember that on Second Reading some noble Lords favoured the idea but I do not believe that we like it very much. It seems to us that if there is to be a lay person, it should at least be a parent who would have a real interest in what goes on in schools and who would, if living in the same area but not connected with the school, have some knowledge of the education in the area. We need answers to the questions asked by the noble Lord. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder if I can at this stage remind your Lordships of some of the doubts that have been cast on the whole business of the lay person in general on these inspection teams. I do not believe that it is a good idea to have a parent at the school on the team because of the fairly obvious risk of conflict of interest.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene and suggest that the noble Lord reads the amendment. He will see that that is not suggested, and that it must be a parent of another school.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if I have misunderstood the amendment, I apologise. However, as among the education establishment represented in the House there is a good deal of worry about the concept of lay inspectors on these teams, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said at Second Reading, and what he and others have repeated on and off throughout our debates on the Bill. The noble Lord said,
"My general view on the lay person in this case is fairly brutal. I suppose that, as a teacher myself, I have simply never really appreciated ignorance".—[Official Report, 11/2/92; col. 667.]
I have to say that there is a certain amount of academic hubris in that attitude, and it is a great mistake and pity that the nemesis of that hubris has been visited upon generations of our school children. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others who have doubts about the advisability of lay inspectors being on inspections teams, to give us their views on what appears to be happening in Switzerland.
I trust that noble Lords will agree that Switzerland is a successful country, both academically and commercially. Indeed, in the recent findings of the International Assessment of Educational Progress—the IAEP—Switzerland came top in maths of the 21 countries studied, including all the European countries, and by and large appears to be doing much better than the United Kingdom in most subjects. One could mention languages in that regard although I am aware that noble and academic Lords may say, "Well, they have to learn languages, don't they?". But they do it, and they do it very well.
In case there should be a mistaken impression that Switzerland is a collection of gnomes and cuckoo
1240
clock makers, on the commercial front, with a population of 6 million people, Switzerland exports three times the value of the machine tools exported by this country, which has a population 10 times greater.
A group of British teachers, including one senior inspector of a London local education authority, recently visited Switzerland under the auspices of the National Institute and the leadership of Professor Sig. Prais. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others will agree that some of their discoveries are enlightening to our debate on the usefulness of lay members of inspection teams. For instance, in the districts of Zurich and Berne, which account for much of Switzerland numerically, the schools are inspected only by lay inspectors.
The Swiss are wise enough to make sure that representatives of the Swiss educational establishment —if such a thing exists—are in a minority on school inspection teams. I have no doubt that other successful cantons follow that laudable policy. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and other members of the educational establishment, may like to know that in one of Berne's most successful cantons, the teachers are elected entirely by popular vote of the parents whose children attend the schools in question.
I believe therefore that if we have a successful European country which, far from finding any difficulty in including lay teachers on their inspection teams, relies entirely on lay teachers, the noble Lord and others from our education establishment will feel that not all lay people are necessarily guilty of the ignorance of which he accuses us.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I support not only the amendment, but also what was said by the previous noble Lord. It is vital that the lay element is included. Parents surely gain the best impression; they will obtain first hand knowledge from the pupil, that is the child, at the school.
I should like to draw a parallel brought to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she was asked to open a school for the disabled. When the noble Baroness entered the school in her wheelchair, she asked to see the "loo". When she got to the loo she could not turn the wheelchair around within it—and that was a school for the disabled designed to enable the students to go in with wheelchairs. Unless one has first hand knowledge, brought forward by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the correct decisions will not be made.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I can intervene for a moment, since I heard my name mentioned on at least one if not 10 occasions. First, in regard to the point of consistency of ignorance, I am totally ignorant about Switzerland. I learnt something this afternoon, and I thank the noble Lord for ridding me of that area of ignorance which otherwise would have stayed with me all my life.
I admit that I am clearly in a minority. Even my noble friend Lady David in the amendment supports lay people. On the whole, I do not. I do not backtrack from that view, although I shall consider the experience of Switzerland and try and find out more. My point is that it is not obvious to me what lay

1241
people do. For example, were I to undergo an operation—which I did recently—I would not care to think that any lay person ever got involved with the medical profession.
I always ask what it is about teaching that somehow makes it an area in which we want lay people to take part all the time. I appreciate the accusation of hubris, and there is no doubt about that. Certainly as a university professor I would strongly have resented any lay person turning up and taking part in anything in which I was involved. Therefore I do not withdraw from that view, but I found what the noble Lord said particularly interesting.
In response to the previous noble Lord who spoke, it seems to me that the point he made was the reverse point. The point regarding the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on the question of the disabled is that she is not a lay person; she knows what she is talking about. That is the kind of person I want involved. To come back to my point—I know it was a brutal word—I do not see the benefit of someone who knows nothing about education asking so-called questions. I therefore hold my view. Nonetheless, I appreciate that I am in a minority on the matter in your Lordships' House.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is allowed to speak again. But perhaps I can ask him whether he was supporting the amendment. It was the only point on which he left me a little lost. In other words, if we divide, will he accompany my noble friend into the appropriate lobby?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's question, I shall probably not support the amendment as such. It is probable that with sufficient people who have the appropriate experience, which will come from parents and no doubt from nearby, and especially if we can get enough lay people on these inspection teams, the amendment will not be necessary. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that on this occasion I shall be following my noble friend the Minister.
In a final and brief answer to another analogy made by the noble Lord I say this. As he has done before, he gave the analogy of a lay person in the health service whom both he and I would not want messing around in an operation or whatever. There is a great difference between the health service and education. We have all been to school; we have all been through that experience and therefore been on the receiving end of what we are inspecting. I should have thought that that was a difference between the lay person in the world of education and the lay person in the health service.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can put just a short question. What did he mean by a lay teacher?
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene—but it appears she will not do so.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is it me or is it the noble Lord being queried?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that I am querying. We are actually on Report and we are rapidly sliding into Committee procedures. My noble friend has spoken twice and he should only speak once.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I knew the moment I stood up somebody would raise that point. On the last amendment the Government Minister rose three times and I did not rise to call her to order. I could have done. But I knew that the moment I stood on my feet somebody would call me to order. However, I am not out of order. I have not spoken before. If the Minister speaks now, she will be out of order. She was out of order before and seems to be continually so. Perhaps I may repeat my question to the noble Lord.
A noble Lord: No, because he cannot answer!
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, then perhaps I can put my question to the Minister. Does the Minister know what the noble Lord means when he speaks of lay teachers? Does he mean unpaid teachers? I do not know any of those, and I hope that we do not introduce them into the teaching profession. We have had enough people telling us what to do without bringing in unpaid teachers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Baroness was entirely within her rights to speak. Summing up on the amendment has not yet taken place. However, the noble Baroness was wrong to compare or compound what was happening with the analogy of my responding. I was responding with the leave of the House to questions posed to me as the Minister. But the amendment has not been wound up and therefore the noble Baroness was entirely within her right to speak.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I had thought that this would have been quite a straightforward amendment to which to reply. I learn the hard way. I recognise noble Lords' concern about this matter. I am a little surprised at the determination in pressing for the lay member of each inspection team to be the parent of a pupil at another school within the same local education authority. If I have heard aright I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is a little surprised at the inclusion of a lay member at all.
We are looking at a very restricting provision which seems to suggest that the only outside perspective of any value is that of a parent. Governing bodies have a number of lay members representing the local community and employers as well as parents. The lay member of an inspection team should certainly not be drawn from a narrower field. The fact is that the lay member, given his or her function on the team, might come from a range of backgrounds. Neither parenthood nor physical proximity would be necessarily a qualification in itself for the function.
We are seeking the person who brings an outside perspective; the shrewd observer with no particular axe to grind and the non-professional who is willing to question professional jargon. Such people are to be

1243
found in all walks of life and should be selected for their personal qualities and not because they have this or that specific experience. Registered inspectors will want to search out the very best person for the job and should be allowed to do so, as indeed I suspect the Swiss are determined to search out the best person for the job. I hope that it will give my noble friend much pleasure if we are able to replace the Swiss at the top of the league, but as to what his interpretations are, hearing in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, I cannot say.
I also note the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I suspect that the kind of matter he quotes would be well observed by the type of person we are looking for to be a lay member; namely, some shrewd observer who would spot the problem. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Obviously the majority of any team would need to have appropriate education qualifications and experience to carry out their task effectively. That would be assured through the chief inspector's guidance and conditions. But where a more general judgment is being made, including whether the teaching and learning provided in the school meets the demands and expectations of the parents, local business or the wider community, there is a case for an outside perspective. I suggest that the interest between the surgeon and the patient is much less a matter of wide concern and more of a one-to-one concern.
There is a case for an outside perspective when the local community needs are to be looked at. Lay members will certainly not be chosen at random. They will be selected to make a worthwhile contribution to the work of the team. Registered inspectors will not be able to afford to "carry" weak team members and will want the lay member to make a real contribution. They will look critically at the quality of the lay member and the particular insights which he or she will bring to the job. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I did not say that I thought that parents were the only lay people with a contribution to make. But clearly lay people with a child in education in the local area have rather more of a contribution to make. This is an area where we do not have the matter quite right, partly, I suspect, because we are dealing at the moment with one person. I was very interested to hear about the Swiss experience. Their wholesale approach to the problem may be more relevant. I suspect that this is not an amendment which your Lordships would wish to press to a Division. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 29, leave out from second ("the") to ("is"), in line 30, and insert ("Chief Inspector for Wales to secure that every school in Wales to which this section applies").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 44, at end insert:
("(i) independent schools").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which I believe we have got right and which is considerably more important. It is an amendment to make certain that the parents of pupils at independent schools have the right to the same method of quality control as those with children at maintained schools. There is no breach of precedent in this particular case. The Bill already provides for the inspection of certain independent special schools, or non-maintained special schools and independent schools which have been approved to take pupils with special educational needs.
In answering a debate in the Commons the Minister stated that such independent schools would be inspected because they depended for their existence on public finance. But there are many non-special independent schools which are also dependent for their running on public finance; namely, those schools in the assisted places scheme and many schools that are funded for the children of military and diplomatic personnel.
If the new inspection is of such a high quality for the maintained sector, why are not the independent schools which are dependent for their finance on the public purse also included? I make the point that almost all the independent schools are dependent for their finances on their exemption from various taxation laws because they are charities. For all intents and purposes they are in receipt of public money and therefore they should be subject to the same kind of inspection.
At the Commons Committee stage the Minister stated that independent schools are inspected on a regular cycle at between five-year and seven-year intervals. These are not full inspections as required under Clause 9, but monitoring visits to do with the registration of independent schools. Once again independent schools are being treated differently with a longer period of time between inspections. I do not see why they should be treated differently. It would be an extremely good idea if they were integrated into the full inspection scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few points to this amendment which also stands in my name. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has covered most of the main points but there are two others that I wish to make. One point which unifies us is that we all believe that inspection is a good thing. We have been arguing how that is to be done, but there has never been any doubt that we all believe that inspection is a good thing and that the Government are right in wanting to see more inspections. That is not the problem.
The reasons why inspection is a good thing are that, first, it is helpful to parents because they gain a great deal more information about the schools; secondly, it is helpful to teachers, including the head teachers, because it tells them what they are doing well and also how they can do better and, thirdly, it is helpful to the Government for similar reasons. The logical question

1245
one has to ask is this: if we agree that inspection is a good thing then the Government should explain why it is not a good idea for independent schools. Public money goes into the system, but even if it did not, if inspection is a good thing then surely the Government should take that provision on board and see that it happens.
There is another argument which again is an information argument. One of the benefits of inspection is that the inspectors will learn a great deal about the schools. In a sense the good schools will set the standard for the other schools. The good schools will say what is possible along the lines argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, at Committee stage when she said that one often believes that a school could do better. One compares a school with one which appears to be similar and then one asks why the latter school is not doing so well.
I do not want to get into a very detailed argument about independent schools per se. I have certain views on the subject. There is no doubt that in many areas they do very well. If the inspectors then had access to them, that would add to what the inspectors themselves know. In other words, there would be a learning function there and a carry-over to the maintained schools. Although the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, were decisive, these are a couple of additional points on which I should like to hear the Government's comments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. This is a particularly important matter in the case of preparatory schools. Many of the public schools have governors. On the other hand, I remember at my school, which was in the depths of Norfolk, the governors came down only once a year on speech day. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston and I cannot see why the public schools should not be inspected. At one time, particularly with the prep. schools, there used to be two categories. The schools were either approved by the Ministry of Education or they were registered. Parents therefore always assumed that if the schools were registered, they were also approved. I do not know whether those two categories still exist.
There have been some bad cases, particularly with the prep. schools, where they have been found wanting. Sometimes behaviour has been below standard, and in some cases positively harmful to the children. I do not say that they are all as bad as the school in Evelyn Waugh's Decline and Fall, where the young hero went to have an interview with the head and was asked only one question: "Have you got a dinner jacket?"
Lord Young of Darlington: My Lords, I should like to mention one further point in favour of the amendment. It has been said on many occasions already that the value of independent inspections is that they enable parents to have impartial advice with which to compare the information obtained from the school itself. The school is bound to put its case in the
1246
most glowing light and make its brochure as attractive as possible. If there is inspection, a would-be parent, or a parent of children already at the school, could look at the school brochure or the statement from the school and compare it with an impartial statement and say, "Well, they have really overdone it" or whatever. This seems to be particularly important in the case of independent schools because some of them are inclined to make much too much of their virtues as against maintained schools. In my view, it would be correct, and in the interests of parents, if parents could have the same impartial information in order to gauge what is being said by the school as they would have in the case of maintained schools.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as I understand it, the one criterion on which the Government base their case is that the schools must be receiving public finance. That seems to be the basic reason —good or bad. Some of us think that it is not a particularly good reason as education is all-pervasive in the community as a whole.
But I rise to ask the Minister whether there have been any consultations of any kind with the organisations that represent the independent schools. I am thinking of the Headmasters Conference, but there are other organisations. I ask because it seems to me that if inspection is such a good thing—and the Minister keeps saying this, and we keep saying it, that provided it is a good inspection; and that is partly what this Bill is about—that the private schools could state in their various brochures and advertisements that they have been inspected and have had a good inspection. That would then put those schools on a level with other schools which had had the same kind of inspection. In other words, it would be very much to the credit of the schools. There may be some schools which might have made representations to the Secretary of State for this to be done or at least to be consulted. Your Lordships might be interested to hear that.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am the product of a private school of which I am very proud. It was a convent, and I received a good education. There is no question about that; convents still provide a good education. I have taught in many state schools, and I find that independent schools have one vital element which at the moment state schools do not have. They have small classes, so there is a one-to-one situation with the children which so far I have never seen in a state school. I have to wait to see that. Why? Because politicians will always mess about with state schools, whereas they cannot touch independent schools. Frankly, I do not believe that we should worry about this situation; I think that they would be delighted to have an inspection.
Lord Peston: Some of them would.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I think most of them would. Those schools have the discipline of the parents in that if the parents are not getting value for money, they will take the children away from the school. I can assure noble Lords that that is a very strong discipline. It is better than any inspector. It

1247
would be a pity if some of the products of independent schools who have been speaking here leave the impression that independent schools do not do a very good job. I am intrigued to know how they get public money. I thought that was a slightly complicated argument on the part of the noble Lord; but I have to take his word for it. I realise they get money from charities, but so far as I know, they do not get any money from the Government. I am sure some of them would he delighted to receive it. I shall be happy to have my noble friends on the Front Bench put me right about that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, put her finger on it. These are independent schools, and the customers—the parents of those children who attend them—have the greatest power of all, and that is to take away their custom from those schools. That is a very important factor which does not apply necessarily to maintained schools.
The other important point is that we are talking here about the distinction between inspection voluntary inspection, invited-in inspection or even HMI fulfilling its normal duty to inspect independent schools—and the imposition of systematic and regular inspection. I have to assume from all that has been said that noble Lords opposite, if given power, would bring independent schools within an imposed system of inspection. The difference between us is that we believe that independence is independence. It means what it says. Mr. Straw in another place, I understand, believes that they should be assured a future in the system. Therefore, there is not too much that divides us other than imposition.
Noble Lords have already put their case on a previous occasion for including all independent schools in the new arrangements that we are introducing with this Bill. I have heard nothing today which adds to what has been said before. I have to say that I remained unconvinced.
As noble Lords are aware, the Bill requires the regular inspection of all maintained schools and all those independent schools wholly or mainly supported by public funds. These include city technology colleges, which are funded directly by central government. The other two groups are non-maintained special schools, and those independent schools which are approved to take pupils with statements of special educational need, both of which rely on fees paid by local authorities for pupils they place at the school.
We make no apology for including these schools, and in particular the schools catering for pupils with special needs, in our arrangements. The pupils concerned are a very vulnerable group, and parents generally have no choice but to accept the placement which is arranged for their child. I know many noble Lords welcome this aspect of our reforms, which will expose these schools to close and regular public scrutiny. As well as helping parents, we shall ensure that local education authorities are sent inspection reports on schools where they support pupils, and can obtain such reports on schools they may be
1248
considering naming in a statement. This will increase their ability to make the right placement for each child.
It would however be quite contrary to the relationship between government and independent schools in general to bring them within the scope of this Bill. As noble Lords opposite are aware, independent schools are not subject to other statutory requirements such as the national curriculum, and we have no intention of altering that general policy.
Independent schools offer choice for parents. We believe that it is for parents to decide whether what is offered and how it is monitored meets their needs subject to the general safeguards for pupils which HMI oversight and the registration of independent schools allows. If parents feel they do not have adequate information or are dissatisfied with the school, they are free to withdraw their children. It is worth mentioning in terms of information that these schools are subject to the provisions of Clause 16.
I have already explained to noble Lords opposite that many independent schools already arrange to be inspected on a regular basis. For example, membership of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools is dependent upon a readiness of each school to undergo regular inspection. We think it more than likely that when the new inspection system envisaged in this Bill is up and running parental pressure, as well as professional pride, will ensure that parallel arrangements will emerge in the private sector, in the same way as most independent schools are offering the national curriculum.
I have no doubt at all that better standards in the maintained sector backed by public inspection reports will serve to force change in the less effective parts of the independent sector, just as the publication of reports for parents in the maintained sector will in our view be a powerful tool for change in the schools covered by the Bill.
I note the argument that schools which participate in the assisted places scheme should be included in the Bill. However, I do not think that the analogy with special schools is sound. Parents can choose whether to apply for assisted places and are responsible for the fees, with some government support. The schools involved are not overwhelmingly dependent on assisted places for their financial viability—and therefore continued existence—in the way that independent special schools rely on LEA fees.
I can assure the House that the existing arrangements whereby HMI inspects independent schools for particular purposes will continue to apply. It is an offence to run an independent school which is not registered under the 1944 Act and registration depends on the outcome of inspection by HMI. HMI inspects schools which are applying for provisional registration and may conduct several visits to ensure that standards are acceptable before final registration is granted. HMI also aims to visit all independent schools on a regular cycle to monitor standards. HMI also visits schools which, as a result of parental complaints or other sources of information, are causing concern, or if asked to do so by the Secretary of State.

1249
The new office of HMCI will have the same functions. Nothing changes. Our own provisional estimate of HMI numbers once the new system beds down secures that the full-time equivalent of 15 HMIs will have independent school provision as their main concern. I remind the House that the chief inspector will have a general duty under Clause 2 of the Bill to keep my right honourable friend the Secretary of State informed about the quality, standards and efficiency of educational provision in all schools. This will certainly cover relevant aspects of the curriculum, physical accommodation, staff qualifications, pupil welfare and so on which affect standards of provision in the independent sector.
A previous Labour Secretary of State, Mrs. Shirley Williams, decided to abandon the category of independent schools recognised as efficient. She did so largely for administrative reasons and, in particular, for the saving of HMI time. Her view was that HMI's time was rather more precious and should be spent in the maintained sector rather than in the independent sector. There is no reason whatever why independent schools should not pay for inspections by registered inspectors or why parents should not press them to do so. That will continue to be a matter for independent schools and parents can put pressure on those schools. The difference here is about imposition of the system —whether the system which is part of the previous Act should pertain and whether we allow the independent sector to remain independent; and, if it needs it, to require inspection for which it will have to pay.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer the question which I asked her?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he would repeat his question.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the criterion on which inspection is authorised in the Bill is that the school receives public money? My query relates to an independent school which does not receive public money, although it was not said when my noble friend Lady Phillips mentioned it that such schools have charitable status, which implies some public finance, if my reading of the law is correct. I went on to ask—this was my most important point—whether the Government had consulted any of the independent school organisations. I quoted HMC but there are others such as the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools. Have the Government consulted as to whether they would welcome inspection in any shape or form and have the independent schools organisations asked the Government about this business? Some may have said that they would welcome it. I went on to say that if a school had a good inspection that might enhance the reputation of the school in its publicity, its advertisements, its school brochures and so on.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the question here is whether they have asked about an imposed inspection system. That is what is at stake. We are talking about a system of imposition of periodic regular inspections. We have kept the independent sector informed. There has been no request by the independent sector to be brought under the umbrella of this Bill but it knows what is happening. If independent schools wish to have an inspection they are able and free to request an inspection and it would be up to them to pay for it.
As for payment, I said in answer to the amendment that the schools that we are choosing to bring under the umbrella of the Bill are wholly or mainly funded by either LEAs or the DES. I made a distinction between those children who go to those schools and for whom there is no choice—statemented children, for example—and those in the assisted places system who, first, choose voluntarily to apply for an assisted place and, secondly, are party to the funding of that school. Those are the distinctions.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may remind her of the fact that city technology colleges were originally to be funded up to a level of 90 per cent. by private industry. It is because of the pathetic failure of the Government to secure that funding—industry felt that this was one of the Government's dafter ideas—that we have ended up with a situation in which the colleges are largely funded by the public sector.
Perhaps I may also remind the Minister—I think that she has been badly briefed on this point—that we have not in fact yet debated this amendment. At the Committee stage it was not moved because we ran out of time. This is the first time that we have had a chance to have a proper debate on the issue.
Perhaps I may come to my main point. The Minister suggests that it is perfectly possible for parents to remove their children from independent schools if they are dissatisfied with the schools. Of course that is true. It is equally perfectly possible for parents to remove their children from a maintained school and send them to another school unless they happen to be in a rural area miles from anywhere. However, I do not think it is right to treat children in this way. It is extremely disruptive and can be extremely traumatic for children to be removed from poor schools and sent somewhere else. That is particularly true of boarding schools and there are of course many independent boarding schools. I find that argument very unsatisfactory. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond again on this point.
I also feel that it is extremely unsatisfactory to suggest that it is possible for parents simply to request that a school should be inspected. It is the bad schools that would resist such requests. Perhaps the Minister will respond.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I said that parents could put pressure on those schools. Their leverage to have those schools take notice of parental pressure is that parents can remove their children and remove their money from the

1251
school. That is a distinct threat to the future of a private school. Secondly, the request for an inspection would be in the form of a request to the school. Parents can make that public. They can certainly make public the reputation of a school if they are not happy with it. They can take their children and their money away.
The noble Baroness referred to CTCs. It was never suggested that 90 per cent. of the CTCs' revenue should be privately funded. Although it was intended that the private sector should be considerably involved in the setting up of the CTCs, their running is very much a matter for the Government. We think that it is right that they should be subject to this system.
I do not believe that there has been pressure from the parents of children at private schools for such schools to be brought under the umbrella of the Bill. If noble Lords opposite have any such evidence it would be helpful to have it. We have said that such schools will continue to be subject to the provisions of previous Acts, that they must be registered and that HMI must recommend to the Government that they are fit schools to be registered. It is also right that the Secretary of State may from time to time deregister a school. A school may be struck off the register simply because it is not a fit place for young people to be educated in. Her Majesty's Inspectorate will continue to have a continuing right of access to independent schools—a right which it exercises frequently. I have given an assurance that 15 inspectors who will devote their time entirely to independent schools will continue to fulfil that role.
To return to the central point, we are talking about an imposed system of regular inspection and about schools that are wholly or mainly publicly funded. We believe that schools that fall outside that definition —those that are independent—should be truly independent. Therefore, with the caveats that I have made—that their quality of education should still be subject to HMI examination—we are not subjecting independent schools to this system.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, before we were plunged back once again into our Committee stage deliberations on this Bill, I was expecting the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as our conscience, to leap to his feet to try to stop that happening.
The Minister has given us a full answer to the arguments that have been made in favour of the amendment. However, it boils down to one sentence—"independence is independence". That is manifestly untrue. Instances have already been cited by myself, the Minister and other noble Lords of areas where independent schools are not independent and receive government money. There is the whole business of so many independent schools having charitable exemptions. I shall not go into that in any great detail now and shall leave the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, to have a colloquy with her Front Bench on that matter. However, it is the case that all the independent schools benefit from money that might otherwise go to the Government.
The Minister has said that independent schools are different partly because they do not have the national curriculum. I think that it is absolutely right that they
1252
do not, but I suggest that the fact that they do not have to apply the national curriculum is an additional reason for inspection. At least one vaguely knows what is going on in a school that has the national curriculum. If the national curriculum is not being applied and the independent schools are trying to experiment with different forms of education—something of which I totally approve—there is all the more reason for keeping an eye on them. I do not think that independence is independence in this field or probably in almost any other. I believe that we should test the feelings of the House on this matter.
4.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 168.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hunt, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kissin, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Meston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Thurso, V.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Halsbury, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hamwee, B.

Whaddon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

White, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Willis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Hughes, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Aldington, L.

Beloff, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Alport, L.

Blatch, B.

Annan, L.

Blyth, L.

Arran, E.

Boardman, L.

Astor, V.

Bolton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Borthwick, L.

Auckland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Brigstocke, B

Bauer, L.

Brookes, L.

1253

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marsh, L.

Byron, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountbatten of Burma, C.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mountevans, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Cockfield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Newall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norfolk, D.

Craigavon, V.

Norrie, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Northbourne, L.

Cross, V.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Palmer, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elibank, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Peel, E.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Elton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Faithfull, B.

Prentice, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pym, L.

Flather, B.

Quinton, L.

Flowers, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Rees, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rennell, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Renwick, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Rodney, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Romney, E.

L.

St. Davids, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Salisbury, M.

Harmsworth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harvington, L.

Selborne, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Shannon, E.

Henley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Hives, L.

Strange, B.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Howe, E.

[Teller.]

Huntly, M.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Terrington, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Teviot, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Tollemache, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Tryon, L.

Killearn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Knollys, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lindsay, E.

Vivian, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Waddington, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Long, V.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wharton, B.

Lyell, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wise, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wolfson, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wynford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert ("including whether each pupil has access to a broad and balanced curriculum").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 9(4) provides:
"It shall be the general duty of any registered inspector conducting an inspection under this section to report on—
(a) the quality of the education provided by the school".
We want to add to that:
"including whether each pupil has access to a broad and balanced curriculum".
We want to ensure that all pupils have access to the broad and balanced curriculum, regardless of sex, ethnicity or special educational needs.
Ministers appear to have forgotten the excellent aim for the school curriculum set out in Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988; namely:
"The curriculum for a maintained school satisfies the requirements of this section if it is a balanced and broadly based curriculum which

(a) promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and

(b) prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".

By inserting the amendment, inspectors will have to assess how far each school has achieved the aims of Section 1 of the 1988 Act. If omitted, Ministers' desire for the basic subject-oriented curriculum may affect how inspectors inspect. Failure to ensure that inspectors are interested in assessing whether the curriculum provided for all children is broad and balanced may also lead to pupils with special needs not being provided with a full curriculum. Likewise, there may be a risk that girls, boys and children from different ethnic groups will experience different curricula. Through this amendment we should like to probe the Government's commitment to that broad and balanced curriculum.
Although, as I have said, Section 1 of the Education Reform Act states that the curriculum must be broad and balanced; every recent DES publication appears to be going away from that aim. In particular, a book entitled Your Child and the National Curriculum, which appeared in November 1991, presents a particularly subject-centred approach to the curriculum. The booklet purports to give the reader:
"The basic facts about what your child will do at school".
But it omits any information about non-national curriculum studies or the cross-curricular work that has been developed by the National Curriculum Council in recent years on health education, education for economic and industrial understanding, environmental education and education for citizenship.
I shall quote an interesting article which appeared in the Guardian on 18th February by Michael Marland, a distinguished head of the successful North Westminster Community School, in which he said that it was as if the DES:
"has forgotten its own legislation, never mind its publications and those of Her Majesty's Inspectorate".
Michael Marland's article contains several quotations against the subject-centred curriculum. The following comes from the 1937 edition of the Board of Education's Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers:

1255
"undue concentration on subjects as such too frequently means that a great deal is taught which is of no clear value to anyone who is not a professional scholar".
Thus it may be inferred that in 1938 it was recognised that an academic subject-dominated curriculum was not appropriate for most children, especially those with special needs. It is ironic that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, cited children with special educational needs and the requirements of the Education Act 1981 as a reason for not including a duty on HMCIs to advise on the curriculum in Section 1(2) of the Education Reform Act. The reason was that if the Bill referred to Section 1(2) of the Education Reform Act it might mean that special needs issues would be,
"in danger of relegation to second division status".—[Official Report, 24/2/92; col. 93.]
The irony is that it is children with special needs who are most in need of a broad and balanced curriculum. That was apparently recognised in the 1930s but not today.
It could be argued that the inclusion of the amendment will protect HMCI from the political interference of those who are committed to a boys' grammar school curriculum. Obviously, the Secretary of State's views are reflected in the DES booklet to which I have referred. How long will it be before HMI reports are the same? The annual report for 1990–91 of the HM Senior Chief Inspector of Schools adopts a much more subject-centred approach in its assessment of the curriculum than earlier reports. In the paragraphs relating to the primary curriculum there is no mention of non-national curriculum studies. We hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. It will reassure many people that the curriculum will be as broad as Section 1 of the Education Reform Act demands. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. It seems to us on this side of the House that ensuring that the curriculum is both broad and balanced is an essential part of what inspectors ought to be doing, particularly when they are undertaking a full inspection of any primary or secondary school.
A school that is failing with respect to the content of education is failing in a fundamental way. As my noble friend said, it is quite clear in the Education Reform Act 1988 that it is a requirement that schools should follow. It therefore seems odd to us that it should not be a duty of the inspectors to ensure that the requirement is fulfilled in both primary and secondary schools. I support my noble friend.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I note that in introducing the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady David, suggested that she was probing the matter. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. I understand the intention behind it and the anxieties that both noble Baronesses raise. But I believe that those anxieties are already fully taken into account in the way in which the Bill is drafted.
As noble Lords are aware, we undertook to consider further whether it was entirely clear from the drafting of the Bill that inspections had to cover the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the schools being inspected. We took the
1256
view that on reflection it would be useful to put this beyond doubt. We therefore brought forward the amendments which your Lordships agreed should be added to the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that we have been willing to be flexible where there is a good case for putting our intentions beyond doubt and where there might otherwise be a lack of clarity. But we do not accept that this is such a case.
We think—and I hope that the noble Baroness will agree—that it is conceivable that inspectors will be able to meet the duty to report on the quality of education to the chief inspector's satisfaction, without reporting on the breadth and balance of a school curriculum available to each and every pupil.
I agree that the words "each pupil" or "all pupils" do not appear on the face of the Bill. But the education provided by the school and the standards achieved in the school are comprehensive descriptions. A report about the school as a whole requires more than the comment that the pupils of above average ability get good GCSE grades. It must also say what happens to the others, including the special needs pupils. Nor can the report limit its comments on curriculum breadth and balance to one group within the school. It needs to cover them all.
I am sure that we can rely on the chief inspector to require registered inspectors to draw attention in their report to any failure on the part of the school to provide an appropriate curriculum for all its pupils. This is one of the key pieces of information that parents, school governors and the chief inspector will want to know. I am sure it will be at the heart of the new inspection framework.
If we were to insert "each pupil" here, we should be calling into question all the other places where we have not used that form of words. Section 1 of the Education Reform Act, to which the noble Baroness referred and on which the amendment is based, refers only to "pupils" and not "each pupil". I very much hope that the noble Baroness will not press a point which could serve to confuse rather than clarify the Bill and other provisions.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving me quite a full reply which was obviously meant to be reassuring. I said that this was a probing amendment and we were trying to find out what was in the mind of the Government. We have a natural fear, which was borne out by the last inspector's report, that the inspection may be too subject based. We shall have to wait and see. I appreciate that the words,
"the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school",
have been inserted into the Bill. That is some consolation. I thank the Minister for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 4, after ("school") insert:
("( ) the behaviour policy of the school").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we spent some time discussing one of the central issues in any school, which is how the school staff secure the good behaviour of pupils. I pointed out that the term "staff" embraces all those employed at the school, not only teachers. I offered your Lordships two amendments. One was couched in the language of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and the other in the language of one of the teachers' professional bodies. The amendments had this in common: they both addressed the means of securing pupils' good behaviour and thus directed the attention of the inspectors to specific areas of school management.
One of the approaches was couched in language hallowed by statute and the other was more suited to the layman. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady David, has retabled the second of my amendments in her name as Amendment No. 23. Therefore, I suppose that I am de facto speaking to that amendment as well.
I believe that neither of those approaches was entirely satisfactory and I therefore provided in Amendment No. 20 a form of words of which the meaning will be perfectly clear to laymen and which has an accepted meaning within the teaching profession.
Clause 9(4) provides a list of matters that inspectors are to inspect and report on. There are three at present: the quality of the education, the educational standards achieved and the financial management. To these my noble friend the Minister has added, with my warm support:
"the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils".
Both her addition and two of the three matters for inspection already in the clause relate to results. They will ensure the assessment of the success or the failure of the school, as the case may be.
The third matter singled out for the attention of inspectors in Clause 9 addresses the processes by which these results are to be achieved. But it addresses only one of them—the management of the school's financial resources. I heartily applaud the inclusion of this aspect of management. The result will, I hope, be a flow of useful advice from properly qualified advisers to teachers who never thought when they embarked on teaching as a career that they would finish up managing the budgets of complex and sometimes large businesses. The inclusion of this aspect of management is therefore welcome.
However, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that while the financial management is singled out, all other aspects of management are ignored. The Bill is silent on man-management or the management of human resources, as we call it. It is silent on the management of the discipline of the pupils and provision for their pastoral needs.
These three aspects of management will have a powerful—indeed, a critical—effect on the education that the school provides and the standards the pupils will achieve. Doubtless my noble friend will reply that both of those are already to be inspected. But the fact is that it is easy not to treat these various aspects of
1258
management as the cohesive system that they ought to be and to pick up instead the isolated effects of isolated decisions and provisions.
It is perfectly possible to argue—indeed, I expect it to be argued—that by requiring inspection of the product of school management, one is effectively requiring inspection also of the management system itself. Had subsection (4) been silent on the subject of management altogether I might even have accepted that without argument. But it is not silent on the subject. It goes out of its way to direct the attention of the inspectors to one particular aspect of management and no other. It is not academic; it is not pastoral; it is not directed to inter-staff or any other relationships. It is purely about finance.
I have already agreed that financial management is a very important aspect of school management. But it is not the only one, nor is it the most important one to the exclusion of all others. Yet by singling it out for specific reference in the subsection we suggest exactly that. That might be the interpretation even of the courts were it to be tested there. Much more likely and dangerous would be that the large numbers of registered inspectors who will operate under this law in years to come will also think that it means that financial management is the principal aspect of management which they should inspect unless they are otherwise instructed. It is those two dangers that I seek to guard against: danger in the courts and danger in practice.
It would clearly be wrong to ask your Lordships to exclude the financial element from the subsection. Instead we need to balance it by including the rest. A full list of all the elements would be unwieldy and unsuitable for legislation. Fortunately there is a concept available that sweeps up virtually every aspect of management and it hinges on a word that is readily understood by pupils and parents, who also have a key role to play, as well as staff. The word is behaviour.
The importance of developing a whole school behaviour policy was a central recommendation of the report of a committee of inquiry into discipline in schools which I chaired. The report was published in 1989. The report was accepted by the Secretary of State and was sent for action to every maintained school in England and Wales. It demonstrates the way in which almost every aspect of organisation and conduct can affect the behaviour of pupils and should be consciously planned to affect it beneficially. The result should be a code of behaviour upon which staff can rely in providing the firm framework of discipline that is essential for the proper conduct of a school and the proper growth of pupils into maturity. The framework should be such as to secure the support of pupils who might otherwise be in a state of suppressed revolt for much of their school careers.
I believe that inspection of a school's behaviour policy would involve inspection of all the aspects of school management on which the Bill is at present so eloquently silent. If my noble friend cannot reassure me on the legal interpretation of the Bill as drafted in this respect, and that it will not, as drafted, give inspectors a completely false sense of priorities, I shall

1259
continue to think that a measure of the kind that I now propose will be needed before this Bill leaves the House. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, my Amendment No. 23 has been grouped with Amendment No. 20, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The noble Lord's amendment adds to the list of provisions in Clause 9(4) and my amendment seeks to add another paragraph to that subsection. My amendment asks that,
"the general atmosphere of the school, giving consideration to such matters as the school's standard of behaviour, the relationship between staff, pupils, parents and other members of the school community, the methods of discipline and the physical environment",
should also be reported on by the inspector.
As the noble Lord has said, under the Bill the registered inspector must report on the quality of the education provided by a school, its educational standards and its financial management. Those are important matters but parents are also concerned with other aspects of the school, for example, what happens in the playground; the standards of behaviour; the methods of discipline and other such matters. My amendment adds a fourth requirement to the list of matters on which the inspectors must report.
At the press conference on the Bill the Secretary of State agreed that the general atmosphere of a school was an important consideration. He said he would expect inspectors to report on that, but that in any event the team would meet parents, when such issues could be raised. The difficulty with that as a solution is that inspectors are under no duty to follow suggestions made by parents. Further, it is our experience that where schools are low in morale and the atmosphere is not good, parents are often apathetic too. Therefore attendance at meetings with inspectors might well be poor or non-existent.
Amendment No. 23 considers the whole life of a school, not just discipline and standards of behaviour. It also covers a school's physical environment. Given the state of repair of a great many of our schools, that may well be a crucial factor in assessing the success of a school generally. The state of buildings can well affect the teaching that goes on inside them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we had an interesting discussion in Committee in respect of similar amendments tabled by my noble friend relating to the duty of registered inspectors to report on behavioural policies and related matters. I note that the noble Baroness has again put before us one of my noble friend's previous amendments, but that his thinking has moved on. I fully appreciate the deep concern that behavioural policies should not be a matter which registered inspectors should be permitted to ignore when reporting on a school.
I believe we have gone further than almost any previous administration in terms of including the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of our children in our proposals for schools. As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, all aspects of school life should be incorporated in the inspector's report.
1260
My noble friend has this time tabled a more concise amendment in response to our arguments at the previous stage about unbalancing the Bill. However, I have to say that I still cannot accept the need for an explicit mention of behavioural policies, rather than any other kind of school policy, on the face of the Bill. As this amendment was being spoken to, I looked to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, as it seemed to me to single out one means to an end as regards one aspect of school policy. It calls into question what primary legislation is about. I believe that this is an area of education which must be left to individual schools to determine in terms of developing policies and plans which achieve their objectives. Inspectors will of course measure the end result of all of that and will measure how far schools have addressed the social, spiritual, cultural and moral welfare of their pupils.
My noble friend has suggested that his amendment is in effect a necessary complement to those inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Those amendments add an additional aspect of the "end product" of education—that is spiritual, moral, social and cultural development—and this amendment concerns the policies which are adopted in pursuit of such development.
I do not accept the proposition that, unless those policies or any other policies are singled out on the face of the Bill, they will be ignored by inspectors. I have two reasons for saying that. One of my reasons is practical and the other is legal. The practical argument is that these are matters which have traditionally formed an important part of HMI reports. It will be Her Majesty's Inspectorate that will have the responsibility for drawing up the new inspection framework within which registered inspectors will operate. I think it is inconceivable that they will fail to require serious comment on these aspects of education as a necessary part of all inspection reports.
The legal argument is equally strong. We start from the very general description in Clause 9(1). The subject of the inspection is to be the school at large, and that includes all aspects of its management as well as all other activities that the institution carries out in pursuit of its functions. I know that we have then specified in subsection (4) a list of the aspects of the school which must be reported upon. My noble friend fears that in doing so we have brought into question the generality of subsection (1). I am advised that this is not the case. In any event it seems to me that the quality of education—that is listed in subsection (4) —includes the process as well as the outcomes of that education. Therefore it must, by definition, include the types of policies which are of concern to my noble friend.
I cannot accept the argument that by mentioning financial management explicitly we have served to imply that other aspects of management are omitted from the inspector's remit. That aspect needs to be mentioned precisely because it is not obviously part of the quality of education. It is clearly different in kind from the other elements mentioned and is a new departure for school inspectors. It has to be mentioned to make sure that it is included. I am

1261
assured that its inclusion does not serve to limit the generality of the other elements of subsection (4). If my noble friend remains concerned—from what I have heard him say today I believe that that is the case —I shall certainly be happy to draw to the attention of the new chief inspector in due course our expectation that the inspection framework will meet his particular point.
I hope that in the light of that assurance my noble friend will not press the amendment. Should he worry that I shall not myself be in office to meet that commitment, I believe that that is an assurance for the record and that whoever stands on this side of the House in my place will honour that assurance.
Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, I hope that what we said in moving the amendments which we produced in response to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and what I have said now in response to my noble friend Lord Elton will convince her that matters of ethos and all the matters mentioned in her amendment are fully covered under the Bill and are the proper concern of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and registered inspectors. They will be reported on publicly and will be given the full prominence they deserve and which parents wish them to have.
The work done by my noble friend and his team on discipline in schools is and will continue to be a major statement and guide to schools as they seek to implement policies to fulfil their duty under the Bill to address the social, spiritual, moral and cultural development of the young people in their care. As I said earlier, I believe that we have done more to address the whole life of a school. I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will not press his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for some of her kind remarks. I have some difficulty with her reply and I hope that that difficulty will disappear on reading her reply in Hansard. I thought that I heard my noble friend begin her earlier statement by saying that she could not accept the need to draw attention to one aspect of management rather than another. It is because the Bill already does just that that I took exception to what was being done.
I accept that it is a traditional part of the inspector's duty to report on all aspects of management. My noble friend mentioned the fact that the collection of ideas which constitute management is now wider than it used to be. She rested part of her argument on the fact that Clause 9(1)—and Clause 9(2) for Wales—attracts the generality of schools. She then said that the subsection nevertheless drew attention to finance because that was not recognised as part of the generality of education. There is a slight break in the continuity of her argument in that respect. However, I shall consider the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Much the most persuasive part of my noble friend's argument was her undertaking, on behalf of herself
1262
and such of her successors as she might be able to bind, to draw attention to that aspect of reporting to future Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors.
With that curate's egg reply—which was more good than bad —I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 6, line 4, leave out ("and").
Page 6, line 6, after ("efficiently") insert ("and
( ) the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 were spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) The registered inspector shall inspect details of any complaints made by any person about the school.
( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedures to be established for consideration of complaints about schools.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Committee stage I moved an amendment which included this requirement and also provision for the inspection and keeping of punishment books (cols. 655 to 658 of Hansard for 2nd March 1992 refer). The debate on the amendment focused almost exclusively on punishment books, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, claiming that there has never been in any school provision for punishment books except for records of physical punishment. That is incorrect. At present, under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Education (Approval of Special Schools) Regulations 1983, special schools have to keep punishment books, although physical punishment is banned in those schools.
The amendment omits all mention of punishment books in order to give a proper airing to the question of complaints procedures. At present the only requirement to have a complaints procedure in a school is, as I said at Committee stage, under Section 23 of the 1983 Act which requires governors to deal with complaints about the national curriculum. The accompanying DES circular makes clear that that provision excludes complaints about all other aspects of the school—for example, the actions of individual teachers.
Complaints about a school can range from the apparently trivial, for example, bullying in the playground, the rules about what food can be eaten by pupils and mass detentions, to the obviously serious —failure to meet special needs, physical assaults and indefinite exclusions. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said that it would be hard to know when a concerned query turns into a complaint. If schools had complaints procedures that distinction would not be a problem. A concerned query becomes a complaint when the procedure is formally invoked. Certainly, all of those issues are ones about which parents and students feel strongly and they should be entitled to a proper hearing.
The Children Act 1989 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 both require institutions caring for children to have complaints procedures. The Children Act regulations prescribe a well-publicised procedure which includes independent elements and provisions both for early informal resolution of a complaint and for a formal final appeal. Those are the type of provisions one would expect a school's complaints procedures to contain.
It is also worth noting that under the Children Act independent schools with fewer than 50 boarders must have a regulated complaints procedure and that the provisions for social services to inspect independent schools require the inspectors to examine details of any complaints made about the school. The guidance suggests that if the independent school does not have a complaints procedure then the social services should withhold approval.
It is very hard to see how the Government could deny that schools should have complaints procedures given that the Bill is part of their Citizen's Charter. The right to have one's complaint properly dealt with is one of the first and best recognised rights of the consumer. It is also logical that inspectors should have to study the record of complaints since that is surely one of the best ways of learning how an institution is succeeding and failing. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, in responding to the remarks of the noble Baroness in moving the amendment perhaps I may say that I do not think that I said quite what she implied. However, if I misled the House in any way I apologise.
As the noble Baroness said, the amendment concerns the complaints procedure rather than the inspection which is at the heart of our Bill. We believe that the present framework for managing schools is perfectly adequate for dealing with general and individual complaints and that further detailed regulations are not necessary. To go down the route of regulations, and to define the point at which a quiet word with the head becomes a formal complaint about the school, is a recipe for complication and bureaucracy at school level in an area best left to common sense and the discretion of head teachers.
Of course we agree with the noble Baroness that anyone has the right to lodge a complaint about a school. Nothing in the Bill or elsewhere takes that right away. The Parent's Charter sets out parents' rights and what parents should do if they do not consider those are being met. There are already specific procedures for appealing against decisions on school admission, on exclusion or, for example, against decisions made about a child's special educational needs, or on the national curriculum. School prospectuses must explain how to make complaints about the curriculum, and admission booklets must explain how to appeal against a decision not to admit a child to a particular school. We have—as the charter promised—just amended the regulations so that all parents whose first choice of school is refused will be reminded of their right to appeal and how to go about it.
The amendment of the noble Baroness would, of course, go far wider than parents. It would be
1264
concerned with individual complaints about schools by anyone at all—children at the school, staff, inspectors, local education authorities, social services departments or perhaps an uninvolved member of the public. As I have said, nothing can or indeed should stop such complaints being made. But, given the diversity of subjects that they could cover, I do not think it would be helpful to try to formulate regulations to cover each and every eventuality. Governing bodies and head teachers know that it is in the best interests of the school to deal promptly and helpfully with any well-founded complaints, and other sanctions are of course available if either party is in breach of a statutory duty or has acted unreasonably.
In any case, I have no doubt that we do not need a mechanism of the sort proposed in this amendment to enable serious complaints to come to the notice of an inspector in charge of an inspection of a school. For a start, the Bill requires the parents to be notified when an inspection is to take place and for there to be a meeting between the parents and the inspector. This will provide an important opportunity for parents to put any points, including complaints, to the inspector. The Bill also allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations that other persons may be notified that an inspection is to take place. Although I cannot prejudge exactly what those regulations might prescribe, it seems to me that they would be likely to be used to give quite wide publicity to the fact that an inspection was to take place. In such circumstances, those who had particular complaints about a school —especially those who felt that their complaints had been ignored by the head or the governing body—could draw them to the inspector's attention.
We have no doubt that one of the inspector's concerns would be to see how the school handled its relations with parents and other members of the local community and he would want to see how it handled representations of all sorts, including complaints. The inspector's findings would be included in his report, which would be published. Where he or she was critical of a school's procedures in this respect, the action plan prepared by the governing body should say how it intended to improve matters. That action plan must under the provisions of Schedule 2 be provided to parents and be available for reference by others.
I know that the noble Baroness has a particular concern to extend to all schools the procedures recently established following the Children Act 1989 for investigating records of complaints in independent schools. The 1991 Inspection of Premises, Children and Records (Independent Schools) Regulations give the local authority which has placed a child in an independent boarding school the right to inspect records relating to any complaint by any person in respect of the health, emotional or developmental well-being or welfare of a child in the school, as well as details of punishments administered to any child in the school.
There are good reasons for this provision, as noble Lords know, which were deemed necessary for the protection of children in privately-run residential institutions. These provisions also apply in those

1265
independent special schools which will be inspected in future under this Bill. We do not need to discuss them here. We do not consider that there is a need to apply these provisions in maintained schools where there is no comparable situation—where parents' rights are already enshrined in legislation and where control is vested in an accountable governing body with full parental representation.
Before I sit down I should like to clear up one point. What I said was that the schools had not as a matter of course had to keep records of punishments other than corporal punishments. The regulations which affect special schools are different, for obvious reasons, and, as I said, relate to the particular vulnerability of that group of pupils.
In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment for a complaints procedure.
Baroness David: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness if I misrepresented her in any way. I am disappointed with her reply. In the Children Act and in the National Health Service and Community Care Act there is a requirement to keep such records of complaint, and again in independent schools with under 150 boarders the social services also require to have kept details of complaints. It seems to me to be extraordinary and quite illogical that this Bill does not follow from those provisions.
The Minister frequently referred to parents. It is the children we must think about mostly—the children who are in the school and who would suffer if treated badly. We are concerned with the possibility of the children's complaints being made rather than those of the parents who complain about the school. I feel rather strongly about this matter and I shall test the opinion of the House.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 147.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Barnett, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L

Blease, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hunt, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Desai, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Judd, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ezra, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Foot, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Galpern, L.

Peston, L.

1266

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rea, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Richard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Whaddon, L.

Rochester, L.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Willis, L.

Serota, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Stedman, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hives, L.

Ailsa, M.

HolmPatrick, L.

Aldington, L.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe, E.

Alport, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Auckland, L.

Joseph, L.

Bauer, L.

Killearn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belstead, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brentford, V.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Marsh, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookes, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Byron, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Caithness, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Northbourne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Orkney, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Peel, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Penrhyn, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Prentice, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Quinton, L.

Elibank, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

Rees, L.

Elton, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rennell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Davids, V.

Gisborough, L.

Salisbury, M.

Glenarthur, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Selborne, E.

Gridley, L.

Selsdon, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hacking, L.

Somerset, D.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

1267

Teynham, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wharton, B.

Tryon, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Ullswater, V.

Wise, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Vivian, L.

Young, B.

Waddineton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to according
5.54 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 25 I should point out that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 26.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 7, leave out subsections (5) to (7).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 25 was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 6, line 24, leave out ("Regulations under this section may, in particular—
(a)") and insert ("In prescribing the intervals mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) the Secretary of State may").
Page 6, line 27, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14 [Religious education]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 9, line 42, after ("chosen") insert ("must have satisfied the requirements of either paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45.
The amendments address a difficulty to which I drew your Lordships' attention briefly in Committee. The difficulty is this. Although in the past few years we have been continually updating our education system, there is at least one aspect in which change in the outside world outstrips the changes that we make. Part I of Schedule 2 provides for the inspection of all aspects but one of education given in schools listed in Clause 9. The remaining aspect, denominational education, is to be inspected under arrangements contained in Part II of that schedule.
Denominational education is defined in Clause 14(2) as,
"religious education given otherwise than in accordance with an agreed syllabus".
In effect, that is religious education given in schools which are in a particular sense religious foundations. In such schools religious instruction has for long been given under arrangements agreed with the various Christian denominations and with the Jewish faith. Those arrangements give supervision of religious education entirely into the hands of the governing bodies of those schools. That has been an excellent arrangement. I realise that it would not be right to
1268
overturn it without the fullest discussion with the representatives of the Jewish faith and the Christian denominations and a consensus among them. Nor do I imagine that that can be achieved in the hours that remain between this stage and the final stages of the Bill. I now seek to put down a clear marker on a subject which it would be dangerous for us to neglect during the life of the next Parliament.
The matter which gives me great concern is this. A pendulum operates in the intellectual and moral life of mankind. At present it is swinging very fast in a direction in which it last came to rest, I suppose, in the Middle Ages; that is, in the direction of extreme fundamental religion. Because of the juncture of history in which I speak it is necessary to mention principally the Moslem faith because it is examples of extreme Moslem fundamentalism which are freshest in your Lordships' minds and which are most relevant. However, it is fair to consider the matter in the context of our own faith, which not so long ago merrily burnt people at the stake for holding wrong beliefs and conducted wars for the possession of certain relics. The decision to do that and, as I understand it, the decision to issue, for instance, a fatwa directing the assassination of a British citizen were both regarded as purely religious matters. Yet we now regard them as highly political matters, or at least secular in their effect, and unacceptable.
The reason that I seek to embark on the subject at a late stage of the Bill—for which I apologise—is that there is in our present society a number of people who subscribe to those elements of the Moslem faith which have resulted in the fatwa to which I earlier alluded and which advocate, for instance, the establishment of a Moslem Parliament and the disapplication of laws made in this Parliament to members of the Moslem persuasion whom such laws do not entirely suit. Those matters appear to us political. But I understand—I am open to correction—that such matters rest upon the principles with which those people have imbued their faith. They regard them as religious.
That being the case it appears to me, to say the least, a little dangerous to suggest that we should in law cast a ring fence around one set of classrooms —those in which what we would regard as unacceptable political or secular initiatives are taught as though they were religion—and say that they might not be inspected by someone with any formal connection with HMCI, who is charged with advising the Secretary of State.
We are on difficult ground here. The margin between what is done because of religious conviction and what is done because of political conviction is always difficult to define and hotly contested. I also entirely share the hesitation that anyone might have —I believe that it is felt by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk—about the introduction of people appointed by the state who might be thought of as having the power to supervise theological instruction. That is dangerous and difficult ground into which I do not wish to lead your Lordships in a hasty and ill-considered debate.
If one looks at a map of the world one will see the extent to which the Moslem faith is formally involved

1269
in the political management of affairs. An election can be stalled for fear of people of the persuasion about which I am speaking—perhaps my speech is too veiled and I am not making clear the fact that I am not in any way against Moslems practising their religion. As a Christian I recognise that the practice of an honest faith is far better than the practice of none. However, I believe that my own faith, which is the Christian faith, is that which should prevail.
That is not what we are now debating. We are debating whether people of religious persuasions of the extreme kind within the Moslem faith about which I am speaking should be put in a position where they are able, as they will be, to establish a school in terms which introduce it under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill. Under that provision the inspectors would be appointed by the governing body. They would be trained, if at all, under arrangements made by the governing body and without the consent or knowledge of the chief inspector. Their report would then go to the governing body, which was their originator, and possibly to a local authority which in distant years might be of the same persuasion.
In legislation one must provide for the extreme and unlikely as well as for the immediate and obvious. What I am talking about is extreme but not as unlikely as I should wish it to be. I believe that your Lordships should address the issue before events close in to such an extent that people will say, "You are directing your legislation at this particular school that has just been set up". Your Lordships should look at the issue early in the new Parliament. I give advance notice that I shall not press the amendment. I shall seek an opportunity to consult at length friends and colleagues in other faiths and I advise the Government to do the same. However, I hope that the Government will be able to indicate how they view the matter and how they will treat it in the next Parliament. I beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I find the amendment totally unsuitable and inappropriate. If the noble Lord wishes to have legislation against fundamental Mohammedism this is not the way and the Bill is not the place. There is a long history as regards the inspection of religious education in Church schools. It dates back more than 100 years. Indeed, my great grandfather was the chairman of the Catholic Education Council. In 1869 he was made a Peer by Gladstone for his efforts in that respect. He was a Liberal. In those days the family was Liberal but it is now wiser in its allegiance.
Religious inspectors appointed by the Bishop of the diocese have carried out that work. During that time the state has always been scrupulous in keeping at a distance from it. The noble Lord's amendment would mark a departure from that tradition. It would have an effect on our schools as well as the Mohammedan schools about which the noble Lord is thinking. The religious inspectors would be required to complete a course of training to the satisfaction of the chief inspector. I fear that the requirement of the chief inspector to supervise training would affect the independence of religious education. An inspector
1270
must not only observe but he must also make judgments about content and method. A training course would inevitably cover such matters and trespass on the autonomy of the Church schools in religious education. The Catholic Church is not happy about the noble Lord's amendment. It has not been effectively consulted because the noble Lord sent notice of the amendment too late, although with good intention. I am glad to hear that he proposes to withdraw it because I believe that it is totally inappropriate.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I fully appreciate the anxieties that were expressed by the noble Duke. I do not share his anxieties on behalf of the Catholic Church. However, as a result of my discussions with representatives of the Catholic Church I recognise that anxieties exist. For that reason I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not pressing the matter.
I am happy with what is being proposed. My view is that it is important that those inspecting denominational education should do so to the same standard and with the same rigour as is applied to any other subject. It would be of benefit if those inspecting denominational education had to complete a training course approved by the chief inspector. I do not believe that that would in any way qualify them to check out the orthodoxy or the theological purity of what is being taught. However, it would ensure that anyone inspecting denominational education would be able to do so with skill and expertise. They would also be able to detect the reality behind what is being presented. That appears to me to be one of the important aspects of inspection.
I should have been happy to support the amendment. However, I am sensitive to the fact that because of the shortage of time for proper consultation, and because I know that some of my Roman Catholic colleagues are not happy, I hope that the matter can be left for the time being. Perhaps we can return to it at a later stage when there has been more opportunity for leisured discussion.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I personally have no objection to the concept of inspectors of whatever category undergoing training. I do not wish to criticise my noble friend unduly. I understand the context in which my noble friend has moved the amendment in which I find merit. However, I should have felt more comfortable had a believer in one faith not found it necessary to reflect on another faith. The amendment would cut always in a manner which might be helpful and constructive and there may be merits in training all inspectors. I should have been happier if the amendment had been presented in a context that cuts equally in all directions. I hope that my noble friend does not mind my making that observation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments would disturb in an unacceptable way the provisions of the Bill on which we consulted the Churches some time ago. The Bill, as amended in another place in agreement with the Anglican and Catholic Churches,

1271
considerably improves the inspection arrangements for religious education as for other aspects of the curriculum. However, it preserves a different regime for the inspection of denominational religious education; education given in accordance with the trust deed of the school rather than the agreed syllabus.
Religious education in most schools is carried out in accordance with an agreed syllabus for the area adopted by the local education authority, following a statutory process involving local churches and faiths. However, voluntary aided, some voluntary controlled and some grant maintained schools are subject to trust deeds requiring them to offer religious education of a particular type. Such religious education has been subject to different arrangements for over 150 years. Section 77 of the 1944 Act confirmed that separate provision was to be made for it and that HMI and LEAs were not to have a role.
It is because of that long-standing differentiation that Clause 9 does not cover denominational religious education, which is dealt with separately in Clause 14. We have required regular inspection of that provision and intend that to take place at the same time as the inspection of the secular curriculum. At the request of the Anglican and Catholic Churches, we have added provisions to ensure that reports of secular inspection are sent to diocesan authorities and that action plans are prepared on all aspects of the curriculum including this one and sent to local authorities.
We share their hope that in most cases inspections under Clauses 9 and 14 will take place at the same time, using one team of inspectors trained to HMI's satisfaction and that a common report and action plan will be written.
We do not wish to disturb that newly agreed position in a way which will not command general acceptance. While the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford is willing to go further and require all inspectors of Church of England provision to be trained to the chief inspector's satisfaction, as Amendment No. 29 provides, it is clear that the Catholic Church is not so sanguine about a provision which would, for the first time, give HMI a direct locus in the inspection of denominational provision. That was eloquently spelled out by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk.
It would give the chief inspector in effect a right of veto over who was doing the inspecting. That would be an extremely large shift. It may well be, as the right reverend Prelate expects, that the chief inspector would be happy to approve for this purpose the provision already planned by the Church authorities, but what if that were not the case? There would be no right of appeal. We are talking here not about voluntary participation in training, which would be possible under the Bill, but about a new hurdle for all inspectors of denominational provision.
The suggestion in Amendment No. 45 that all inspection reports should be sent to the Secretary of State seems to give him an inappropriately close supervisory role. The reports will be public documents. Anyone can ask for a copy and the relevant local authority will, I imagine, ask for copies
1272
as a matter of routine. Action plans setting out the governors' view will be sent to local education authorities as of right.
If there is anything causing anxiety in a published report or action plan, it can be followed up as necessary and the Secretary of State could use his powers of direction if what is going on is unacceptable. I am sure that if there is any serious cause for concern, that will be exposed, investigated and tackled. The Bill as drafted will help that process.
The right reverend Prelate set out his belief that it is good to have an acceptable standard of inspection. I am not sure that anybody would disagree with the principle of that. The difficulty is finding a way to make sure that when inspection takes place, it does so to an acceptable standard. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will agree with me that there is the difficult and thorny issue which has been spelled out by my noble friend Lord Elton; that is, the demarcation line between standards of inspection and the methodology used for inspection and what I believe is a matter of judgment on what is or is not religious education. My noble friend has at least posed questions as regards what could be considered as the territory over which an inspector may wish to comment.
I am grateful to my noble friend for not pressing this issue but we shall continue to give it thought as we move into the future.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I cannot say that I expected a more enthusiastic reply from my noble friend but I am grateful to her for her care and consideration.
Your Lordships will have noticed the gentle reproaches made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. He said that it were better had the proposal not come from a member of one faith bearing on the conduct of another. He said that it should come from a neutral person so that it cuts in all directions. However, your Lordships will have noticed also that the criticism of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk was that it cut far too savagely in all directions, particularly round the shins of his—I do not know what the term is "co-religionists".
Whether the noble Duke is the upper or nether millstone in that respect I do not know, but I am certainly caught between the upper and nether millstone.
I should make it clear that the amendments were not intended to subsume to the chief inspector or to the state the arrangements for training inspectors. As the right reverend Prelate has correctly surmised, the amendment is intended to instruct on inspection. I should have thought that that would be a welcome skill for anybody, regardless of faith.
While I do not believe that it is inappropriate to raise this matter on this Bill, as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk suggested, I have already explained that this matter is far too sensitive—and that has already been shown in this debate—to be resolved between now and the last stages of the Bill. However, I ask your Lordships not to forget the way in which the world is changing and to accept that this is not an

1273
anti-Moslem approach, which my noble friend Lord Renfrew may suspect it is. Perhaps he would have been happier had I mentioned a Member of another place, Mr. Paisley, disappearing into the mountains with many riflemen at a not too distant date in the past. That was an overtly political move but it was carried out by an overtly religious person. Therefore, we need to be on our guard in all directions.
We should return to this matter in the new Parliament. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 44, at end insert ("and in prescribing the intervals the Secretary of State may make provision as to the period within which the first inspection under this section with respect to a school is to begin.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [School Inspections]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 33:
Page 18, line 5, after ("Schedule") insert (" "appropriate authority" means—

(a) in the case of a maintained school (other than a grant-maintained school) whose governing body does not have a delegated budget, the local education authority for that school;

(b) in the case of a school falling within paragraph (e), (1) or (g) of section 9(3), the proprietor of the school;

(c) in any other case, the school's governing body; and" ").

Page 18, line 9, leave out ("appropriate authority for the school concerned shall") and insert ("Chief Inspector shall, after consulting the appropriate authority for the school concerned as to the tender specification,").
Page 18, leave out lines 13 to 28.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 19, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5), a previous professional connection with the school as inspector, adviser or advisory teacher which did not involve employment at the school shall not of itself be a disqualification.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment touches on the future inspection service by professional members of staff of LEAs. The intention is to avoid any general disbarment of LEA professional staff from future service as registered inspectors or as members of inspection teams; that is, to give expression on the face of the Bill to the position represented by the Minister of State during the Committee stage in another place and in correspondence. The matter is important because if subsequent non-statutory guidance should imply unsuitability, there are likely to be insufficient numbers of appropriately qualified and experienced people available to carry out the proposed four-yearly inspection of schools.
The AMA received a letter which is not dated but is thought to be of 4th January from Mr. Eggar in which he commented on this matter. I shall quote from one paragraph which may clarify matters:
"It is clear from the Bill that the test is to be applied at the level of an individual school. There is no question of individuals being barred from inspection simply by virtue of being employed as an adviser by the LEA which maintains the school. Indeed if an LEA official has given advice to a large
1274
number of LEA-maintained schools this fact might be sufficient to suggest to a reasonable person that the official would be capable of acting impartially in relation to one of the many schools to which he or she has given advice. But if the adviser had formed a special relationship with one or more schools as part of his or her duties, the Bill would prevent him or her from acting as an inspector in those schools".
The education service generally would accept disqualification in cases where there was such a close connection as to raise the possibility of bias. But, given the uncertainty that exists, it would seem best to put the matter beyond doubt by legislating for no automatic disqualification on account of professional service with the LEA. That would still leave the test of bias to be applied in accordance with non-statutory guidance issued by the future Chief Inspector of Schools.
With this amendment I hope to create confidence among the LEAs and the inspectorate service. I hope that it can be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we believe that the amendment restates the position as currently provided in the Bill. I hope that in the next few moments I can convince the noble Baroness of that.
One purpose of the impartiality provision is to rule out inspection by those who are closely identified with the work of the school through their previous advisory work. The splitting of inspection and advice—not putting advisers in the very difficult position of having in effect to report on their own work—is a key element of our proposals, and is also agreed by the Labour Party. Confusion of roles has in the past allowed ineffective practice to be perpetuated by those who looked for teaching methods they approved of rather than evidence of pupils' learning.
I can reassure noble Lords that an individual will not be barred from inspection simply because he or she is or has been employed as an inspector, adviser or advisory teacher by the LEA which maintains the school—or, indeed, simply because he or she has been employed by the school itself. The schedule is deliberately drafted so as to allow a decision to be made having regard to the circumstances of each case. The noble Baroness quotes the words of my honourable friend in another place and I do not need to add to that.
This amendment would in fact have the effect of making the provisions on impartiality more rather than less restrictive than they are now. It would by implication exclude someone who had at any time been employed at the school from taking part in an inspection there, and we would not want any such blanket exclusion. If someone had been employed at the school for one term 10 years previously, for example, that need not be taken as affecting their ability to act impartially in relation to it now.
I trust therefore that I can persuade the noble Baroness, with a little more success than last time, not to press the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which has given me some reassurance. I hope that it will reassure the local authority

1275
associations, which were anxious that the amendment should be tabled. However, they will be able to read in Hansard what has been said and I hope that that will be satisfactory to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 19, line 12, leave out from ("has") to end of line 15 and insert ("in the opinion of the Chief Inspector for England, satisfactorily completed a course of training provided by or complying with arrangements approved by that Chief Inspector.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37. Both amendments address, respectively in England and Wales, the question of the nature of the training which must be completed before anyone is registered as an inspector. They simply require that training shall be satisfactorily completed and that the chief inspector is satisfied that it has been satisfactorily completed in both the Kingdom and the Principality.
I imagine that the chief inspector and the trainee inspectors will wish to have a certificate indicating that the training has been completed. The certificates can be valid for any length of time that the chief inspectors respectively require. While one may hope that that is the way the system will run, the amendments—including those on the face of the Bill—make it more likely that it will be; and that he who runs will read the Bill and understand what it means. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, from these Benches I support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in these amendments. It is important that the registered inspectors should not simply have undertaken training but should have completed it satisfactorily. There is always the possibility that some inspectors may have had training but dropped out half way or not achieved the outcome at the end of the course expected of them as a registered inspector who is to carry out his or her duties responsibly and effectively.
I believe that it is a relatively simple amendment and one which the Government could accept without too much difficulty.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend in this instance for drawing our attention to the need for an improvement in the Bill, and I note the support of the noble Baroness opposite. The amendments cover the central point which had concerned the House in this regard; namely, the need for training to be a genuine test for potential inspectors. It must not be enough simply to attend a course. They must also give evidence of successful learning.
As was explained during our debate on this issue during the second Committee day, we had always envisaged that HMCI would have arrangements in place to ensure that no one was allowed to complete the training who was patently not competent for the task of inspection. We are happy to make this requirement more explicit on the face of the Bill, and therefore to accept the amendments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It seems that this is one of the rare occasions when both Front Benchers made equally good speeches.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 19, line 23, leave out from ("has") to end of line 26 and insert ("in the opinion of the Chief Inspector for Wales, satisfactorily completed a course of training provided by or complying with arrangements approved by that Chief Inspector.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 19, line 34, leave out from ("Where") to ("shall"), in line 35, and insert ("an inspection is arranged, the appropriate authority for the school concerned").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) The registered inspectors and members of his inspection team shall ascertain and give due consideration to the views of pupils about the school by—

(a) where practicable meeting nominated representatives of the pupils, and

(b) offering opportunities for the pupils to talk in private").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also attaches his name to this amendment. It requires inspectors to hear from pupils during the course of an inspection of a school. I want to begin by quoting from Article 12 of the United Nations Convention, which states:
"1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
"2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of law".
In this country the education system fails lamentably to meet the provisions of that article. This is the first opportunity to remedy the omission. A school inspection is clearly an administrative procedure affecting the child. If the school has some form of pupil representation then obviously it can be used, or the inspectors could ask the pupil body to nominate representatives. It is obviously not appropriate to rely on the parents to represent the pupils. Parents have separate interests and concerns, which in some instances may be in conflict with those of the pupils.
The report of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, makes a number of clear recommendations supporting the need to hear the school students and encourage their participation in the running of the school. All major research into school life has emphasised that school students become more, not less, responsible if they are given responsibilities.
I hope that the Minister will take the amendment seriously. We are in contravention of Article 12 of the

1277
Convention if we do not pay attention to it in this way. Therefore I hope that the amendment will receive a sympathetic response. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in the discussions preceding the tabling of the amendment, one or two people suggested that it might not be necessary; that any inspector worth his or her salt would make it their business to speak to pupils. To that suggestion a member of our group who had experience of inspectors responded, "You'd be surprised". The fact is that we have not yet got to the stage where it is taken for granted that, in a situation like this where it is quite clear that the people most affected are children, their views will be heard. In the first place it may be slightly embarrassing to have to spell it out and it may also be slightly embarrassing to have to make the necessary arrangements for that to happen. Once it is taken for granted that it is the right of the child—surely it is the right of the child and to a large extent that is what the inspections are about —taking their views will become second nature. It should certainly be on the face of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I agree with the spirit of the amendment but I am not sure that I agree with the way it is suggested that it should be done. Having been an inspector in the Home Office children's department, for 10 years and having inspected children's homes and schools which had boarding children in them, one always took notice of what the children said and also the way they said it. One always stayed for one or two meals or perhaps an evening with the children or spent time with them in various activities. In those days one never had a special procedure of seeing the children and asking them what they wanted, whether they had anything to complain of or whether they were pleased with anything.
If the inspectors are to do their job properly they must take the opportunity of seeing and talking to the children in a social way so that they can gauge the feelings of the children. As a member of the Swann committee, I remember going to a school in Coventry where the children had been told that I was coming from that committee. The sixth form asked whether they could see me and obviously I agreed. That was at their request, through the headmaster, and with him present. While I agree with the spirit of the amendment, I would not want the provisions laid down in specific terms.
Lord Elton: My Lords, somewhat in the same vein, I thank the noble Baroness for the kind mention of my report. This matter ties in with an amendment which we discussed earlier and which I withdrew. In the report there is a recommendation that head teachers and teachers should recognise the importance of ascertaining pupils' views, organising systems for doing so and for taking into account in the management of the school the information gathered. That is all part of the behaviour policy which, as my noble friend has said, the inspectorate should be encouraged to inspect. Therefore we are actually
1278
tapping into this flow of information already. I too hope that the inspectors will have the wit to discuss matters with pupils. It would certainly be very odd if they did not.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, I am very sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment, but it has very real problems. The amendment states that the pupils are to be "nominated representatives", but nominated by whom? They could scarcely be nominated by the staff. There is very serious danger in having pupils nominated by some kind of an election by other pupils. That would tend to throw up the more politically active and not necessarily a representative sample of the pupils. Perhaps there is a solution to this problem, but it should be defined on the face of the Bill. Reference should also be made to the age of the pupils.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Faithful], I sympathise with the purpose behind this amendment, but I think that it will be better secured in a less formal way. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that I do not want to argue that it is unnecessary because I believe that children are the most essential consideration in these matters and that they should be communicated with by the inspectorate.
When Her Majesty's Inspectorate conduct an inspection they do not usually hold formal meetings with pupils' representatives or even make special arrangements to interview pupils privately. But they do make it their business to talk a great deal in an informal way with pupils both in groups and on a one-to-one basis as they go about the school observing activities both in and outside the classroom. Most such discussions are private from the teaching staff of the school.
I understand that when doing a school inspection another practice of HMI in pursuing this informal arrangement is to make it known that they will be available in a particular place in the school during, for example, lunchtime when the children can quite voluntarily go along and talk in an informal way to the inspectorate. In this way inspectors are able to gather information about pupils' understanding of the subjects that they are studying, their attitudes to each other and to the school; their participation in extra-curricular activities and so on. This information will feed into all aspects of the inspectors' work and will be particularly important in reporting on the ethos of the school, which noble Lords agree is such an important part of an inspection.
I doubt whether information on all these topics could be as easily or reliably gained from any number of formal meetings. The extent to which the pupils nominated to any separate meeting were in fact representative of the pupil body would be open to doubt. And in such a daunting setting, pupils might well not feel able to talk as freely as they do now to Her Majesty's inspectors who drop in on their lessons or speak to them over lunch.
We envisage that the chief inspector's guidance is likely to contain advice based on HMI practice, about

1279
taking the views and attitudes of pupils into account, and on how they may be used in reporting on the school. As I said in opening, children are the most important consideration. Their rights are to an education which is efficient and effective. The inspectorate which is being set up here is being created to that end.
My noble friend Lord Elton said that it would be odd if the inspectors did not communicate with the children. It would not only be odd but inconceivable to think that an effective inspection could take place in any school without extensive consultation with pupils. I believe that the only difference between us is whether it should be formal and through representatives or whether it should be informal in a way which allows young people to be more uninhibited in their communications with the inspectorate. The inspectorate can get a very genuine view not just about the ethos of the school but about the ease or uneasiness of the young people within it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am grateful for the support which the spirit of the amendment has had, even if the wording has not pleased everyone. I did not think that it was so restrictive, narrow or prescriptive as the Minister and others have made out. No real procedure was laid down in the amendment. As regards nominating representatives, I should have thought that the pupils themselves would have chosen them. They obviously would not be chosen by the staff. If elections do throw up political people, that tends to be what elections are about and what happens is what the people are being elected for.
The Minister has given quite a great deal of reassurance that inspectors do at the moment talk to the children both formally and informally at meals and so on. There must be plenty of opportunity because, if the inspectors are there for a week or so, they can have meals with the children. I have to be satisfied with having the spirit of the amendment accepted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 22, line 4, at end insert:
("( ) A local education authority, where it is not the appropriate authority for a school that it maintains, shall be under a duty to consider the action plan and shall have power to ensure that the action plan is implemented within its available resources.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, under the Bill, local education authorities have to be sent action plans for information, but there is nothing in the Bill as to what the local authorities should do with them. This amendment requires the LEAs to use their powers to assist governing bodies to implement action plans. In an earlier form the Bill stated that it was the duty of the appropriate authority—which in most cases, with the introduction of the local management of schools, was the governing body—to write a plan outlining the action which it proposed to take in the light of the inspector's report and the period of time within which it was proposed to take it. A copy of the action plan was, in most cases, to be sent to the LEA.
However, the Bill does not state that the local education authority has to take any action when it
1280
receives the action plan; the authority could put it away in a drawer and let it gather dust and do nothing. At Committee stage in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in replying to an amendment tabled by Mr. Jack Straw on local education authority advice on action plans, asked:
"How can governors properly assign responsibility for the action plan back to their council when the action needed, whether on the curriculum, staffing, or allocation of resources is the statutory responsibility of the governing body and not the council?".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary seemed to be saying in his reply that the LEA has no statutory role. Yet much of the work required within the action plan may not be within the capacity of the governing body. It may be very difficult for them to take the kind of action that is needed in response to adverse comments from inspectors to put it right. For example, aspects of the buildings may be deemed to be unsatisfactory; or facilities such as science laboratories may be inadequate. The local education authority needs to come in and support the school in improving such facilities. Surely it would also be appropriate for a statutory responsibility to be given to the LEA in the light of this to at least oversee the implementation of the action plan. This is particularly important in the case of a school which has received a very poor inspection report and which, as a result of that, will need a good deal of support in order to improve the education that is provided in that school.
We on these Benches believe that there is a danger that without help from the LEA a school in this position will be unable to respond effectively to the criticisms that have been made in the inspection report, thereby making the inspection report less influential than it might otherwise be. The amendment would also introduce a safeguard, where currently there is none, to ensure that all action plans are implemented. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, this seem to me in some ways a curious amendment. At an earlier stage, the Opposition redefined by an amendment the term "appropriate authority". That has been defined again today by an amendment which has been accepted. The definition, as offered and as carried by the Opposition, did not make any significant move towards the LEA or its powers. That amendment, dealing with inspection, moved towards the chief inspector. In this case, rather late in the day, we find the LEA invoked with what seems to be a power of intervention. It is not a clearly defined power; but it looks like a power of intervention which certainly does not exist up to this point in the Bill, unless it is amended in this sense.
In Amendment No. 31, we see the "appropriate authority" as redefined. The proposed Amendment No. 40 can be read quite clearly in conjunction with that. Amendment No. 49 gives the local education authority a power of inspection. But the responsibility for the school, unless the LEA is the appropriate authority, lies with the proprietor of the school or with the governors. Therefore the responsibility for implementing the action plan lies with those persons or with those groups. It is pertinent to ask how would the local education authority ensure that the action

1281
plan is implemented? It seems to imply some intervention by the local education authority in the affairs of the school where the responsibility in two out of the three cases lies with the governors or with the proprietor. That makes this a very radical amendment. It may have the look of being an innocent amendment, but it seems to me to be a radical amendment, if I understand it right, and one which goes against the grain of the Bill, even as amended by the Opposition's own amendments as carried at Committee stage.
It is pertinent to ask how would the local education authority be able to exercise this power? It would appear to be a power of intervention which would involve it in some way taking over the school. I cannot see how it would do otherwise. If it were to make resources available to the governors of the school so that they would then implement the action plan, that would be a very different kettle of fish. Therefore I see this as a rather suspicious amendment—an amendment which arouses suspicions—because it seems to hint at a kind of intervention by the LEA in these categories of school which does not exist in any other part of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it may be worth adding that unless the duty in the 1944 Act on the local authority to secure the education of its children has been extinguished (which I do not believe it has), it has an implicit duty to secure that education. Also, in case of need, under Section 37 of the Education Reform Act 1988, the local authority has a power to withdraw delegation of budgets to a school. Therefore it can assume control of a school directly in financial terms. Furthermore, my noble friend has an amendment later on the Marshalled List for intervening in extremis. So I do not see that there is a need for the amendment which is being argued.
I only intervened because originally I was in favour of machinery to secure implementation of action plans which I could otherwise see mouldering on the shelf. However, after having studied it further, it seems that it is no longer needed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the last part of this amendment is quite inappropriate. The powers which local authorities have in respect of their schools are quite clearly set out in existing legislation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Elton has just referred to it.
This Bill is about inspection and its follow-up, and is designed to make the current balance of powers more effective—not to shift it, as this amendment suggests. Noble Lords opposite have consistently throughout this Bill from Second Reading to the present amendment tried to shift power to the local education authorities and this amendment does just that.
The local authority has the power to help and support the governors as they draw up and implement their action plan, so no further power is required. But it cannot be given the power to ensure that action is taken without being given additional powers over the
1282
governors. The governors are accountable to the parent body and others who appoint and elect them for the action they take or fail to take in this respect. The LEA can only take responsibility for ensuring that things happen in the school where they take back the budget and remove effective control from the governors. In such cases, they will take over formal responsibility for the action plan.
Where the governing body of a maintained school is responsible for drawing up the action plan, it must send a copy to the LEA. The LEA will naturally wish to offer the governing body any assistance it needs. Indeed, there may even be aspects of the report that refers to the local education authority. In many cases, the LEA will simply be responding to requests for services from the school, which will be able to meet the costs from its delegated budget.
That offers the right balance of responsibility. We do not need to use the route suggested by this amendment to secure for local authorities the powers that they need to keep an eye on their schools, and if necessary—in extreme cases again as my noble friend has pointed out—take back the budget. Amendments we have tabled to meet the purpose of those added to the Bill at the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will establish beyond any doubt the powers of the LEAs to investigate where necessary. The power to withdraw delegation is in the 1988 Act.
We must not weaken the basic responsibility of governors for the management of their school. Noble Lords opposite agree with us that governors should draw up and report on progress with action plans. They must also carry the final responsibility for the implementation of those plans—as befits their crucial responsibility for their school's budget and management. In the unlikely case of an LEA failing to take reasonable steps to provide help in the area of its own statutory responsibility—for instance, by failing to meet an identified need for capital investment by including a project for the school in its forward programme —then, as I said when we debated this before, the governors will be able to draw attention to this in their reports to parents and the problem will be highlighted in the next inspection report on the school.
Under our proposals there is no possibility that any of these matters can be ignored, hidden or forgotten as might once have been the case. The amendment seeks to back-track on the 1988 Act by taking responsibilities from schools and the governing bodies and giving them to local education authorities. As we have said, local education authorities have fall-back powers in respect of a concern about a school fulfilling its functions under the Act. This amendment widens the powers of local education authorities to intervene, a point made very well by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. At best it means that an LEA can go into a school and intervene when it is quite unnecessary and everything is in order. But at worst it would have the power to meddle in the operational management of a school. For both those reasons I believe that we should leave the power where it belongs—with the governing body—with all the checks and balances that there are in the system. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. Perhaps I may begin by making one or two comments on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I was staggered by some of his comments and I felt that he had perhaps misunderstood the intention of the amendment. It is perfectly clear that the governors have to produce the action plan. Nothing in the amendment suggests otherwise. It is also perfectly clear that the governors have to ensure that it is implemented. But a school which has an adverse inspection report, a school which therefore is not likely to be performing well, may have difficulty in ensuring that it implements its own action plan. The only purpose of the amendment is to make sure that local education authorities both consider these action plans and then, if they are not being adequately implemented, take some action to support the governing body.
There is no intention that this should be an opportunity for all local education authorities to meddle. Nor do I think it at all likely that a local education authority would want to use its precious time and energy intervening in schools where things are working perfectly well. It is indicative of this Government's attitude to local authorities, and indeed of the Minister's attitude to local authorities, that they always come out with such negative comments about local education authorities even where they are trying to do their best to ensure that the standards in our schools are raised rather than lowered.
Perhaps I may make a brief comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I entirely accept what he said about the implicit duty in the 1944 Act and also what he said about the powers to withdraw delegation in the 1988 Act. But it is a serious matter for a school that has delegated powers that it should get into such a mess that a local education authority has to withdraw them. The purpose of the amendment is to try to find a way of allowing a local education authority to come in and support a governing body in making sure that its action plan, when it is in difficulties, is implemented and to avoid coming to the rather extreme solution in which its delegated powers have to be withdrawn.
The Minister said that LEAs will have sufficient powers to intervene when necessary. That is partly as a result of the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. I am conscious that she is extremely confident that there is no possibility that anything could be ignored—I think that those were her words. I shall take away and read what she has said. However, I am not altogether happy with it and I may wish to come back at Third Reading.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think there has been a misinterpretation of what I said and what my noble friend said. The power to intervene if a local education authority has a concern about a school is there. We have confirmed that in Amendment No. 49 and we have confirmed it all the way through. Today we have properly put a seal on that. That is there if there is concern.
In speaking to this amendment I have also given an absolute assurance that where it is mutually agreed, where a school either requests help from an LEA or
1284
where an LEA proffers its help and it is agreeable to the school, there is also a power to go in and help there. What the amendment seeks—we have to consider the amendment before us—is that the LEA shall have a power and indeed an obligation to concern itself with the action plan of every single school and have the power, with or without the agreement of a school, to intervene in the implementation of the action plan. That is whether the LEA is concerned about the school or whether it is not. That is the essential difference. All the powers that the noble Baroness desires and wishes for an LEA are there.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister but I am not altogether convinced. I should like to take away and read what she has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 41 to 43:
Page 22, line 26, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert:
("(1) Where an inspection of a school is required under section 9 but the Chief Inspector is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to secure that the school is inspected by a suitable registered inspector, he shall secure that it is inspected

(a) if it is a school in England, by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in England; and

(b) if it is a school in Wales, by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in Wales.").

Page 22, line 32, leave out ("in response to a request made under") and insert ("by virtue of').
Page 22, line 35, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) to (6).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 22, line 48, at end insert:
("12A.—(1) A governing body may ask—

(a) the Chief Inspector;

(b) the local education authority; or

(c) the Secretary of State

to arrange for the school concerned to be inspected under section 9 by an Inspector.
(2) Where such a request is made, and whether or not the person to whom it is directed is the appropriate authority, that person shall comply with it if, but only if, he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for the appropriate authority to secure that the school is inspected by a suitable registered inspector.
(3) Where an inspection is conducted by an Inspector in response to a request made under this paragraph, the provisions of this Act shall have effect in relation to the inspection as if the Inspector were a registered inspector.
(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the person concerned shall recover from the governing body the full cost to him of complying with a request made by the authority under this paragraph.
(5) The person concerned may not recover any of the costs to the extent which—

(a) those costs are unreasonable; or

(b) it is, in the opinion of the person concerned, unreasonable to recover them, having regard to the funds available to the governing body.

(6) In this paragraph "Inspector" means—

(a) in relation to any school in England, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in England; and

1285

(b) in relation to any school in Wales, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in Wales.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have two concepts of the mechanism of inspection. We have a mechanism coming from the outside in, which is the one that we have been talking about most of the time and which my original amendment, Amendment No. 111, particularly emphasised, with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector essentially choosing the inspection team. Despite one or two remarks made earlier to the contrary, it was never the intention of that amendment, as was made clear at the time and has since been made clear again today, that in other ways it should undermine the role of the governing body of the school. I was somewhat surprised to hear that the noble Baroness was under that misapprehension at some point but I think she understands that better now.
What concerns me is that on occasion the governing body of a school might itself want to reach out rather than merely consider the inspection as something coming from outside. In other words, it might want an inspection to take place because it believed that it needed an inspection. That is nearer to the management consultancy concept of the inspection than the one with which we have mostly dealt.
I have searched the Bill to see whether that is possible. My hope is that the noble Baroness will be able to say that I have not read the Bill very carefully. I cannot see anything in the Bill that stops it but I am a little worried whether it is actually possible. There will be occasions when the school is not due for an inspection—it may be low down on the list, and we have no idea how during the course of the prescribed period schools will be chosen—but believes that it could do with some help and would like an inspection. The purpose of the amendment is to put that on the face of the Bill. If I were better able to read the Bill I could perhaps find that somewhere in the Bill anyway. The purpose is to get the Minister to tell me, first, that she agrees that this kind of reaching out for an inspection should be possible and might be occasionally desirable, and, secondly, to get her to tell me that it is in the Bill somewhere, although I cannot find it, and that therefore my amendment is not needed. But if it is not in the Bill I think that the Government ought to accept this amendment or a similar one. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, this seems a ramshackle amendment, particularly because on first reading it does not appear to emphasise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has stressed, which is that the intention is to seek an inspection outside the normal cycle, which we understand will be a quadrennial cycle. It would be helpful if the amendment could make that clear. Reading it in the context of Schedule 2, one has the initial impression that its provisions are intended in some way to operate within the quadrennial cycle, but I take it that that is not the noble Lord's intention.
1286
One must therefore ask why the amendment provides that a governing body may ask for an inspection when, as a result of the Opposition's own amendment, it should be the chief inspector who makes arrangements for the inspection. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has answered that point by implication by saying that the chief inspector would organise the quadrennial inspection and that we are talking about the possibility of organising an inspection outside that sequence.
However, the amendment also has one or two other curious characteristics. Subsection (2) states:
"only if, he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for the appropriate authority to secure that the school is inspected by a suitable registered inspector."
But it is not at all clear why on earth the governing body would ask the Secretary of State to have anything to do with that. Why would not the governing body simply ask the chief inspector to ensure that the school is inspected by a registered inspector where possible or, if there is a preference, by an inspector from his own inspectorate?
As I have said, I find this a rather ramshackle amendment. However, it may be perfectly reasonable that a governing body of a school should be able to request an inspection outside the normal quadrennial inspection cycle. That seems a reasonable objective but, if I may say so, it is not fulfilled coherently by the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I, too, am puzzled, but the noble Lord, Lord Peston, may tell me that I have not read his amendment properly and that these provisions are in it. The amendment seeks to enable a governing body
"to arrange for the school concerned to be inspected under Section 9 by an Inspector."
The "Inspector" is later defined as
"one of Her Majesty's Inspectors".
There are two breeds of inspector under the Bill—Her Majesty's Inspectors or the chief inspector and his inspectors, and registered inspectors. An earlier clause deals with the chief inspector and the HMIs, but the amendment is directed at Clause 9, which relates to inspections by registered inspectors. Therefore, it does not appear that the animal that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is requesting should do the work under the amendment is actually in the stable from which he intends it to come.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are all confused. I am puzzled about what is behind this fairly convoluted amendment. This is a very long and involved addition to the Bill, apparently designed to ensure that the governors can have an inspection any time they want. I took that to mean inside or outside the quadrennial inspection. If they cannot secure an inspection for whatever reason, they can oblige HMI to carry one out—or oblige the local authority or the Secretary of State to arrange an inspection by HMI. I am not clear why the new right to be inspected is thought necessary. I think that the Bill already covers all eventualities. All that I can do is to invite the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to read it again.
Clause 9 requires inspection at regular intervals, and Schedule 2(12) makes provision for that to be

1287
carried out by HMI if need be. There is nothing to stop any governing body spending its resources on an additional inspection of any kind—if that is what the governing body wants. Local authorities have the power to inspect where necessary. Her Majesty's Inspectorate can similarly inspect any school where it feels that that is necessary or desirable, but neither the LEA nor HMI can recover the costs of such an inspection, which is carried out in pursuit of the authority's or HMI's statutory duties, and not as a service for the school.
I am also unclear why the amendment allows the governors to ask the LEA or the Secretary of State to arrange an inspection by HMI, since they would also have in every case the option of asking the chief inspector directly. The money is to be recovered from the governors, where they can afford it, but the implication of the amendment is that if the LEA or Secretary of State act as intermediary, they must pay the cost if the governors cannot do so. Under the amendment if the governors go direct to the chief inspector, he must meet the costs himself if the governors genuinely cannot meet them.
The amendment would seem to superimpose an inspection on an already regular inspection that is held every four years. In addition, any school can request an inspection either from its LEA or from HMI and can simply hand the bill for that to the LEA or the inspectorate. I am not absolutely certain whether that is what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, intended.
Lord Peston: My Lords, at this stage of a Bill it is difficult to engage in the toings and froings that are required for such an amendment. I find that doubly difficult because the whole thing seems so clear to me. But I often find that in my teaching with some of the more backward pupils—
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not insinuating that we are backward.
Lord Peston: My Lords, no, I was criticising myself, not anybody else. That is one of my failings. I certainly shall not animadvert on the question of whether the amendment is ramshackle.
I shall leave it at this: the thought is that there will be a regular inspection. We do not know the length of time involved because although the Government say that it is four years, the Bill does not. The Government could decide that it should be eight years or 100 years —and that will happen one day.
The purpose behind the amendment is to address the problem that, despite the holding of regular inspections, a particular school may not be due for an inspection for another three years, but it may feel that it needs an inspection now. There are two issues involved. I asked a question which, in the end, I believe that the Minister answered by saying that one can still hold such an inspection. Despite everything that the Minister said, I believe that it came down to the simple answer, "Yes, you can still do that, but the only complication would be cost". I raise the cost issue because although a school may need an inspection, it may not be able to afford it. I was trying to find a way
1288
to establish whether it would be possible to go to Her Majesty's chief inspector and to say, "A year has gone by since your last inspection and things are not right. We need another inspection and a detailed scrutiny of a certain bit of the school, but we do not have the money to pay for it". That is the issue that I was raising.
I do not seek to defend the precise detail of an amendment of this kind because that would be very difficult, but I hope that the Government and your Lordships understand that this is a serious point, especially if one believes that, as we have all agreed, the governing bodies have considerable responsibilities in this area. Having said that, I do not want to pursue the matter because I have made my points clearly enough for my own satisfaction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Removal from register and imposition or variation of conditions]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 7, line 39, leave out ("when taken as a whole") and insert ("in whole or in part").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 46 strikes in page 7, line 39, and returns to a point that we addressed briefly but not satisfactorily in Committee. At that stage, as I understood it, the Government were content that a chief inspector might remove the name of a registered inspector from the register if he was satisfied that that inspector had
"knowingly or recklessly produced a report of an inspection which is, when taken as a whole, seriously misleading."
However, the Government did not wish the chief inspector to have the power to remove somebody from the register when that report knowingly or recklessly, in part, was seriously misleading. It seemed to me that knowingly or recklessly misleading anybody about an official report on which the reputation of a school, its staff and pupils depended, must be a serious offence that must bring into question the ability and fitness of that person to continue as an inspector.
In the hope that the Government have had further thoughts on this matter, I have ventured to bring this matter back to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton rightly points out that if a registered inspector knowingly or recklessly produces an inspection report which is seriously misleading, even in part, the chief inspector should be able to remove that inspector from the register without further ado. My noble friend will be pleased to know that after further thought we are content to accept the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I express my thanks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Failure to arrange for inspection]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 47:
Leave out Clause 13.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Provision of inspection services by local education authorities]:
Baroness Faithful Baroness Faithful moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 10, line 11, after ("within") insert ("or beyond").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I apologise to my noble friend for not having brought up the subject before. Clause 15 provides that:
"Any local education authority may provide a school inspection service for schools within their area".
The amendment asks for inspectors to be able to move to another authority's area. There are three reasons for that. First, with regard to special needs children under the 1981 Act, it is not always possible for one authority to have a specialist inspector for every specialism or, for example, for children with special needs. If there is an inspector in one authority with a specialist skill in assessing the special needs of a dyslexic child or a child with an impairment—for example, a deaf child—it would be possible to ask him to go to another area.
Secondly, some schools teach special subjects. For instance, I know two schools that teach Japanese. Children want to study Japanese. But if there is no inspector in the area who knows Japanese the school could go outside its area.
Nursery education is also important. Not all local authority inspectors include a specialist in nursery education. An inspector could then be obtained from another authority. The amendment would enable one authority to borrow from another authority someone with a special skill. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I support the amendment, not just for the good reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, gave; but if authorities have to cut their numbers of inspectors, or are unable to afford to keep all that they need to cover all subjects, it would be helpful for a local authority to be able to obtain some money from doing work for other areas. It is merely giving authorities a little more flexibility. LEAs would find it helpful if the amendment were accepted so that they could be told that their inspectors could tender for work not directly within their own local authority area.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I can offer the very flexibility for which the noble Baroness, Lady David, has asked. First, I must stress that there is no intention on our part to prevent LEAs from continuing to offer inspection services to their schools provided that they have inspectors who can meet the requirements of registration imposed by the chief inspectors. Clause 15 is designed to allow that, and indeed, in subsection (3) we make provision to allow LEAs to maintain inspection services to cater for grant maintained schools within their boundaries, so extending their sphere of operations to what will soon be the largest group of secondary schools.
But my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baroness, Lady David, are suggesting in support of the amendment that LEAs should also be able to maintain staff so as to offer inspection services outside their boundaries. Local authority trading of this sort is governed by the Local Authorities (Goods and
1290
Services) Act 1970. All local authority activities are covered by the powers conferred under the 1970 Act unless expressly excluded.
That Act allows authorities to use marginal capacity to offer services to a designated public body, and we shall use our powers to add the new offices of the chief inspectors to that category. That will allow local authorities to tender, using marginal capacity, for inspection contracts outside their area. But they cannot engage or retain staff merely for the purpose of external trading activity. LEAs have never before had an unrestricted ability to trade and we are not proposing that they should be given one in this case.
Local authorities are not private firms. They are answerable to locally elected councillors and dependent to an extent on locally collected funds for their existence. All their money comes from public funds: it is money provided by the public so that necessary services are provided for the population of the area.
Such bodies are not intended or designed to operate as national trading bodies. Of course we want local authorities to be efficient: to test their services against those offered by private firms and to offer services themselves only when that is clearly the most efficient way of meeting the needs they have identified. That is the thrust of a number of our policies. But that is a far cry from giving local authorities the power to act as if they were private firms. Private firms have shareholders who expect them to make a good return on the money they have invested. Local authorities have charge payers who expect them to offer the best level of services within the funds available. They certainly do not want their authority to use funds designed to meet their needs to offer services to those living in other areas. That is why local government legislation allows trading only with marginal capacity and why we do not intend to override that in this Bill.
As I have said, the powers to trade which are conferred by the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 apply to all services, including inspections unless they are expressly excluded. That Act allows authorities to use marginal capacity to offer services to a designated public body, and we shall use our powers to add the new offices of the chief inspectors to that category.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull is worried about special needs. A local authority with an effective inspector may have spare capacity in its workload. It is appropriate, and the Bill allows it, for that spare capacity to be traded with another authority. I believe I have met the flexibility for which the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked and the anxieties of my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
Baroness Faithful: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Neither the noble Baroness, Lady David, nor I had any intention of using the inspectors as a trading body. We were thinking entirely of flexibility as between one authority and another, with the specialists of one authority being able to help another authority which did not have specialists in a particular area. I listened to my noble friend with great

1291
care. The noble Baroness, Lady David, and I would like to read what she said. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
Power of local education authority to inspect maintained school for specific purpose
(" .—(1) Where—

(a) a local education authority require information about any matter in connection with a school which is maintained by them, for the purpose of enabling them to exercise any function of theirs, and

(b) it is not reasonably practicable for them to obtain it in any other manner,

they may cause an inspection of the school to be made by one or more of their officers for the purpose of obtaining that information.
(2) Any officer of a local education authority inspecting a school under this section shall have at all reasonable times a right of entry to the premises of the school.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power of Secretary of State to require information]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 10, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision requiring the proprietor of every independent school and the governing body of every school falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above to publish, in such manner as may be prescribed, information describing the manner in which they develop the spiritual, moral, social and cultural values of pupils at the school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 53. I had hoped to be in my place to give an unqualified welcome to Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 21 and 22 moved by the Minister. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to do so. Amendments Nos. 50 and 53 are complementary to those amendments. Their purpose is to concentrate the mind of governing bodies and proprietors on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural values in the schools of which they are in charge; to make them consider what values they feel ought to be promulgated in the schools, to discuss them with heads and staff, to agree them and then to declare them in the prospectus. That is what the amendments deal with.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who said earlier that these values are in a difficult area and are difficult to define. There is a question as to whether, at some time in the future, there may need to be constraints and inspections. Here we simply ask schools and school governors to write on a piece of paper what they are trying to do. There may be room for discussion and even research in the future.
In Committee, the noble Baroness said that the Secretary of State already has power to make regulations to ensure that the issues are declared in school prospectuses. I agree that indeed he can do that. The question is: will he do so? He has not yet done so and that is prima facie evidence that he may not. I believe that the degree of support which these amendments or something similar received in Committee justifies me asking for at least a strong
1292
assurance from the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State intends to make such regulations, if I am not to press the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 50 and 53 which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbourne and also in my name. These important amendments mean that the spiritual, moral, social and cultural values to be taught and developed in pupils attending the schools in groups (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) should be clearly stated in the prospectus for the schools. This means that parents may have the opportunity to see for themselves what values a particular school is likely to teach.
It seems to me important that this should be included on the face of the Bill and not just as an afterthought in the regulations. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that these important values will be stated on the face of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I share the concern of both the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lady Strange to ensure that parents are fully informed not just about the academic policies and achievements of schools, but also about the ethos and values of every school, and the attitudes and behaviour of pupils. These very important aspects of school life are central to parents' choice of school for their child and have been central to our discussions throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
We have at the noble Lord's suggestion amended Clauses 2 and 6 of the Bill to provide that the chief inspectors must keep the Secretaries of State informed about the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils; and Clause 9, to provide that registered inspectors report on these matters in addition to the others already provided for. This means that the issues the noble Lord has in mind will be very much in the public domain—reported on both for each school and in the chief inspector's annual report to the Secretary of State.
However, I recognise that in these amendments the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is seeking more detailed information at school level. Existing regulations already require that governors have to include in their school's prospectus a statement of curriculum aims, which must take account of Section 1 of the Education Reform Act, with its requirement that the curriculum must provide for the spiritual, moral and cultural development of pupils. But I accept that this does not exactly meet the concerns expressed today. We therefore intend to consult, as is our practice, I assure noble Lords, on a requirement to extend the regulations to require governors also to publish a statement describing their policies for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils—which will make their values quite clear. Our commitment to extending is assured and we shall consult about the requirement.
I am sure this kind of policy statement will be welcomed by parents choosing a school for their children, and will also enable both parents and inspectors to judge how far the school is achieving its stated aims in this respect. I shall be happy to consider

1293
any suggestions from noble Lords who have expressed an interest about how the requirement should be phrased to make it as informative as possible.
The Secretary of State already has power to make such regulations under the 1980 Act, and no additional powers are needed. I do not think it would be right to take additional powers to add the information into comparative tables published under Clause 16—and I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made this point—as it will not lend itself to the summary statistical presentation which those tables require. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will be content with my assurance about the Government's intentions, and will not now seek to press these amendments.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that most helpful assurance. I shall, of course, read carefully what she said and reserve the right to come back on the matter. However, I am fairly happy and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 10, line 42, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to require the publication of information about the destination of school leavers. It is an item which Ministers seem to wish to include as an indicator of the performance of schools. I suggest that it is not a good indicator.
The DES consultation paper, which was issued on 10th January this year, proposes that governing bodies of all maintained schools—primary as well as secondary—should be required to publish statistics of the intended destination of those leaving at the ages of 11, 16, 17 and 18 years in the prospectus and annual report. It proposes that local education authorities should be required to publish league tables giving this information for secondary schools.
The Government accept that it is impractical to require schools to establish the actual destination of leavers or to do more than make a conscientious shot at establishing the intention. This will make the statistics, by definition, systematically totally unreliable as an indicator of leavers' destinations. I believe it is contrary to public policy to require the publication at public expense of information which is not factual because it is systematically unreliable. It is also contrary to public policy to put on governing bodies the ambiguous duty of securing its collection and publication.
Moreover, the statistics have no or minimal value as indicators of a school's performance. I find it particularly absurd that governing bodies are asked to publish information about the destination of primary school leavers. The destination of those leaving a primary school is determined by a variety of things: the availability of secondary school places in the area, the exercise of parental choice in relation to secondary schools; and where admission to secondary school
1294
depends on the pupil's ability as displayed. However, there are many areas and many schools where admission is not based on ability.
In so far as the national curriculum test performance is relevant, that will already be required to be published by the primary school. Therefore, we shall have information on pupils' performance at the end of primary school from the national curriculum assessment procedures. So it seems patently absurd to ask for this additional information about the destination of primary school leavers.
The destination of those leaving secondary schools depends heavily on the results achieved at public examinations. Information about destinations in many respects would duplicate the information about examination results. But again, it also depends on local opportunities for employment. In some parts of the country there will be great difficulty in school leavers securing employment locally, particularly in a recession such as we are experiencing at the moment. It will also depend on local opportunities for training. As we all know, some employers are much more willing to invest in the training of their school leaver employees than others; that can have absolutely nothing to do with what went on in the secondary school. It will also depend on the extent of the part-time further education provision, and, of course, of full-time FE provision.
All those factors are quite irrelevant to a school's performance. They are affected by the attitudes and financial circumstances of pupils' families. The information may also be affected by how many school leavers go into temporary work. That factor will determine whether the information is valid and useful. Many young people today do not go straight into either further or higher education. Instead they spend a period of time taking a series of temporary jobs.
Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to his experience in prep schools. I wish to refer briefly to my experience after I left school. I do not know how my school would have mapped out my destination. In the year after I left school I worked as a waitress, a shop assistant and as an untrained teacher in a prep school. That prep school could have benefited from some inspection of my extremely poor quality teaching. I worked as a telephone sales girl for a wholesaler and as a governess abroad. What would a poor governing body make of that in terms of deciding what my destination was?
Today many young people take one, two or sometimes three years off before entering further or higher education. They leave school with the intention of entering higher education eventually but they have no idea where they will undertake that education or what they will study. I believe this requirement will not be helpful from the point of view of telling us something about the performance of schools. I believe it will give us misleading information and it will make it difficult for governing bodies to collect sensible information.
Finally I believe it constitutes a total waste of public money. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we cannot accept this amendment nor do we agree that the information requested is irrelevant. Of course we recognize—and so will parents—that information on the destinations of school leavers needs to be interpreted in the light of the circumstances of the pupils concerned. The same applies to all the other indicators that we shall publish. But the plain fact is that parents wish to know, for example, what proportion of a school's pupils stay on into the sixth form, if the school has one, or continue in further education when they have completed their compulsory schooling, and how many go on to employment or other destinations. They also want to know, in schools with sixth forms, how many 18-plus leavers go on to higher or further education.
These indicators—especially when compared with the record of other schools in the same area—reflect much more than academic achievement. They say a great deal about how far schools have helped their pupils to understand the value of continuing education and training, or have fitted them with the qualities which employers as well as further and higher education establishments will seek.
We have just finished consulting with LEAs and others on a proposal that they, and schools of all kinds, should co-operate in 1992 in publishing information on the intended first destinations of 16, 17 and 18 year-olds or over in much the same way as we shall require from 1993 onwards following the enactment of this Bill. Aggregate figures for those leaving at the end of the 1991–2 school year would be published in school prospectuses and annual governors' reports, and in comparative tables compiled and published by LEAs, alongside local and national comparators. This exercise should be very useful, not only in meeting parents' needs for this information as soon as possible, but also in giving schools, LEAs and the department practical experience of the new arrangements in advance of our decisions on the requirements to be imposed from 1993.
Schools will not be unfamiliar with the kind of exercise we have in mind. The department has for many years collected from all schools, on a voluntary basis, information relating to a 10 per cent. sample of older leavers, and a slightly smaller sample of those leaving at age 16. The information is provided on a rather more detailed basis than we now have in mind with, for example, higher education destinations split by type of institution and subject of degree course. I am sure it is for this reason that we have had little comment in our consultation exercise on the principle of collecting destinations information. That principle is now fully accepted.
We recognise the practical issues raised by an exercise of this kind and we shall only ask schools to collect the sort of information which most try to obtain already and which all provide on the sample basis I have mentioned. This would encompass the intended first destinations of pupils—continuing education, employment or other—backed up where possible with confirmation that they carried out their
1296
intentions. The information provided will thus be as complete and accurate as practicable and will provide parents with a reasonably complete overview of the first serious destinations of pupils leaving the schools concerned.
We are aware of the problems that the noble Baroness referred to. The consultation draft says that schools will be asked to record the intended destinations of leavers in order to make it clear that we do not mean to require them to track pupils once they have left school. But we seek more than a bland and unchallenged statement of intention. No pupil will intend to be unemployed, for example. What we want to know is the prospective destination of each pupil; that is, his or her most likely destination. In order to discover that, pupils will need to be asked about actual job offers rather than simply whether they intend to find a job.
We imagine that college and job offers would be noted towards the end of the summer term, and pupils without any (even conditional) offer at that stage would be listed in the "other" category. Schools compiling aggregate data at the start of the next autumn term will be able to adjust tables to take account of those who failed to achieve the necessary grades for a conditional offer, and also to add in those who found jobs or college places at a later stage.
The noble Baroness also referred to primary and middle schools. We are indeed consulting on the proposal that primary and middle schools should in 1992, on a voluntary basis, list in their prospectuses and annual governors' reports the secondary schools to which their previous year's leavers went on. We intend to require this information to be published in this way from 1993 onwards. It will be of interest to parents and may well give them ideas about available alternatives of which LEAs have not made them aware —such as GM schools and CTCs, or independent schools participating in the assisted places scheme. The information cannot be aggregated so there can be no question of it being published in comparative tables. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that we believe that this information will be useful to parents. Its collection will not place an excessive burden on schools, as our consultation has confirmed. I trust that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not accept that the information will be useful to parents. Nor do I accept that its collection will not impose an excessive burden on schools. The noble Baroness began her speech by saying that it was interesting to know what proportion of pupils in a school might stay on into the sixth form. I do not dispute that statement. That is a perfectly easy statistic to collect. However, that information does not concern pupils' destinations after they have left school, which is what my amendment is concerned with. I am perfectly happy for information regarding the proportion of pupils who stay on into the sixth form to be collected and published.
The noble Baroness also referred to information about pupils entering FE colleges. That information, again, is rather easier to collect than some other information. However, I repeat that I do not think it

1297
will tell us all that much about the performance of a school. The noble Baroness completely failed to reply to my point about delayed entry to further education and higher education. There are large numbers of pupils leaving secondary schools who do not have conditional offers because they have not even applied to further education institutes as they intend to apply later.
I am, however, glad that the Government have at least started to recognise the practical difficulties of this requirement. I was not terribly reassured that they did not intend to push this matter rather too far as regards implementing this clause of the Bill. The information will, of course, be incomplete and because it is incomplete it will be inadequate.
The noble Baroness made reference to the fact that pupils will be asked their intended destinations. That is even more useless information than their actual destination. Anyone who has had children in that age group, as I have relatively recently, knows perfectly well that young people in that age group have all kinds of fantasies about what they might want to do, most of which never materialise. Many others who have no such fantasies do not have a clue what they might do and therefore will not be able to answer the questions adequately.
I regret to say that in my view the Government are totally out of touch with reality on this matter. However, I have no intention of dividing the House at this time of night and at this stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 11, line 6, leave out ("educational standards achieved in those schools") and insert ("effectiveness of those schools in achieving the best educational standards for pupils at each such school").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the information provided about schools shows the effectiveness of schools and not just pupils' raw examination and test results. The amendment requires school effectiveness data to be published under Clause 16. It does not substitute or in any way change those powers in the 1980 and 1988 Acts which enable the Secretary of State to require the publication of raw results. The noble Baroness suggested in Committee that it did, but that is not the case.
The reason given by the noble Baroness for rejecting a value-added approach was that:
"there is no general agreement on the extent to which adverse socio-economic factors actually cause low performance".—[Official Report, 2/3/92; col. 611.]
The Minister stated that the use of school effectiveness data can lead to the assumption that being from a low income family is linked with doing badly at school. School effectiveness research is not geared to making individual assumptions but to understanding something about the work of a school overall and how successful it has been in achieving its aims. The Minister's approach overlooks the problems arising from using raw data alone.
The danger with raw results is that they lead to complacency. Schools with poor examination results
1298
may justify poor performance on the basis that they have an intake of low achievers. Only through using statistical analysis in assessing the effectiveness of a school can we learn how well that school is doing. The National Commission on Education set up by Sir Claus Moser published documents on the subject recently.
When speaking on the subject at Committee stage the noble Baroness referred a great deal to people on low incomes and the socio-economic considerations. It is not just that that we are considering. We are concerned with the progress that pupils make; that is what we must celebrate and publish, not merely the results of tests and exams. Therefore I hope that a more positive attitude may be adopted at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, many of us will feel great sympathy with the intentions behind the amendment and agree with the spirit of it. It is clearly desirable to have an assessment of received educational benefit. However, the problem lies in delivering the goods at this stage. It is not clear that there is at present an agreed basis for doing that in a manner which would be uncontroversial. The raw data themselves may carry controversial elements, but at least we know what they are.
In relation to a previous amendment moved at Committee stage I criticised the unhappy phrase "value added" on the grounds that quality of education is not computed in readily quantifiable units of account. I was also uneasy about the notion of objectively assessed effectiveness. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, delivered a notable tirade in reply and seemed reluctant to concede that objectivity is a difficult concept in those areas.
I welcome the wording of the amendment, which is much more flexible and less free with concepts of objectivity than its predecessor, but the difficulty remains. One understands what one is publishing if one is publishing raw data. However, at the moment we do not have an agreed procedure for measuring effectiveness. Any attempt to add opinions on the data is bound to be much more controversial than the publication of the data themselves. That is the real difficulty which the Opposition have not yet altogether grasped or faced. I agree with them that it would be useful to work towards that, but we are not yet ready to write into the Bill or into the procedures a requirement that such parameters be added when there is no altogether clear way of reaching such parameters.
I should like to quote from an article by Professors Goldstein and Nuttall in the Times Educational Supplement of 7th February this year. I imagine that they are as familiar as any with those concepts. They said:
"We know that there is often considerable numerical uncertainty about the value to be attached to 'effectiveness' measurements, and that it is usually impossible statistically to order schools precisely. Most of those involved in value-added research regard 'effectiveness' measures as useful pointers to identify institutions which seem to be doing much better or much worse than most others. They do not provide a definitive assessment of each school".

1299
Those on the other side of the House may feel that that is sufficient, but that is a quotation from those who are urging the effectiveness of their effectiveness measures of so-called value added. I am sure that progress is being made and it may be that at the end of the day agreement can be reached. However, I suspect that very often the assessment of raw data will depend on assumptions and preconceptions on which it is very difficult to reach agreement. That necessary groundwork needs to be done and that agreement needs to be reached before we can have a statutory obligation to publish such parameters.
While I hope that in a year or two we may be ready for the amendment which the Opposition now propose, at present it would not be timely and would ultimately, in the implementation, lead to a great deal of predictable, understandable and undesirable controversy.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I have little to add on the merits of the argument, having contributed to the debates which we had at earlier stages. However, there are a couple of points in the Minister's reply last Monday to Amendment No. 87A on which I should like to comment.
The noble Baroness spoke (at col. 610 of Hansard) of exposing under-achievement. That will be difficult to do on the basis of raw data alone because it will take adjustment for other variables to spot where any under-achievement lies. At col. 612, the Minister argued that allowing for the statistical link between poverty and low achievement could have the effect of reinforcing low expectations, and that point has been raised.
I must admit that that made me stop and think but I concluded, and I hope that your Lordships too will conclude, that the argument goes the other way round. Under a value-added table all schools will want to demonstrate what they have been able to add, and the more the better. It is those which are tempted to rest on their laurels or not to exceed their low expectations which will show up badly under a value-added scheme. It is quite right that they should. With raw data alone the excuses would be easier to make.
I know that the noble Baroness has not set her face against the principle of what we have been asking, just as those of us who want meaningful statistics accept that it is right to publish the raw figures. I stress that point for the benefit of the Minister, who, I have come to think in the course of our debates, has been so blinded by my background as an LEA person that she has been rather deaf—to mix my metaphors—to some of what I have said. We want the raw data just as we want openness in schools.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I like the wording of the present amendment because it allows some leeway and is not at all prescriptive while firmly stating the principle of effectiveness which should be sought. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to accept it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, may remember that when he
1300
used the words "value added" and, I think, "accountancy"—which he repeated in his contribution of a few moments ago—I agreed with him to a large extent that that was not an appropriate measure of what happens in schools and was not the main aspect of the debate. Therefore I am a wee bit surprised to hear him say that again today.
I could be very wrong about this and, if so, I hope that the noble Lord will jump up and correct me—but although the noble Lord is a distinguished representative of university life I am not sure that he has much experience of schools of all kinds. I say that because I feel that there is something about life in schools which cannot be measured. We have said that on numerous occasions from this side of the House. That is the main purpose of the present debate, which in some respects is a repetition of what has been said previously.
I am not against measurement. I believe that some things can be measured. On a number of occasions I have mentioned to the House that I was a local education chief officer so I had to deal with finances, furniture, carpeting, staffing and so on. I have considerable experience of all that. But that is not what we are debating at the present time. What I say now will in some part be a repetition of what I have said before. The effectiveness of a school is measured by what is taught in the whole curriculum and by the quality of life in that school.
During the debates on this Bill a Member from the Government Benches said—these are not the exact words but are something like it—that when he (or she) walked into a school he could get the atmosphere of a school. That is correct to a very large extent—if not on every occasion, certainly on many occasions. That is why I use the words quality of life. Parents and the community have a right to clear information about this. By "this" I mean the whole aspect of school life. Assessment of pupils' progress is important because it ought to encourage pupils to learn, inform parents and teachers of progress and provide feedback on achievement.
I suggest that that last point is fairly obvious. It is essential that schools become increasingly effective with all their pupils. This need will not be met by a simple focus on examination results or other such "raw data" which disregard the different starting points from which each school begins. I feel that that is a fairly fundamental basis which the House ought to consider.
Crude league tables will play one school against another—we all know that that happens from time to time—forcing each to compete in the market place for education. That will undermine co-operation between parents and teachers and support for strong links between the school and local community.
Under the terms of the Bill it is difficult to see how schools which are doing a very good job with their pupils can promote themselves and thus motivate their pupils. Schools will try to change their pupil intake rather than become effective with the pupils that they have. That sounds terrible, but again I have to say that it happens from time to time. The last thing that we

1301
ought to do in this measure is to encourage it. It offers a recipe for lack of parental choice and a poor quality school system for the majority of pupils.
Such a crude approach to measuring educational standards is of no benefit to the school, teachers, parents or pupils. If the central focus of the Bill is to raise pupil achievement and improve the effectiveness of schools, it is essential that the Secretary of State gives emphasis to measures of effectiveness. Measuring effectiveness encourages schools to concentrate on the learning needs of their pupils rather than simply give priority to academic achievement.
Quality and effectiveness are inextricably linked to policy decisions relating to resourcing, training and other support services—measures which we on these benches have urged not only in this Bill but on many previous occasions with other legislation. Yet there has been no indication from the Government whether the information required under Clause 16 will relate to any of those issues.
The Bill will leave schools to compete against each other in league tables of academic achievement without the necessary resources to supply a rounded education for their pupils. Truancy rates will be measured without providing the essential funding to encourage pupils to develop and continue in education. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this is Adult Learning Week. We are talking not just about school learning now but about further and higher education, and vocational and non-vocational learning. This week learning is the focus of attention countrywide. The implications in the Bill are such as to list the destination of school leavers without taking into account the socio-economic background of the pupil intake.
Parents and others ought to be informed about the success of the school which their child attends. But the publication of league tables serves political and not educational purposes. The aggregation and publication of test results will provide a partial and skewed picture of achievement and denigrate the other educational activities of the school. They will undermine the effectiveness of schools in achieving the best educational standards for all children.
I feel very strongly about a number of issues in the Bill, not least the matter of school inspection, on which there have been long debates. For what it is worth, I feel especially strongly about this issue. I support the amendment and hope that we shall obtain widespread support throughout the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, Clause 16 into which this amendment strikes is the clause which gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations requiring the proprietor of each independent school and the governing body of schools of various types to publish information. The purposes for which it is to be published are set out in subsection (3). Paragraph (b) of that subsection is the subject of the amendment. In that paragraph one is directed to look at the power of the Secretary of State to direct those bodies to publish information to:
1302
"increase public awareness of the quality of the education provided by the schools concerned and of the educational standards achieved in those schools"—
or in the words of the amendment:
"effectiveness of those schools in achieving the best educational standards".
I am not sure that there is so much between us as has been suggested or might be deduced from the tone of the debate. The Bill directs the Secretary of State to base such information on fact which has come to be known as raw data. As my noble friend Lord Renfrew pointed out, any data which is not raw is regarded as cooked, unless it is mediated on criteria which are generally agreed.
Such criteria do not at present exist for publication of the information in a form of the kind that will flow from this part of the Bill. Effectively this is the advertisement by the proprietors or governors of a school on the merits of their school and it has to be held down to earth by reference to the facts. But if the facts are to be interpreted and not "cooked", there must be an agency to do it. The amendment does not provide that agency. It therefore gives ground for considerable dispute.
There is already an agency in the Bill and publication is already required. The agency is the inspectorate. The information which needs to be interpreted is information about the effectiveness of the school. The function of the inspectors is primarily to judge the effectiveness of the school and to make a statement about it. They are not parti pris. I believe that they are able to address data and improve them without "cooking" them. I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree that that is the way forward rather than as in the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to speak against the amendment, largely because of the word "effectiveness". It seems to me that that word again drags us into the old story of raw data versus value added, together with the supporters of each.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, have seen a report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate which was published yesterday. I must confess that I have not read it. However I have read the report of the report in today's Telegraph. The report admits that some 700,000 children in a fifth of our primary schools are not learning to read properly because they are poorly taught in badly organised classrooms. It goes on, in effect, to give support to those who would speak against this amendment. It admits, as we should all expect, that poor standards are most prevalent in areas of marked social and economic disadvantage. However—this is the important point—the report emphasises that in HMI's opinion the quality of teaching rather than home background was the most important influence. I should like to quote briefly from the report:
"About half the schools serving areas of social disadvantage achieved satisfactory or better standards and the quality of teaching they provided was often outstanding … The contrast between the quality of teaching in the best and the worst classes of similar aged pupils in broadly comparable circumstances was very stark indeed".
Another important point that the report makes—it was published yesterday—is that the impact of

1303
parental support on reading and other standards is "huge". I use the word in the report. In almost all the schools in which children's progress was good there were signs that parents took an active interest in helping them to read at home. Therefore an important aspect in the debate between those who support raw data and those who want the data "cooked" is the aspect of parental support even in the most deprived areas. I do not know how important that aspect is in the vocabulary of the "cookers"—and that brings me back to the word "effectiveness" and the difficulty that I have with the amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly on two matters. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said but the arguments seem to me to lead to the value added concept. I do not understand how they lead to the "raw data" view.
All data are calculated, manipulated and presented. It is a common fallacy to say that raw data—or whatever one cares to call them—have objectivity and are non-controversial. There are no such things as non-controversial data. The Government stake their claim on raw data.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness who speaks for the Government whether she saw a fascinating document published in the Financial Times on Saturday called The FT Schools 500. As one who is obsessed with league tables, averages and so on, I have been scrutinising the document almost non-stop since Saturday. It does exactly what the Government envisage: it presents raw data—namely the A-level results of the independent schools in this country —and ranks them. It presents a league table. The interesting factor is that, for example, Bradford Grammar School ranks only 66th in the country. Harrow—a school well known to your Lordships—ranks 82nd; Marlborough ranks 108th, Wellington 129th, Highgate 225th and Stowe 271st.
The Government believe that such data are relevant to parental choice, school assessment and so on. I hold the Financial Times in the highest esteem. That is the best objective job that it can do, but the outcome is ridiculous and preposterous. I do not know whether there are any old boys from any of those or other listed schools present in your Lordships' House, but they will not accept such ranking. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, shakes his head. I guess that he went to Eton; but that school ranks only 7th. It is getting close to relegation from the first division.
Such data are absurd; they are absurd with regard to independent schools. Will the noble Baroness who speaks for the Government take note of what Peter Owen, the headmaster of Rushmoor and chairman of the Independent Schools Association, said? What he said is not very different from what some noble Lords opposite said. He stated that two C grades and a D grade from one pupil may be a far greater achievement for the individual and for the school than a very bright pupil who achieves three A grades. A pupil with good grades from one school may have received a very narrow education compared with another pupil with the same grades from a different school. He states
1304
finally—it sums up our whole case and indicates how absurd the Government's position is—that in the end a good school academically is not one with the best results but one which gets the most out of its pupils in all ways, whatever their ability.
That is the exact point that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made. That is precisely what will be destroyed by league tables. That is what is destroyed in the report of the Financial Times on independent schools. The Government ought to consider the matter again. Their view leads to the opposite conclusion from the one that they reach. There is a better way to present the data.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I spoke at length on the matter in Committee. I demonstrated our anxiety about relying purely on raw data in the presentation of league tables. I do not wish to speak at great length now. However, as my noble friend Lord Peston said, it is important to consider the value added aspect. One must consider what a school contributes towards the education of its pupils rather than simply measuring the ability of those pupils.
I quoted from a number of head teachers from independent schools. They share the Labour Party's view about the matter and are extremely anxious about the Government's intentions. I also attempted at some length to explain that the methodology to measure pupil intakes, progress over time and pupils' performance on leaving—in other words to indicate the value added aspect—is now available.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, argued that there is no agreed procedure. I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord that he is completely wrong about that.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I wish to make this point clear. Who agrees with the procedure? That is the point. We refer to measures which involve an element of subjectivity. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is quite right: no data can be regarded as objective in every sense. When the noble Baroness states that the procedures are agreed, they may be agreed by one or many segments of the education profession, but are they universally agreed? Those may be very controversial issues.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have to repeat what I said. The answer is that there is now an agreed methodology. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I should be very happy to arrange a seminar for the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and anyone else on the Government Benches who would like to attend. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred to Professors Goldstein and Nuttall, both of whom have been colleagues at two different periods of my life. I am sure that they would both be delighted to provide a tutorial for anyone who wishes to come.
At Committee stage I mentioned that multi-level modelling is the approach now being used by academics. Three separate studies have used the approach. The Audit Commission, the AMA and the National Commission on Education are all agreed that it is a reasonable methodology. Of course there is some subjectivity in any data. However, the data that

1305
emerge from studies using that method are no more subjective than simply presenting raw data and they provide much more information.
Various disparaging remarks were made in Committee about the work of social scientists in this area. Suggestions were made that parents would not want such information or would not understand it. I believe that that was patronising. I do not say that parents would understand the fairly sophisticated techniques that need to be used to obtain the information, but once presented the information is perfectly comprehensible. I thought that there was a rather ostrich-like debate in Committee. We are having somewhat of a repetition of that today. Noble Lords opposite seem to reject important advances in knowledge and understanding in a way that I find shocking. As a social scientist I was also a little hurt.
I wish to make three points. Parents should not be given misleading information about the quality of education provided in their local schools. Teachers should not be able to shelter behind misleading information. I regret to say that league tables based on raw data will allow them to do so. Inspectors and advisers need to have the very best information that is available to monitor standards and to work to bring the below average school to the standard of the above average school. We now have the possibility to do that. However, in Committee the Government seemed to dismiss the value of that approach even though they accepted it in relation to the FE sector. I cannot understand why they are being so inconsistent. Perhaps the Minister will explain the different approach in the further education legislation from that now being adopted in this Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I never cease to be amazed at the length to which noble Lords opposite will go to ensure that raw data do not find their way into the public domain. The noble Baroness, Lady David, opened—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. It was made perfectly clear at Second Reading and in Committee that we were in favour of raw data being published. But we have been arguing that it is very important to publish additional information that is based on a more sophisticated analysis of that data.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment actually rules out raw data. As was said by the noble Baroness in opening, it does not remove the powers of the 1980 and the 1988 Acts to require the publication but it removes the new powers that we are taking in the Bill to provide comprehensive comparative tables of raw data. The clause is needed in order to allow that publication.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin—I take him on what he said rather than for the profession to which he belongs—said, "We want the raw data". The amendment removes that requirement by taking from the Bill the words, "educational standards achieved in those schools".
1306
We have discussed the amendment almost as though raw data was the only information to be put into the public arena for parents. The Bill before the House contains a great deal more than the provision in Clause 16. In addition to annual meetings, annual reports, action plans, follow-up action plans and information on every aspect of school life, there will be systematic and regular inspections by HMI and the full publication of those reports. All that information is available in the arena. In addition, we have Clause 16 which will allow the publication of comparative tables. They will be another piece of the jigsaw which makes up a comprehensive raft of information allowing people to make judgments.
We debated this matter at some length during the Committee stage of the Bill and there is little to add to what was said then. The Government are not opposed to the publication of value added information provided that it is securely based, readily understood and calculated according to generally accepted principles. All of the researchers cited by noble Lords opposite in that debate, including those employed by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National Commission on Education and the Audit Commission, recognise that technical difficulties remain in calculating value added on the basis of the information currently available. The difficulties are those to which I pointed before; namely, the availability of universally comparable measures of attainment at different ages and stages and the problems of tracking a given cohort, for example, between GCSE and advanced or AS level.
So we are simply not yet in a position to require the publication of value added information. And we are certainly not prepared to wait until that position is reached before requiring the publication of the basic information from which value added can in due course be calculated. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, was very clear that his commission is fully in favour of the publication of raw data as well as value added information. That is removed from this Bill. There is no reputable case to be made for keeping this information away from parents. I believe that noble Lords on all sides accept that position.
When the national curriculum assessment arrangements are in full operation pupils will be assessed at 7, 11, 14 and 16 on a consistent 10-level scale against the same national targets in all foundation subjects. That will make it possible for the first time to calculate securely the value added by schools as between one key stage and the next. But, as noble Lords are aware, it will be some time before we reach that position. In the meantime, researchers will continue to work with the raw data—which we shall be placing in their hands —to develop various ways of indicating educational value added and to be able as the amendment wishes to have a statistical factor put to effectiveness. The Department of Education and Science will keep in touch with this work so that when a consensus begins to emerge on the best way of proceeding we shall be able to consider introducing a requirement to publish the appropriate information.
I must repeat that this is no argument for failing to publish as soon as possible the information which is

1307
available. It would be quite wrong to wait any longer before putting more raw data in the public domain in readily usable form. The parents who take an interest in this data will recognise that schools take pupils from various catchment areas and of varying ability. They will know that the information in comparative tables is only part of the evidence, as I have already pointed out. I have referred to a raft of evidence that will be available simultaneously to these tables. They will form a rounded judgment based on a whole raft of factors, including prospectuses and the reports of other parents as well as visits to the school and discussions with its staff and pupils. They deserve the fullest possible information on all aspects of interest to them. I cannot imagine that noble Lords are seriously arguing that parents cannot be trusted to use this information wisely and so should not be allowed access to it.
I shall not repeat the arguments. I believe that the amendment should not be accepted.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister has misrepresented the Opposition's position. She has repeatedly said that it does not want the publication of raw data. However, the Opposition has said that it is agreeable to the publication of raw data but that it wants other information to be published as well. I suppose that the Minister is suggesting that by the removal of the words, "educational standards achieved in those schools", and inserting the word, "effectiveness" we do not want the inclusion of exam results, and so forth. In fact, those powers are contained in the 1988 Act. Section 22(5) (a) of the Education Reform Act requires schools to provide information to parents of the national curriculum assessment results. The 1980 Act requires almost all the information for which Clause 16 is asking.
It was suggested to me that Clause 16 was an entirely unnecessary addition to the Bill because it asked for almost everything that is provided for in the 1980 and 1988 Acts and that it is a demonstration of the parent's charter. Perhaps I may read from the list of items in the 1980 Act about which information is required to be given. It includes exam policies, exam results, the way in which the curriculum is differentiated, homework requirements, pastoral arrangements, discipline and societies. The exam policies and the exam results are asked for.
We are happy to have the raw data published, but we also wish to have published other signs of what has happened in the school in order to show the quality of the education there, the effectiveness of the school and how it has improved. It must show what the school has done for the children who have attended. I am not knowledgeable about the latest educational research but I am certain that my noble friend Lady Blackstone is well informed. She has said that research has been carried out and information is available, and I am sure that that is true.
There has been a great deal of support from all sides of the House for the spirit of the amendment. Indeed, I had thought that the comments of the noble Lord,
1308
Lord Pearson, might have been construed to give some support. However, at this time of night I shall not press the amendment and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 11, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising his functions under paragraph (b) above the Secretary of State shall ensure that any individual citizen shall have access to a process of appeal whereby may be challenged any substantial inaccuracy in any information published, or, where appropriate submitted for publication, under subsection (6) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to provide a process of appeal in cases of substantial inaccuracies in the information published or submitted for publication under Clause 16. Information that is published in order to assist parents and the public at large informing opinions about particular schools should be free from any serious inaccuracies. By providing a process of appeal, the amendment should make schools realise that the provision of information is an important matter and that it should be undertaken with great care.
Without intending to provide information that is seriously inaccurate, I am afraid to say that schools frequently provide poor information. That has been my experience. Local education authority officers who must check information returns from schools—for instance, the annual schools census on Form 7—know that very well. No doubt the DES statistics branch, now the analytical services branch, also knows that. In the light of all the pressures on schools, perhaps it is not surprising that serious errors occur. That is not because the schools concerned set out to mislead but as a result of the pressure of work or merely through carelessness.
The amendment covers all information which schools provide. Therefore, serious inaccuracies in a school prospectus about the curriculum—for example, the provision of religious education or sex education, the policy about entering pupils for public examinations and all subject choices available in the sixth form—are covered by the amendment.
As the Bill now stands, a parent has no right to challenge any of the information produced by a school although I presume that an LEA would have power to check information under its right to inspect, which is now established in the Bill.
I give an example which illustrates the problems with school-produced information. Local education authorities collect from schools in September information for the DES annual school examination survey. One local education authority in North London compared that data with the information supplied electronically by the National Consortium for Examination Results—the NCER—and found that only two of its 10 secondary schools had managed to get correct the number of pupils with five or more GCSE passes at grades A to C. None of the errors was great; and they were all due to mistakes by the schools. However, if the school-produced data were put into a league table on the basis of the percentage of pupils with five or more GCSE results at grades A to C, the

1309
positions of five of the schools would change, compared with their positions when using the NCER data. Therefore, substantial changes can occur in the league tables when the wrong data is supplied. This amendment will allow for an appeal against any information published by a school so that inaccuracies can be corrected. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we shall naturally wish to ensure that the information published is complete and accurate. But we believe that the methods commonly used to ensure the accuracy of published information will also be sufficient under the new arrangements, without the need for a specific new appeals process.
The Bill provides for governing bodies and LEAs to have a duty to provide information as prescribed in regulations. We would expect those bodies to act responsibly, by ensuring to the best of their ability that it is accurate. The usual checks will be built into the process of data collection. The information published in comparative tables will, in the case of maintained schools, relate directly to the information which those schools publish in their prospectus and annual governors' report as prescribed in regulations made under Section 8 of the Education Act 1980 and Section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988. Regulations in respect of examination results in particular have been in force since 1981 and we have no evidence of their abuse. If such abuse were brought to our attention, we should have powers to act against any defaulting governing body.
It would be extraordinary to create a right of appeal against the actions of the school or LEA. I would remind your Lordships that an appeal in statute is more significant than a complaint. It generally requires the creation of formal machinery to hear both sides of the case and come up with a judgment. We would certainly not wish to go down that route. If any abuse is brought to the attention of the department by complaint or otherwise, it will be fully investigated. If evidence of abuse or incompetence were uncovered, the local authority or school would be asked to rectify the error which had been identified and to publish a correction. If it refused to do so, a public direction could be made under Sections 68 or 99 of the 1944 Act requiring it to publish corrected information.
In the case of an independent school, the Bill allows for the ultimate sanction of removal from the register for supplying inaccurate information. Those are stiff penalties and the information regulations are not and will not be taken lightly. The noble Baroness quoted instances that she has found, but the amendment does not extend to information in prospectuses or reports. It refers only to information provided under Clause 16 and to that which will be published in comparative tables. We hope that the noble Baroness will accept that there are sufficient means of taking action and that she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I thought it was a little complacent, and I am not altogether convinced that we can expect responsible action from all schools
1310
nor, as I have said already, can we expect all schools to get it right, even if they are trying to be responsible. I am somewhat reassured that there will be full investigations when complaints are brought to the department, that abuses will be looked into and that local authorities or the schools concerned will be asked to publish corrections. If they refuse to do so, further action will be taken. I am glad to have that on record, and I believe that it will be necessary to monitor that. In the light of the answer that I have received, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 11, line 43, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this rather technical amendment is to elicit information from the Government. We are referring to Section 16 which is to do with the powers of the Secretary of State to require information. As the House will be well aware, the Secretary of State has many such powers; for example, Section 92 of the 1944 Act, Section 8 of the 1980 Education Act, Section 56 of the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act and Section 22 of the Education Reform Act. Those are all sections which give the Secretary of State power to demand information.
I have two questions. Will the noble Baroness tell the House, or write to me in due course, and say why the opportunity was not taken in this Act to consolidate all the legislation to which I have referred on the provision of information? That seems sensible.
That leads me to the inverse question which is that the answer to that question must have something to do with subsection (10) which I want deleted. That subsection almost reads as though the Government have no idea how to fit this piece of legislation into all the previous legislation so they thought they should include a fail-safe clause which says that if there is any conflict of interest between all the information requirements, they legislate that there is no conflict. Do the Government have any inkling of what conflict may arise from subsection (10)? It is a technical drafting point but it is interesting because information provision is extremely important and will become increasingly so. It may be that the department did not have time to consolidate the different Acts. I should like to know the answer, but I can wait if the noble Baroness is not able to tell me at this moment. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, while doubting the need for this amendment, I believe it gives me the opportunity to put a rather general question to the Minister. This question concerns the guidelines for and the general standard of the inspections which will be carried out under the Bill.
As I understand it, it will be for the new chief inspector to publish for consultation what is tentatively becoming known as an inspection code for all inspectors to follow. It may be that I have missed some part of the debate which concerns this requirement, but I should be grateful if my noble friend would confirm that the new chief inspector will be required to publish his guidelines or inspection

1311
code, first for consultation and then for inspectors to follow so that all inspections have a core of common practice which I am sure will be helpful to everyone.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made an extremely important point about consolidation. That is a good point. At present, we are working on a comprehensive consolidation measure for education legislation at large. It is timely that that should be done.
I assure the noble Lord that there is nothing remotely sinister in the subsection which he wishes to be removed by the amendment. The subsection adds nothing at all to the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of the collection of information, but it makes clear—and it is for the avoidance of doubt that it should make clear—that none of his existing powers relating to his right to make regulations in connection with the provision of information is affected by the new powers given under Clause 16. The subsection is necessary in a legal sense to ensure clarity in respect of what the Secretary of State may or may not do.
I think that, in a sense, the two points are linked and, because legislation is all over the place, this makes it absolutely clear and beyond doubt.
In response to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Pearson, perhaps I may say that it will be for the chief inspector to decide how to draw up his guidance. However, he is obliged—and this is the point in which my noble friend is interested—to issue guidance under Clause 2 of the Bill.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I am particularly interested to hear that the department is thinking about consolidation. It is not a party matter; it is something which we urgently need in order to understand the legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Clause 17 [Information as to schools and pupils: Scotland]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 12, line 38, after ("schools") insert ("and the provision for special educational needs in those schools").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 56 seeks to ensure that information relating to schools includes information regarding special educational needs. It is supported by a large number of organisations interested in that field—the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Consumer Council, among others.
Clause 17 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring schools in Scotland to publish information about themselves and their pupils. It is important that that power is used in a way which enhances the rights of parents of children with special educational needs and does not jeopardise provision in schools for such children.
One of the purposes of publishing information is to assist parents in choosing schools. Parents of children with special needs should be as entitled as other parents to the kinds of information which will assist
1312
them in making their choice. Often parents are faced with difficult decisions regarding whether to seek a placement in a mainstream school or opt for a special school. The choice may be even wider for a child with special needs. They may have the right to select a special school outside the local authority sector and request that the local authority pay for it. Parents must be able to find out what extra help is available in a mainstream school and to compare it with other services that may be on offer. Such information would also be helpful in enabling the overall level of provision of special needs to be planned more effectively.
It is important that the publication of information regarding schools in any kind of league table should not act as a disincentive to the provision for special needs. Many students with special needs will be unlikely to obtain formal academic qualifications or go on to gainful employment. Information which is restricted to those points will not show how well such pupils have been provided for. There may therefore be a temptation to direct resources away from that area.
The amendment was rejected by the Government at Committee stage in another place. They argued that some pupils with special needs were capable of high levels of achievement and that it would he wrong to place them in a separate category. But that was the point of the amendment. By definition pupils with special educational needs require special types of provision. It is only reasonable that information regarding that provision should be made available. The amendment does not allow schools to doctor or modify the information relating to pupils in general. It simply seeks to add to the information already provided.
The Government's rejection of the amendment in another place is surprising because they recently amended the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill to provide that information published by the new boards of further education shall include the educational provision made for students with learning difficulties and the facilities provided for such students. The amendment seeks to do the same for schools. I hope therefore that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment so ably and comprehensively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and to reiterate what she said. In view of the fact that the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill was amended and contains the provision, I hope that the Minister will be able to say something positive in relation to the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it is a pleasure to join the debate at this stage.
I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady David, introduced the amendment. As she said, the amendment would provide that, in making regulations about school information, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland should do so with a view to increasing public awareness of the provision for special educational

1313
needs in schools. I am sympathetic to the view that performance tables should take account of this factor, and that the provision made for special education needs is made known to parents and to the public at large.
At Committee stage my noble friend Lady Blatch accepted, in response to my noble friend Lady Faithfull and on behalf also of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the comparative tables would be improved by the addition of information in respect of the number of pupils in each school, with a record of special educational needs and a statement as to whether the school is a special school. I was later able to reassure my noble friend Lady Brigstocke that such information would indeed be included.
The consultation paper on information for parents, issued last week by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, proposes the inclusion of this information in relation to special educational needs. In the light of that assurance, and earlier assurances given by my noble friend Lady Blatch, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady David, is able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I can ask a question for elucidation. Can I be quite clear where the information was given. Is it in a consultation paper?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I gather that some information was given at Committee stage. More to the point, it has now been included in a consultation paper issued last week. I believe that a copy was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
Baroness David: My Lords, that was a moderately satisfactory response. I hope that something positive will happen with the consultation paper and that it does not simply sit somewhere so that nobody sees it. That happens all too easily. It is not like provisions in regulations; it is rather different.
At any rate, I shall read again what the Minister said and hope that I am as satisfied as he obviously thinks I should be. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, for her support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 14, line 15, leave out ("section 9(5)") and insert ("paragraph 1 of Schedule 2").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 57 was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Financial provisions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 15, line 27, leave out ("5(3) or 12(4)") and insert ("or 5(3)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 58 was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Short title, commencement, extent etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(6)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 59 was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.38 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The background to the Bill is that Section 3 of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985 created a framework for the licensing of football clubs for the sale of alcohol on the premises. In principle it is not a problem. However, the practical application of the Act's provisions is creating administrative difficulties and nuisance for clubs. It is also unnecessarily increasing the workload of the licensing authorities. The Act requires that clubs should apply to the justices for licences every five months; that is, each club must apply for a licence twice in one season. That is an administrative inconvenience.
The Football League sought evidence from the league clubs as to the working of this section of the 1985 Act. It is clear that most clubs have good relationships with the police and with the licensing justices and encounter no problems in obtaining an order. I am sure that your Lordships appreciate that that is an important aspect of the situation. The clubs therefore see no reason why application should be made twice each season. They would prefer to apply for licences once a year. The league has made detailed inquiries at the Home Office. Surprisingly, officials there cannot explain why it is that the 1985 Act requires applications to be made every five months. It seems that it is just an anomaly. I understand that the Home Office will not oppose the modest change sought in this Bill.
The Bill has just two clauses. Clause 1 seeks to replace in the 1985 Act the words "five months" with "twelve months", which will correct the current anomaly. Clause 2 simply contains the Short Title and limits the Bill's extent to England and Wales. This is only a very minor change to the existing legislation. It will not result in any change to the principle intended in the 1985 Act. However, it will provide for the greater administrative efficiency of both football clubs and licensing authorities.
I know that many people are concerned about the effect of alcohol. Perhaps I may mention that I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Misuse. But people need not have worries about this proposed change in the law.

1315
I hope that I have made the provisions clear. I repeat merely for emphasis that the change suggested is simply for administrative efficiency. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dormand of Easington.)
8.41 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches agree absolutely with the quite small provisions of this Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, for explaining to us its contents and also something of the background. I too am one of the vice-chairmen of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Misuse. We see absolutely no objection to this measure. It comes against the background in this country where, unfortunately, there is alcohol misuse quite out of proportion to the amount of alcohol consumed. Among other European countries we are quite low down in terms of the amount of alcohol consumed, but the amount of misuse is unfortunately still quite high.
In football grounds violence has mysteriously decreased in recent months, which makes the Government's attempts to legislate in the football Bill seem even more ludicrous than they did at the time we discussed the legislation in this House. I do not know why violence in football grounds should have disappeared so quickly. I believe that it is due more to fashion than anything else. Young people do not now consider it the thing to do or something to which they wish to apply their energies or time. Perhaps they have moved elsewhere, and let us hope that the change remains and even continues that way.
The provisions of this Bill seem to match that development and we hope that the previous behaviour does not return. I wish again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, for explaining the Bill so thoroughly. I support its contents.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill, which has been so clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington. I was a Member of your Lordships' House when the Bill came before us in 1985. With the assistance of members of my own party and of the Social Democratic Party we tried to get some order into what was then a bad Bill because it had been cobbled together quickly under an agreement between the major parties in another place in order to deal with the situation. The Bill had to be rushed through in the July of that year in order to get it in place for the kick-off which took place a few weeks later.
I visited the three grounds with which I am familiar to see the situation as it then was. I refer to Maine Road, Old Trafford and Elland Road, Leeds. I was able to talk to the judge who was heading the commission dealing with the matter. I eventually got some concessions which were quite reasonable. The Bill as moved by my noble friend Lord Dormand will remove an anomaly which is totally unnecessary. I was not aware, although I should have been, that application had to he made every five months. This
1316
new provision will save time and money. It is a realistic approach. As my noble friend said, the Bill in its present form appears to be acceptable to the Government. I do not know whether it is possible in view of the events which may be taking place to put this measure on the statute book quickly. We hope that that can happen.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government believe that there is considerable merit in the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. Your Lordships will be aware of the successful measures the Government have taken to combat misbehaviour at football matches. The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 is an important plank in this legal framework. It was designed to tackle the problem of drunkenness at matches. As noble Lords are aware, drunkenness can all too easily lead to disorder.
The 1985 Act prohibits the possession of alcohol at designated sports grounds. Under the Act, football clubs (or other organisations managing designated sports grounds) that wish to sell alcohol on their premises must obtain an exemption order. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said, at present the maximum period for which an order may be issued is five months. This Bill seeks to extend the period to 12 months.
During the Committee stage of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Bill concern was expressed by Members of the Opposition in another place that the period before renewal of the order should be kept as short as possible. The Government were anxious not to impose an unnecessary burden on the courts by requiring over-frequent renewal and therefore a compromise period of five months was agreed at that time. I believe that that answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, as to how we came to have this rather strange period of time.
In recent years successful government policies have led to a welcome improvement in the general behaviour at football matches. I understand that few problems have arisen in respect of the sale of alcohol at bars in sports grounds; in this respect, football clubs have behaved responsibly. This Bill, if enacted, would not relax any of the controls on the sale of alcohol. The police would retain their powers to step in and close bars if they foresaw a particular problem. The amendment would simply reduce the administrative burden on ground authorities and the courts. This seems both practical and timely. The Government welcome this measure. I am glad that it is being supported tonight by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am very grateful for the all-round support that the Bill has received at its Second Reading tonight. It seems to be generally accepted that there has been something of an anomaly. I fully accept what the Minister has said and I am grateful for the explanation. I understand that an announcement of some moment, not necessarily related to this Bill, may be made tomorrow.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, what could it be?
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I wonder whether it may be that a general election is to be called. I ask the Minister to see that this Bill is expedited. As I say, there is universal agreement in the football world, in this Chamber and, I am sure, in another place. We really should have this provision on the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am aware of nothing that may happen tomorrow apart from the business on the Order Paper. I shall certainly keep in mind the point made by the noble Lord should some unexpected event happen.
1318
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Underground Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to and with the remaining amendments agreed to with amendments; the Commons amendments to the Lords amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before nine o'clock

  PALESTINIAN DETAINEES IN ISRAEL
  PALESTINIAN DETAINEES IN ISRAEL
  IVORY POACHING: PENALTIES
  IVORY POACHING: PENALTIES
  TREASURY OFFICIALS: SECONDMENTS
  TREASURY OFFICIALS: SECONDMENTS
  SHARE OWNERSHIP
  SHARE OWNERSHIP
  ASSAULTS ON POLICE: SENTENCING REVIEW
  ASSAULTS ON POLICE: SENTENCING REVIEW
  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1966: SECTION 11 GRANTS
  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1966: SECTION 11 GRANTS
  NON-HUMAN PRIMATES IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
  NON-HUMAN PRIMATES IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
  INDONESIA: EXPORT CREDIT SUPPORT
  INDONESIA: EXPORT CREDIT SUPPORT
  HORSE GUARDS ROAD
  HORSE GUARDS ROAD
  "THIS COMMON INHERITANCE": ANNIVERSARY REPORT
  "THIS COMMON INHERITANCE": ANNIVERSARY REPORT
  RURAL HOUSING SPECIAL PROGRAMME: ALLOCATIONS
  RURAL HOUSING SPECIAL PROGRAMME: ALLOCATIONS
  HOUSING THE HOMELESS: EMPTY GOVERNMENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
  HOUSING THE HOMELESS: EMPTY GOVERNMENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
  BIG BEN: MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME
  BIG BEN: MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME
  DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT: RELOCATION
  DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT: RELOCATION
  PRIMROSE HILL and REGENT'S CANAL: MANAGEMENT
  PRIMROSE HILL and REGENT'S CANAL: MANAGEMENT
  WIDOWED FATHERS: BENEFIT LEVEL
  WIDOWED FATHERS: BENEFIT LEVEL