Sitting of 12 March 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 19 March.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 March.

PRIVATE BILLS (SUSPENSION)
Ordered,
That—

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which has originated in this House or has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session;

(2) the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than five o'clock on Monday next of their intention to suspend further proceeding thereon, or, if the Bill, having passed this House, is then pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session: provided that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that day be paid;

(3) a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which they have been suspended, shall be prepared by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office and printed;

(4) every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament;

(5) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session;

(6) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next
954
meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto;

(7) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill has been read a second time before its suspension) to have been read a second time and—

(i) if such Bill has been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the present Session, it shall stand so referred;

(ii) if such Bill has been referred to a Committee during the present Session and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall be committed and—

(a) all Petitions against the Bill which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session; and

(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(iii) if such Bill has been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it has been reported with Amendments in the present Session and has not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(iv) if such Bill has been read the third time before its suspension, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

(8) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the next Session and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House in the present Session;

(9) when any Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House, is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) unless the Examiner has reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;

(ii) if the Examiner has so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it has been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but

(iii) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the present Session it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as have been made thereto by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(10) where a Bill has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and the period prescribed by paragraph (1) of Standing Order 171A relating to Private Busineses (Petitions against private bills) has not elapsed before Monday next, any Petition presented during the present Session in pursuance of that Standing Order shall be void, and the period of time prescribed by that Standing Order shall apply to any Bill brought from the Lords in the next Session in pursuance of this Order;

(11) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;

(12) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (7) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn or have been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b)

955
of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session;

(13) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;

(14) where any Standing Orders have been disposed with in respect of any private Bill in the present Session or in the last Session, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;

(15) any Standing Orders compiled with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session;

(16) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the present Session.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
To be communicated to the Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Inflation
    Sir David Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of United Kingdom inflation in 1992.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury 4(Mr. John Maples): The Budget forecast is for retail prices index inflation to be down to 3¾ per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1992 and 3¼ per cent. by mid-1993.
    Sir David Mitchell: Can my hon. Friend say what the figure is likely to be next year and what it would become under the Labour party's spending plans?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Anybody who listened to last week's debate on inflation will have realised that the Labour party has no policy on it. Labour Members do not believe in the exchange rate mechanism—they are always calling for low interest rates —and when Labour were in government average inflation was 15½ per cent., whereas under the Conservative Government it has been 7½ per cent. Labour's lowest rate was never as low as our average.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from manufacturing industry in respect of his Budget proposals.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): Businesses of all sizes have welcomed the reduction in the burden of business rates next year by £480 million. The car industry—at the heart of the
    956
    manufacturing sector—has said that the Budget measures should boost sales by 70,000. The director general of the Confederation of British Industry has said:
    "This is a prudent and positive Budget".
    Mr. Winterton: I warmly welcome the bringing forward of the benefit of the uniform business rate, and the measures announced in the Budget for small business and especially for the car industry. Does my hon. Friend accept that the two strongest economies in the world—Japan and Germany—are built on broad and substantial manufacturing bases? Will he consider sympathetically further measures to regenerate our manufacturing base, should such measures prove necessary?
    Mr. Maude: One is always especially grateful for the steadfast support of my hon. Friend. I am familiar with his longstanding concern for the health of the manufacturing sector—the Government share that concern. My hon. Friend will be glad to note that the share of gross domestic product deriving from manufacturing is greater in this country than in even the United States and France. There have been substantial improvements in investment. Indeed, investment in plant and machinery in this country—the most important measure that there is—has risen dramatically over the past decade. Of course, we shall continue to consider carefully measures that could improve the lot of manufacturing industry. The one thing that manufacturers say that they want above all is a firm commitment to driving inflation down, so that they can continue to compete effectively in an ever more competitive world.
    Mr. Pike: Although the Minister had the nerve to say what he just said, I do not think that he can really believe it. Many industrialists in key manufacturing regions such as the north-west and Lancashire believe that the Budget has done nothing to overcome the havoc that the Tory party has wrought on manufacturing industry over the past 13 years. They will be glad to see the back of this Tory Government.
    Mr. Maude: Rather than relying on the hon. Gentleman's synthetic assertions, one ought to place more reliance on what business people say. They are the ones who really know. When a reputable City firm asked a number of finance directors of large and important companies what they thought of Labour's proposals, 5 per cent.—to give the good news first—thought that a Labour victory would be good for the economy. The bad news is that 86 per cent. thought that a Labour victory would be bad for the economy.
    Mr. John Townend: Is my hon. Friend aware that family-owned manufacturing businesses—indeed, all family-owned businesses—are delighted at his inheritance tax proposals? They will prevent businesses from being sold or closed because of debts—factors that are devastating the many family businesses in the north. Has my hon. Friend ascertained whether the Opposition support the proposals?
    Mr. Maude: The House—indeed, the nation—is waiting on tenterhooks for Opposition Front-Bench Members to vouchsafe to the country whether they intend to support this important measure, which has been warmly welcomed, particularly by the small business sector.

    957
    However, so far we have waited in vain. No doubt, the Opposition will let us know this afternoon what their attitude is, or perhaps they are still dithering.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average level of manufacturing investment between 1974 and 1979 and between 1979 and 1991.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): The average level was £9·8 billion at constant prices, in both periods. Between the same two periods, total plant and machinery investment at constant prices rose by more than 38 per cent.
    Mr. Williams: As investment in manufacturing industry was slashed by 14 per cent. during the past year and as Britain is the only country in the European Community where investment is lower than it was in 1979, why did the Budget provide nothing to encourage investment, upon which industry could build, rather than bribing the electorate?
    Mr. Mellor: There are two points to make about that. First, it would be more reliable as a criticism of the Budget, from the point of view of business, to listen to what representatives of business and industry have said rather than to the hon. Gentleman's somewhat partial account. They have been extremely supportive. Secondly, Labour always concentrates on manufacturing investment because it thinks that that is the one that allows it to see that figures are not so good. [Interruption.] Oh, yes.
    If we look at total business investment in the economy, we find that in 1990 it was 55 per cent. higher, in real terms, than it was in 1979 and that, even in 1991, it was 37 per cent. higher. If we look at investment in plant and machinery, where the definition has not changed, as it has for manufacturing investment, we find that in 1990 the increase in real terms over 1979 was 65 per cent. and that even in 1991, a year of recession, the improvement in investment in our economy was such that it was nearly 50 per cent. higher than it was in 1979. That is the whole economy picture on which the hon. Gentleman should focus.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that when setting up businesses in a capitalist society there will always be failures and that at a time of worldwide recession there will be more failures than usual? Is not it a fact, however, that there are still 1·2 million more people registered as VAT traders in industry and all commerce than there were when we came to office? Is not that what really matters—people can still venture and they can still prosper?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many more businesses in this country today than there were in 1979. There are over 1 million more jobs in the British economy today than there were in 1979. A greater proportion of adults in the United Kingdom are in employment than in any other European Community country, except Denmark. That is the reality' of our position today.
    Mr. John Smith: However the Chief Secretary handles the figures, is not it remarkable that investment in the
    958
    manufacturing sector is less now than it was in 1979? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, I see; it is not remarkable! If the Chief Secretary looks at the economy all around, can he explain why, in the past 13 years, with a growth record of 1!7 per cent. a year, this Administration has the worst growth record of any Government of any party since the war?
    Mr. Mellor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statistics are dodgy—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No"] Oh, yes. He knows only too well that the proper comparison is with the growth in non-oil GDP, which has been substantially higher under this Government. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman now says GDP. When he is trying to make the point that the country has been in recession for six successive quarters, he says that one cannot include the oil industry when looking at economic growth. When he wants his growth statistics to be right, he thinks it is right to do the opposite and stand on his head. It does not work like that.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that even in the past few years when there have been some problems, even in places such as Yorkshire, we still have entrepreneurs who are investing in manufacturing, new processes and new technology to equip them to have confidence in the future and to compete not only in this country and Europe but worldwide?
    Mr. Mellor: The Labour party's constant belittling of the manufacturing sector will not do. The Labour party might like to bear in mind the massive investment from Britain in manufacturing as well as the massive investment from overseas. A total of 50 per cent. of the inward investment from the United States and Japan into the European Community comes to Britain. The Labour party might also like to know how much more effectively that investment is being used in the Britain of the 1990s than in the Britain of the 1970s. Manufacturing output since the election of the Conservative Government has increased by more than 25 per cent. Under Labour, it fell by 2½ per cent.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cash amount paid in value added tax by a family with two children on average earnings in 1979; and what is his latest estimate for the amount at the present time.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): At today's prices, such a family would have paid approximately £340 in VAT in the financial year 1978–79, compared with £985 in 1991–92. Over the same period, this family will have enjoyed a 35 per cent. rise in real take-home pay.
    Mr. Cox: One can say only that that is a dodgy reply. There has been an increase of some £15 a week in VAT. Against that background and the background of other indirect taxes that ordinary families have had to experience, is not it clear that on 9 April the British people will not be taken in by promises but will be persuaded by the income tax and VAT changes which they have seen from the Government over the past 13 years?
    Mrs. Shephard: What matters is real take-home pay and that is what people will take into account on 9 April.

    959
    The 35 per cent. increase in real take-home pay amounts to £78 per week. That is what people will be concerned about. If the Labour party is so concerned about the tax burden, why is it proposing to vote against tax cuts twice in the next 24 hours?
    Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how much of that £78 increase in take-home pay is attributable to the reduction in the basic rate of income tax from 33p to 25p and, now, the lower band of 20p and the over-indexation of personal allowances introduced by the Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be interested in the fact that the indexation of allowances has taken 2 million people out of tax compared with what happened under the Labour Government's regime. The tax cuts announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget on Tuesday, against which the Labour party will vote twice in the next 24 hours, will take a further 380,000 individuals out of tax.
    Mrs. Beckett: Has not the Government's consistent record over the years been one of balancing cuts in taxes on income by increases in other taxes? Therefore, are not people eminently justified in fearing that the Government's long-term plan is to pay for the cuts in tax, of which the Government boast so proudly, by widening the scope of VAT and by increasing the other charges and taxes that people have to pay?
    Mrs. Shephard: We have given categorical pledges that there will be no rise in the standard rate of value added tax either before or after the election. I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to give such a categorical pledge. What is certain is that two parties are going into the election with pledges to increase taxation and one is going into the election with a pledge to decrease it—the Conservative party.
    Mr. Summerson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention whatever of increasing VAT on televisions to 25 per cent., as was done by the previous Labour Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am happy to repeat the categorical pledges given by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that there will be no increase in the standard rate of VAT either before or after the election. We have no need and have no plans to extend the standard rate or to put up other taxes.

    Taxation
    Sir John Hunt: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been relieved of liability to direct taxation as a result of his recent Budget proposals.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): About 380,000, and nearly 4 million will pay tax at only 20 per cent.
    Sir John Hunt: Is not it clear that for those lower-paid people and for those whose basic tax rate has been cut to 20p in the pound, only the threat of a Labour Government stands between them and the better deal that they can expect from a continuing Conservative Government?
    Mr. Lamont: The tax changes in the Budget, as my hon. Friend said, were worth £100 a year to 21 million taxpayers. A key point is that 75 per cent. of the benefit will go to those who receive below average earnings. One would have thought that the Labour party might welcome that. It is absolutely extraordinary that the Labour party is so determined to vote against that, given that it issued a policy document only a few weeks ago in February that said that that was its policy. What is also astonishing is that one would have thought that when the Leader of the Opposition rose to reply to the Budget he might know that that was his party's policy.
    Mr. Beith: What leads the Chancellor of the Exchequer to believe that the prospect of £100 a year or less, which, in some cases, will be offset against family credit—will send everyone running to the shops to spend large amounts of money and bring about a consumer-led recovery? Does not he realise that £2 billion, if invested, could bring about the recovery more quickly?
    Mr. Lamont: The tax cut was never presented and justified in the way that the hon. Gentleman seeks to put it. We believe in low taxes because they are good for incentives. It is good that people should keep money that they earn and right that they should have the choice. That logic should apply to low-paid people as much as to anyone else.
    Mr. Nicholls: What does my right hon. Friend think that the working poor will make of Labour's plans to increase the tax on them? Is not this the message as far as the Labour party is concerned: one is never too poor to pay more tax?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend might observe, however, that it is clear that the Labour party wants to increase taxes on those who earn above average earnings—anyone on more than £20,000—and on the poor and on savings.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Chancellor confirm that the past three Conservative party manifestos contain stern injunctions against borrowing, let alone borrowing billions to bribe millions with their own money? Will he also confirm that he justified that policy by saying:
    "The objective of fiscal policy remains to balance the budget over the medium term"? [Official Report, 10 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 749.]
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in the Red Book, for which he has some responsibility, on page 17 in table 2A.5 the Government confirm that not only will they not balance the public sector borrowing requirement over the cycle but that there is no scope for tax reductions either?
    Mr. Lamont: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman reads table 2A.5 wrongly, perhaps because he does not have a copy in front of him. If he looks at it, he will see a fiscal adjustment of £1 million in the past two years, so what he says is totally wrong. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to lecture us on borrowing. The fact is that the PSBR that we have projected for next year is well below the average for the entire period of the past Labour Government and it is half that which was reached in the peak year, when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) had to go off to the International Monetary Fund and he had a PSBR of 9 per cent. of gross domestic product. I remind the hon. Gentleman that not so long ago the Leader of the

    961
    Opposition used to say that he could not understand why we did not borrow more and that borrowing was not a sin. That used to be his attitude.

    Pensioners' Incomes
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of tax on pensioners' incomes.
    Mr. Maples: About three quarters of pensioners will pay no income tax at all in 1992–93. The rest will gain up to £3·37 a week from the new lower rate and increases in allowances announced in my right hon. Friend's Budget.
    Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will know that many pensioners are very worried by Labour's taxation proposals. Will he quantify the pensioners who will be helped by the reduction in the first rate band to 20 per cent. and tell us how many pensioners in receipt of income support will benefit from the further increases announced last Tuesday?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Among the 4 million people who will have a marginal rate of income tax of 20p in the pound are 1,330,000 pensioners, for whom the Labour party apparently plans to raise taxes from 20p to 25p in the pound. The total number of people helped by the measures in the Budget, through the increases in income support payments for pensioners and the ancillary benefits that go with that, is 5 million.
    Ms. Armstrong: Pensioners continue to have to pay the 17·5 per cent. levied on value added tax last year. What would the Minister say to the constituent who came to my surgery last week, bewildered by the fact that the Government, having raised VAT for the specific purpose of paying for the poll tax bribe last year, are not proposing to reduce it to 15 per cent. as they are not reducing the poll tax again this year? Why are not the Government reducing VAT?
    Mr. Maples: VAT was raised last year for the specific purpose of reducing everyone's community charge by £140. The idea that the Budget does nothing for pensioners is absolutely ludicrous. It reduces the marginal tax rate for 1·33 million and increases benefits for 5 million. While the Conservatives have been in office, the real incomes of pensioners have risen faster than those of people in work. If the hon. Lady does not believe me, perhaps she will believe the director of Help the Aged, who said:
    "It is a positive Budget that will make a positive difference to older people."

    Savings
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures the Government have taken to assist the growth of savings since 1987.
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures the Government have taken to assist the growth of savings since 1979.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We have encouraged private saving by cutting income tax rates, implementing independent taxation, which has allowed married women to use their own tax allowance against their investment
    962
    income, abolishing the composite rate tax which forced non-taxpayers to pay tax on their savings, extending personal equity plans and introducing tax-exempt special savings accounts.
    Mr. Stewart: In my constituency, more than 3,000 miners took early retirement and invested their money in savings schemes. Only this week I received a letter from a miner in Clipstone who wanted to know what would happen to his capital and income if the Labour party's savings tax were ever implemented. Will my hon. Friend tell me, my constituency and the country what a Labour Government would cost us?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend raises a good point. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government being elected, they would impose national insurance contributions on income from savings above £3,000 a year, neatly targeting the group described by my hon. Friend. That would hit almost 250,000 people with gross incomes of less than £10,000 a year. Of course, Labour also proposes to vote against the tax cuts for people on lower incomes and, according to financial analysts, its policies would increase inflation, which would further erode the income that that group of people could expect to get from their savings.
    Mr. David Martin: Will my hon. Friend continue to make it clear that we believe in people keeping more of their money to spend or to save, in stark contrast to the Opposition whose attack on savings and so-called unearned income would prejudice pensioners in particular who, if they have any sense, will vote Conservative on 9 April?
    Mrs. Shephard: The Labour party has always sought to tax savings. Under the last Labour Government someone on the top level of tax and paying investment income surcharge was paying tax at the rate of 98 per cent.
    Mr. Trimble: What does the Minister think the impact will be on savings and interest rates of the 100 per cent. increase in Government borrowing?
    Mrs. Shephard: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the increase in borrowing is almost entirely accounted for by the effects of the recession. There will be no effects.
    Mr. Tony Banks: A lot of people thought that their savings were safe in the houses that they were trying to buy. What does the Minister have to say about savings to the 85,000 people who had their houses repossessed last year?
    Mrs. Shephard: Repossession is extremely sad, and disastrous for the families concerned. With the inflationary policies and disastrous taxation policies likely to be pursued by a Labour Government, if ever one were elected, people would see a disastrous erosion in all their capital assets.

    Treasury Income
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the income to the Treasury since May 1979 from (a) privatisation and (b) North sea oil revenues.
    Mr. Maples: Between 1979–80 and 1991–92, privatisation proceeds are expected to amount to about £42 billion, and North sea oil revenues to £71 billion.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister have the decency to admit that the true answer to my question is that at today's prices the Tories have taken more than £100 billion in North sea oil revenues and more than £50 billion from selling the family silver? Does he seriously think that the British people will be conned by a party that has squandered more than £150 billion of public money and is now hell bent on trying to borrow an additional £28 billion in a desperate but vain attempt to buy success at the general election?
    Mr. Maples: Our attempts to borrow have certainly been nothing like so desperate as those of the Labour Government. Privatisation proceeds and North sea oil revenues have reduced the levels of public sector debt from 50 per cent. of our national income to about 27½ per cent. If they were still at 50 per cent., which was the level that we inherited from the Labour Government, they would be £140 billion higher.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that apart from the capital receipts from privatisation the amount of income given to the Exchequer has been much increased because most of the nationalised industries that have been privatised are now making profits, whereas previously many of them made losses? Consequently, the Exchequer benefits not only from the capital receipts, but from revenue receipts, corporation tax and tax on dividends.
    Mr. Maples: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Privatisation has been an enormous success. Anybody who seriously thinks that British Airways or British Telecom were better run businesses when they were in the public sector must be going round with their eyes shut. What is amazing is that the Opposition still plan to renationalise the water industry and large bits of the electricity industry.
    Dr. Marek: Can the Minister explain how it is that in the 13 years when the Conservatives have received either £71 billion or more than £100 billion in North sea oil revenues and nearly £50 billion from selling the family silver, and when the taxation is higher now—with VAT, a regressive tax, at 17·5 per cent. compared with 8 per cent. in 1979—our trains do not run on time, or at all, more people live in poverty, national health service waiting lists are at their highest levels ever and we are borrowing £28 billion this year, with public debt rapidly increasing? Where has the money gone?
    Mr. Maples: It is interesting that all the examples that the hon. Gentleman picks of bad services are not among businesses that have been privatised. I give him the answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Canavan). One thing that the money has done is to reduce the level of public sector debt from 50 to 27½ per cent. of national income. That is equivalent to £140 billion, which would involve interest of £14 billion or £15 billion per year. That is one of the differences. The Labour party apparently plans to reverse that.
    Sir John Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the next two years the Revenue will expect some £13·5 billion from privatisation proceeds? A Labour Government who do not pursue that privatisation policy will find that the £13·5 billion will have to be raised from an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement.
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend raises an extremely interesting point. Labour has £37 billion of public spending plans to finance and it will not receive £13 billion of privatisation revenues. It will also have the cost of privatising the water industry, although the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that Labour would do that without compensation, so it may not cost Labour anything.

    Taxation
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the overall tax burden for a married man with two children on 75 per cent. of male average earnings in 1978–79; and what it was in 1990–91.
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the overall tax burden for a married man with two children on 100 per cent. of male average earnings in 1978–79; and what it was in 1990–91.
    Mr. Maude: The tax burden is estimated to have moved from 27½ to 28½ per cent. for a man on three quarters of average earnings and from 32 to 33½ per cent. for average earnings. That compares with increases of 32·2 and 35·5 per cent.—about 3 per cent. higher—if Labour's 1978 regime had been indexed. During the same period, real take-home pay for a man on three quarters of average earnings has risen by £45 per week and at average earnings by no less than £60 per week. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to questions in silence because it is difficult to hear at this end of the Chamber.
    Dr. Howells: In 1980, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), abolished the reduced rate band by saying, and I quote—
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not quote. Please paraphrase.
    Dr. Howells: I will paraphrase. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the case for the reduced rate band was never at all clear. Why have the Government suddenly found a clear case for it? Is it not because they hope to use it to bribe the electorate?
    Mr. Maude: It is extraordinarily offensive to people who work hard for their income for the Labour party to talk about that income as though it belonged to the Government and not to those people. It is their money, for which they have worked hard, and the Government believe in leaving more of it—and especially more of the money that the lower paid earn—with them. It is extraordinary that, although this is explicit Labour party policy, the Labour party has decided to vote against the proposal and to increase tax by 5p in the pound for some of the lowest paid in our country.
    Mr. Speaker: Dr. Norman Godman.
    Dr. Godman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all the very best.
    Is it not the case that the overall tax burden has increased? I remind the Financial Secretary that in Scotland, gross domestic product stands at 93·2 per cent.

    965
    of the United Kingdom average, when as recently as 1984 it was 97·4 per cent. Is it not the case, therefore, that, despite the fantastical riches given to the Government by the revenues from offshore oil and gas, for the people of Scotland things have got worse and worse? It is no wonder that the Government are slipping down the political plughole in Scotland: they are down to 18 per cent. in the opinion polls, and they have further to go.
    Mr. Maude: If the tax burden has gone up by so much, and if that is such a bad thing, why does the hon. Gentleman want to increase it further? Does he really want to increase the tax burden on the lowest paid in our society by voting against the Government's measure to reduce the tax for the lowest paid by 5p in the pound?
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the Minister agree that families in the lower income brackets will benefit from the Government's success in maintaining the zero rate for food? Does he further agree that those families and pensioners in particular spend an above average amount of their incomes on zero-rated food?
    Mr. Maude: That is so, and people right across the income spectrum have seen their real take-home pay increase dramatically while we have been in power. As I said, the real take-home pay today of average earners is no less than £60 per week higher than it was in 1979.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is it not a fact that the average family man can rely on us for continuity when it comes to income tax? [Interruption.] We have brought income tax down from 33p to 25p and it is now going down to 20p. Does my hon. Friend agree that whereas we shall continue to reduce income tax, Labour would insist on increasing it?
    Mr. Maude: It is a constant feature of history that Conservative Governments like to bring tax down—[Interruption.] so as to leave more of people's hard-earned money with them, whereas every Labour Government, apart from the first Ramsay MacDonald Government, increased the basic rate of tax. [Interruption.] All history is against the Labour party. I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) back here in April.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of excitement this afternoon. I hope that the House will settle down.
    Mr. Boateng: In relation to family income, what comfort does the Budget bring to the working woman, or the woman who wants to work? It contains nothing on child care or child benefit. Is it not clear that this cynical and incompetent Government put women and children last?
    Mr. Maude: Not only is child benefit going up already, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had done his research, but the lower rate 20p income tax band will particularly help working women. The hon. Gentleman would also know, if he had done his research, that a great many of the groups concerned with children urged us not to go ahead with a move on tax relief for child care.

    Share Ownership
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the number of persons owning shares in the past five years.
    Mr. Mellor: The number of adults in Great Britain owning shares has increased from about 8· million in 1987 to almost 10 million in 1992.
    Sir John Farr: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that transformation to share and home ownership under successive Conservative Governments has put us well on course to becoming a property and share-owning democracy?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes. This major extension in popular capitalism has been one of our greatest achievements.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Did the Chief Secretary note that share and bond prices fell sharply following the presentation of the Budget? Has he also noted that the market is off a further 25 points this morning? Does not that first opinion poll suggest the thumbs down for the Budget?
    Mr. Mellor: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that all that is troubling the stock market is the thought of a Labour Government—a fear which we shall be in a position to put out of their heads quite quickly.

    Taxation
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a further statement about his long-term objectives for income tax.
    Mr. Maples: Our objective is to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 20p in the pound when it is prudent to do so.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is it not clear while the Budget has cut the marginal rate of tax from 25p to 20p for 4 million people on modest incomes, the Labour party would cut their take-home pay and threaten their jobs by its absurd minimum wage proposals?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is right. The Budget will help to reduce the marginal rate of tax immediately to 20p in the pound for those 4 million people. The Labour party may not have seen today's Gallup poll, which says that 71 per cent. of those questioned supported and approved of the 20p band.
    Mr. Chris Smith: While we are on the subject of long-term objectives, will the Economic Secretary confirm that the Red Book shows clearly that the overall tax burden within our economy has risen in the past 13 years and, moreover, is set to rise further in the next four or five years? The Government have not cut the tax burden—they have raised it.
    Mr. Maples: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, why is he about to vote, tonight and tomorrow, to raise the tax burden?

    Demand
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of total demand in the economy.
    Mr. Mellor: Domestic demand fell by 3 per cent. in real terms in 1991. In my right hon. Friend's Budget forecast, it is projected to rise by 1¼ per cent. in 1992 and by 3¾ per cent. in the year to the first half of 1993.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the tax cuts in the Budget will help to restore consumer demand, which is much in need of a boost?
    Mr. Mellor: Indeed, and my hon. Friend will know only too well that since October 1990 the income of the average wage earner has increased by 15 per cent. in real terms as a result of real growth in earnings and the continuing fall in mortgage interest rates. That is the basis for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's forecast that the economy will pick up in line with his Budget statement.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a Cabinet meeting and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister agree that the forthcoming election will be won by the party that can best convince the British people that it can end the recession, reverse the catastrophic decline in investment, and modernise our industry? Does he agree that those issues cannot be debated by sound bites and photo opportunities, but require the party leaders to meet and debate intelligently? As the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are prepared to take part in that debate, is the Prime Minister also prepared to do so—or has he lost the confidence to defend his own economic record?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hypothesis about leading the country out of recession. The Conservative party will lead the country out of recession and will sit on the Government Benches after the general election. As the hon. Gentleman knows, every party politician who expects to lose tries the debate trick, and every politician who expects to win says no.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Which does my right hon. Friend think will do more for low-paid people in Swindon—tax cuts, which will increase their earnings and their incentive to work, or a national minimum wage, which will soon strip them of their jobs?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Labour party now opposes measures to help the low paid and puts forward policies that would force low-paid people and others out of work. It is now official: the Labour party wants to put up taxes not only for those on high incomes, but for those with low incomes, too. It strikes oddly against Labour's proposals for a minimum wage, which was allegedly meant to help the low paid. We
    968
    now know that Labour does not want to help them but wants to force them out of work and increase their tax by one quarter.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has given a pathetic excuse for not engaging in a televised debate. Since he has been Prime Minister, 50,000 companies have gone out of business, 75,000 families have lost their homes and 800,000 people have lost their jobs. Why will he not debate that record? Is it because he is ashamed of it, or because he is afraid of it?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman tries to whip a little fervour into this old chestnut. Bearing in mind how long it takes the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and I would be lucky to get a word in edgeways. We have set in place the foundation for recovery, the Budget builds on them and, after the election, we shall carry through our policies.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ralph Howell.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry—that was entirely my fault.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful Mr. Speaker. This is obviously a day for novelties. Whipped chestnuts are a new one on me, but we heard it from the right hon. Gentleman. As he believes that his only difficulty would be getting a word in, I give him an undertaking that I would give him plenty of time. Why does he not join me and the leader of the Liberals and say to the broadcasting organisations, "We have nothing to fear from the British people. Let's have a debate. Let's fix a date. Let's get on with it"?
    The Prime Minister: We have better than a debate—we have a general election, at which the case can be taken to the people. If I accurately recall my Shakespeare:
    "He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument."
    Appropriately, that quote comes from "Love's Labour's Lost"—and Labour will lose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the public debate.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister reads quotations from Shakespeare. Let me give him one from the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher): he is frit.
    The Prime Minister: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of something else. Throughout this campaign, I shall be holding daily press conferences at which I shall face the national press. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will this year face the national press, unlike his action during the last general election, when he hid from them.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on their excellent, responsible and far-reaching Budget. I am pleased that maximum help has been concentrated on the low paid, low-income pensioners and small businesses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by resisting those changes, the Labour party has proved that it is the party of high taxation of the poor and is unfit to govern?
    The Prime Minister: That is undoubtedly my view today, and it will be the country's view by 9 April. At least

    969
    we now know what the Labour party stands for: tax rises for the rich and tax rises for the poor as well. On Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) seemed to have doubts—until the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) prompted him with the answer that he was proposing to put taxes back up for the poor. The right hon. Gentleman would abolish the 20p tax band, tax savings more heavily, raise national insurance contributions, and raise tax for 25 million people. He has changed his mind on everything, but the public will not change their mind about him: the right hon. Gentleman sits on the Opposition Bench, and there he will stay.
    Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister noted the reactions of the markets to Tuesday's Budget—the worst fall since the Soviet coup? If he will not tell us in a television debate, will he tell us now why the Prime Minister does not know what every business man knows —that to borrow to invest is the route to success, but that to borrow to spend is the road to ruin?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, no party in history has as good a fiscal record as ours has had in office. Nothing in my right hon. Friend's Budget will not bring the budget back to balance.
    Mr. Atkinson: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a letter that I received recently front the managing director of a major retail firm, Beale's, in my constituency, telling me that if a national minimum wage of £3·40 per hour were introduced he would be obliged to consider dismissing about 5 per cent. of his work force —27 of my constituents? Is that not further proof, on top of the disastrous experience of the last two Labour Governments, that the Labour party is no longer the party of the working man?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the Labour party has no solid basis of support anywhere in the country, and there is no doubt about the impact that the minimum wage would have. Everyone in this country knows that, except Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It would cost jobs —the jobs of people on low incomes—just as Labour's increased taxation policies would.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: If the Budget was such a success, why have not interest rates been cut immediately, instead of the Chancellor reserving his right to lower them during the general election when the polls go against him? Is not that ploy as bent as a £28 billion coin?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, interest rates have been reduced by 4½ per cent. in the past 16 months; as and when it is right to do so, we will reduce them further. For the first time in a generation, our interest rates are almost down to German levels because of the successful manner in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has managed our affairs.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents will warmly welcome the remarkable cut in income tax and the resulting increase in money, particularly for the less well-off pensioners? Does he agree that our money increases will go to those who need the help most, while Labour's would be dissipated hypocritically, thinly spread and eliminated by inflation?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. Once the increases announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have been carried through, we shall be spending nearly £700 million a year more than in 1989, over and above inflation, on the less well-off pensioners. Pensioners, too, care about inflation. They know that we are in pursuit of stable prices; Labour would be in pursuit of higher inflation.
    Mr. Clelland: If neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor is responsible for the recession, and if the Secretary of State for Health is not responsible for the deterioration in our health services, the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not responsible for the underfunding of our schools, the Secretary of State for Transport is not responsible for the deplorable state of our public transport, and the Secretary of State for Employment is not responsible for high and rising unemployment, who is running the country?
    The Prime Minister: In almost every area of endeavour in the past few years, there has been an improvement in services, an improvement in prosperity, an improvement in net disposable income, an improvement in educational opportunity and an improvement in the number of people treated in health care. If the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that, where has he been for the past 12 years?
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Dover and Deal who fought alongside America in world war 2 share the view of President Bush that my right hon. Friend provides superb leadership in an uncertain and dangerous world? Will he also accept that my constituents are concerned that, in this general election, campaign, people should be aware that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to pull us out of NATO, to abandon our nuclear deterrent and to destroy—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: If we had followed the advice of the Labour party and the Leader of the Opposition, we would be out of Europe, out of NATO, and out of respect. We would be living in an underprotected, overtaxed socialist backwater on the edge of Europe. The Leader of the Opposition has been wrong on every substantial issue in recent years. Once upon a time he wanted to tax the rich to help the poor—now he proposes to tax the rich and tax the poor.
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: What would it take to get the Prime Minister to revert to the view that he once held about the advantages of a fair voting system—more careful study of countries that have prospered by it, or the prospect of a spell on the Opposition Benches?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows my view on the voting system. The advocates of proportional representation should understand that it leads to weak
    972
    Government and spawns faction and minority parties. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), with his international pretensions, knows the damage that it has caused overseas. For all his high mindedness, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) argues that case for his own partisan party advantage and not for the advantage of the constitution, and he knows that that is the case.

Mr. Speaker (Retirement)
3.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make of a valedictory kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Now that the date for the general election is known, I hope that the House will allow me to end my Speakership by expressing, briefly, a word of appreciation and thanks. It goes, first, to all hon. Members for their consideration and kindness to me, and also for their support. I am well aware that a good Speaker is a Speaker who called you today; a bad Speaker is a Speaker who did not call you today; and a very bad Speaker is one who did not call you yesterday. When I was rechosen as Speaker in 1987, the Leader of the Opposition came to my rescue by saying that, sadly, no hon. Member can be expected to be called on the day that he wants at the time that he wants and on the subject that he wants. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that today. [Interruption.] I think that the public should know about it.
They should also know that it is a sad fact that, given the arithmetic, no hon. Member can fairly expect to be called more than four times a year in a major debate. All I can say is that I have endeavoured to be even-handed and fair. Some hon. Members will know that, if I feel that I have not been entirely just, I have sent them a little note saying, "What about a free kick on the next debate or during Prime Minister's Question Time?", and that happened today.
The Speaker carries a heavy burden and I shall always be in debt to my admirable deputies—the Chairman of Ways and Means, Harold Walker, Sir Paul Dean and Betty Boothroyd—for their loyalty, dedication and friendship. The House should know that Sir Paul Dean has served as Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Speaker for longer than any of his predecessors since the post was created in 1902.
I must also thank my personal staff—Mr. Bill Beaumont, who was my first secretary, and Mr. Peter Kitcatt, who is my secretary now—and all who serve so loyally in the Speaker's House. I thank them all for their support and assistance throughout the nine years that I have been privileged to occupy the Chair.
My thanks go also to the Clerks of the House, especially Sir Charles Gordon for his kindness and advice when I first stepped into the Chair in 1983, to Sir Kenneth Bradshaw and now to Sir Clifford Boulton, who I believe history will record as one of the great Clerks of the House. The Clerks serve not only Mr. Speaker, but every Member of the House. I thank them all for their help to me and to us all.
I am sure that the House would wish me to express also our gratitude to those who serve us here so faithfully. About 4,800 people work in the Palace of Westminster daily. On behalf of the whole House, I send my thanks to them all: to the Serjeant at Arms and his staff, to the police and the custodians, to the Library, to the Vote Office, to Hansard—as I have often said in the House, Hansard makes our speeches seem perhaps even better in print than they sound in the Chamber—to the Finance and Administration Department, to the Fees Office, to the Parliamentary Works Office, and not least to the Refreshment Department, whose members arrive early in the morning to give us breakfast and leave late at night long after we have departed.
974
Finally, I hope that I may be allowed to express my deep gratitude to my wife, Lyn. The House will know that she is the first "Mrs. Speaker" for 20 years. Without her support and assistance in my duties, I could not have carried the burdens of the Speakership, which are not confined to the Chamber. Together we have endeavoured to make the neutral territory of Speaker's House a place where party controversy is put aside and friendship is encouraged. In achieving that, we owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Speaker's Chaplain, the admirable Donald Gray, who in a very real sense has made the Palace of Westminster his parish.
I hope that all of us who are leaving the House at this election will reflect that, however modest our achievements may have been, it has been an immense privilege to be a Member of Parliament. I firmly believe that Mr. Speaker should always be elected for a constituency, as other hon. Members are. In that way, he is kept in day-to-day touch with the people who really matter, those who put us here to represent their interests. I am deeply grateful to my constituents in Croydon, North-East, who have elected me to serve them in Parliament on eight occasions since 1964.
After the general election, others will take our places and we shall soon be forgotten, but I hope that no Government in future will ever forget or resent the fact that, although they may have a right to get their business, if they have a majority, they must submit their policies to a group of elected representatives, many of whom will not agree with them. It is and will be Mr. Speaker's first duty in that process to ensure fair play. It has not always been easy, but it is an historic role on which rests the very foundations of our parliamentary democracy.
So I take my leave. In doing so, I express again my thanks to the whole House and to the staff of the House for nine busy and happy years, years during which I have consistently endeavoured to uphold the dignity of Parliament and the rights and the privileges of Members to represent the interests of their constituents here in the forum of the nation.
3.34 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With the permission of the House, I beg to move.
"That this House tenders its warmest thanks to the right hon. Bruce Bernard Weatherill for the skill and distinction with which he has maintained the traditions of the Speakership through momentous changes in the practices of the House; thanks him for the genial and wise exercise of his authority; records its appreciation of his fairness and tolerance in dealing with all Members; and unites in wishing him a long and happy retirement upon his departure from the Chair and from this House."
For almost the last eight years, Mr. Speaker, every formal speech or intervention which each of us has made in the House has been directed to you. In many of those cases, you have been the innocent medium for a message targeted elsewhere. On this occasion, however, I—and I know others if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye —wish to speak to you directly and personally.
The end of this Parliament is an especially momentous one, marked as it is by the departure of so many distinguished right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is made all the more momentous by the departure of our Speaker.
There is no office within the House more important than yours, Mr. Speaker. It is an august and ancient role. You are, I understand, the 154th Speaker. More than 600

975
years of history loom at your back—at your back, but never on your back. That sense of the past could easily have overwhelmed a lesser man. However, we in the House know that it has not done that to you. It has not prevented you from developing your historic position to respond to the conditions of the present, and you have always done so in your own very individual way.
As no one knows better than you, Mr. Speaker, you have to govern the House in accordance with a host of rules, some laid down in the minutest detail, some apparently set in stone. But so much of the smooth running of the House depends on a wise interpretation of those rules. You have provided, over many years, the necessary wisdom to keep the House on the right path.
You have known when to turn a blind eye and when to be eagle-eyed. You have known when to be stone deaf and when to swoop on a muttered sedentary interjection at 50 yards. You have known when to exercise a short rein and when to use a long lead.
Above all, Mr. Speaker, of vital importance to the House, you have preserved the rights of the individual Member, however new, however junior, and from whatever party. Your impartiality has shown that, despite your long and honourable service in the Whips Office—an institution for which I retain the greatest affection—you have shown that one need not be terminally tainted by that pit of partisans when one leaves it.
When you were first elected, Mr. Speaker, my noble Friend Lord Colnbrook, then the hon. Member for Spelthorne, said of you as Deputy Chief Whip:
"never … did I hear him get angry, lose his temper, or even raise his voice, even though sometimes the provocation was great".— [Official Report, 15 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 3.]
I think that even after eight years, Mr. Speaker, I can say the same: you never got angry, never raised your voice and never lost your temper—well, as W. S. Gilbert might have put it, hardly ever.
It has been your privilege, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps sometimes your penance, to preside over our first televised proceedings. You were the first television Speaker and, as a result, you have become a star—if not of stage, certainly of screen. Your appearance, your voice, are known throughout the world, and in wig and knee breeches you are recognised from Perth to Patagonia, from Teesside to Tuvalu. Most tellingly, not only are you known: you have become respected all over the world as well.
The arrival of television must have added immeasurably to your responsibilities, but you have borne them lightly and with dignity. I believe that your performance has enhanced the reputation of the Mother of Parliaments in scores of countries and among hundreds of millions of people around the globe.
The job of Speaker is a lonely one. You have had to shun the camaraderie of the Tea Room and the Smoking Room in almost monastic fashion, and it must therefore have been all the more important that you had the active support of Lyn, "Mrs. Speaker." Your joint hospitality in Mr. Speaker's Apartments has been a notable feature of your time in residence here, bringing immeasurable pleasure to all of your many guests. May I, Mr. Speaker, through you, tender our thanks to Lyn as well as to yourself?
Closer to home, it is not only we who will miss you, but your constituents in Croydon, North-East, whom you
976
have served loyally since 1964. Despite the pressing demands of your Speakership, I know that your constituents have had no cause to feel neglected.
In future, you will have more time to spend on the good works that you support, on your favourite golf and tennis, and on the hobby that you list in "Who's Who"—playing with your grandchildren. I know how much you must look forward to that. None the less, I suspect that you will be sad as you prepare to lay down the Speakership. We, too, regret your going—but you have made your decision and we must respect it. As you depart, I hope that you know that you do so with our respect, admiration and affection. You, Mr. Speaker, may miss the House; we, Mr. Speaker, shall certainly miss you.
3.45 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Five years ago, Mr. Speaker, I was happy to congratulate you on your re-election to the Chair. Now it is my privilege to second the motion thanking you for your impeccable service to the House, and wishing you a long and happy retirement with your beloved family.
In the past five momentous years, the House and the office of Speaker have seen historic changes, including, as the Prime Minister has said, the welcome decision to televise our proceedings. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, in the most fittingly non-partisan way, worked for that decision yourself. You did so because of your strong commitment to democracy, your faith in the qualities of the House of Commons and your determination that our proceedings should be seen as well as heard.
There were some who warned that television would merely increase the House's ability to make a scene and to act like a herd, but—thanks in large part to your authority and the gracefulness with which you have exercised it—the transition to television has been achieved successfully. Indeed, so successfully has that transition been achieved that the House of Commons has changed neither for the better nor for the worse—that is the greatest accolade that could possibly be offered.
As an added bonus, Mr. Speaker, you have become transatlantically illustrious and a television star whose ratings in the United States, according to one of our newspapers, are better than those of "Dallas". From Croydon, North-East to South Fork is one small step for man, but one great step for mankind.
We all have cause to be grateful for the great qualities that you have brought to the Chair: a necessary sternness, mixed with essential good humour, dignity of presence combined with a complete lack of self-importance, and briskness coupled with sometimes superhuman patience. During the years of your Speakership, I have not had to jostle much in order to catch your eye, so perhaps I can say without fear of being contentious that the House congratulates you on your selection throughout the years of hon. Members to speak.
That selection depends on a computer, which is inanimate and fallible, and on an instinct for fairness, which is humane and, although not completely infallible, like democracy, is the best system we have. Any rare feelings that may exist among hon. Members that, as you yourself have acknowledged, your selection might on occasion have been marginally less than perfect must surely—like some economic forecasts—be blamed on the computer.

977
Like many Members of the House, I have valued your personal friendship and generosity of spirit. We also cherish the resilience of a Speaker who draws public attention as frequently as he can to his conviction that, in your own words,
"behaviour in this House is better than it's ever been in history and we must never perpetuate the dangerous myth that it has got worse".
When the House has such a stout defender, the least we can do is always to ensure that that dangerous myth never becomes an even more dangerous truth.
You have brought unique distinction to your office, Mr. Speaker. In time, there will probably be other Speakers of the House of Commons who are vegetarians; it is likely that there will be other good tennis players and other good golfers; but it is stretching imagination a little too far to think that there will be another Speaker who will combine those characteristics with a capacity for meditation, the ability to speak Urdu fluently and the talent to measure, cut and run up a suit for any poorly clad Member—truly a Jack of many trades and master of all that really matter.
You will shortly take your leave of us. Our sadness at your departure is mitigated only by the knowledge that you will derive huge enjoyment from having more time for yourself and for your interests and particularly from having more time to spend with your grandchildren. The real trouble is that you do not go alone. You take from this place "Mrs. Speaker", your beloved wife Lyn, who has shown such qualities of tolerance and kindness that she has won the affection and admiration of all who have come to know her. You and she are true partners, and this generation of parliamentarians is fortunate indeed to have had the benefit of knowing two such very fine people.
The Prime Minister said that the office of Speaker is a lonely position. I think that that may be less the case in your Speakership because of the relationship that you have with your wife. A previous Speaker, who shall remain utterly anonymous, had been in office but a few weeks when a faithful old friend of his, a long-time journalist in the House, visited him for supper. There were just the two of them. This nameless Speaker, who was teetotal, said to the journalist, "Well, there you are, Ian"—I call him Ian for want of a better name—"there's the cabinet; you know more about these things than I do." Naturally, I am faking his accent completely. Ian said to him, "Is it the case, Mr. Speaker, that, even after these weeks of pressure and loneliness in this place, you still haven't been tempted, as other Speakers may have been, to try a little tipple yourself?" The anonymous Speaker said, "Well, do you know, I've once or twice taken a little drop of whisky with a little hot water and a bit of sugar and, you know—I like it."
We say thank you, Mr. Speaker, to you and your wife. We say thank you to a very distinguished Speaker and a very good man. We wish you many years of active and fulfilling retirement. The whole House will agree with me when I say that you have most certainly earned it.
3.52 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I need add very little to what has already been said by the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). They have said much of what I should have liked to say. Therefore, I can restrain myself and merely say that I wish to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends on this Bench with all that they said.
978
There is, however, one matter to which I believe I ought to draw attention. One of the jobs of the Speaker is to ensure that, between the two great juggernauts that we often believe conspire to dominate matters in this House, the voices of Back Benchers, especially independent Back Benchers, and the other parties in the House, are clearly heard. I know that you have set that as a particular task of your Speakership.
Both my colleagues and I—and, I suspect, many other Back Benchers as well—are grateful to you for your work to ensure that our voice has been heard. We know of some of the battles that have been fought on that matter. Of course we have had our disagreements from time to time: it would be remarkable if we had not. It may be one of the qualities of a good Speaker that he should come under pressure from all sides, but submit to none.
One of the special qualities, commented on by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, that we have all enjoyed under your Speakership is the friendly, family atmosphere that you and "Mrs. Speaker" have created in Mr. Speaker's House. Those of us—it must be a majority if not every hon. Member—who have enjoyed your hospitality remember those occasions with great affection.
My colleagues and I join others in expressing our respect and affection and we extend our warmest wishes to you and "Mrs. Speaker" for your future. You may be assured that you carry with you the gratitude of the House and, I believe, the respect of the nation.
3.56 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: As the Father of the House and one who has sat in this place for 42 years under the eagle eye of seven Speakers, I wish to say a few words on behalf of Back Benchers wherever they may sit. I recall that it was Sir Winston Churchill who once said that parliamentary government was the worst form of government ever devised by mortal man. He then paused, and one can imagine the sly chuckle and the glint in the eye, before saying, "save all the others."
If our system has endured down the centuries and is widely admired around the world, it owes a great deal to the way in which the occupant of the Chair exerts quiet but effective authority. It was Edmund Burke, one of our greatest parliamentarians, who wisely remarked in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France":
"Good order is the foundation of all good things."
I sometimes wonder what a rabble we would be if it had not been for you, Mr. Speaker, and your distinguished predecessors, one of whom, early in my career here, warned me by saying that the hon. Member should not "engender more heat than he can contain." I have tried to observe that wise advice ever since.
I must say how greatly all of us, without exception, have admired your gentle authority, your good nature at all times, your complete lack of stuffiness, your fairness —an important quality in an assembly such as this—and your very special brand of humour which has so often helped to smooth away a prickly situation. Wherever we sit in this place, Mr. Speaker, we are deeply grateful to you and we humbly forgive you for not always calling us when we desired to speak, although that may sometimes be to the advantage of the House.
I am sure that your gracious lady must have been a strong contributor to the special qualities to which I have

979
referred. You have been very fortunate in Lyn. We warmly wish you and your dear lady a fruitful, happy and long retirement.
3.58 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you did not rule the motion moved by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition out of order because it has given me an opportunity briefly and sincerely to express the thanks of all who represent Northern Ireland in this place. I wish to place on record our appreciation of your recent visit to Northern Ireland. That was a landmark for everyone concerned.
I thank you sincerely for all that you have done to see that Northern Ireland Members have their opportunities. I hope that you and "Mrs. Speaker" will return to see us in Northern Ireland very soon.
3.59 pm
Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: There is one important aspect of your Speakership which needs to be placed on record, I hope as a guide for the future. All the holders of your office have been invested, by the tradition of the House and by Standing Orders, with authority. But, up until 1983, for longer than anyone can remember, the election of Mr. Speaker had been largely a fiction. The Speaker had been imposed on the House by the Government of the day.
In 1983, the House brought back to itself the reality of an election, and no edition of "Erskine May" shows that. It is that which has given your Speakership an additional authority. We chose you, you were not imposed on us, and the Back Benchers re-elected you in 1987.
Just as you continued so much of the good work of Speaker Thomas, who brought back to the Chair the reality of decision in so many spheres in which it had fallen away from the Chair into other unelected hands, so you also, on being elected, stated that you would sign each day in your own words, and place with the Votes and Proceedings, any rulings given in private that could be called into precedent. You thereby destroyed the evil system of having private rulings unknown by Back Benchers which could then be trotted out to astonish the House and often to pervert it. In continuing that, you have now established as a rule what could otherwise have been taken as a benign idiosyncrasy of one Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, may I also pay my tribute to your wife, who has brought good taste, energy and good humour to her very original and excellent concept of the duties of a Speaker's wife? You have made a most excellent team and we are all so glad to see you go while still possessing all your faculties.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it was Speaker Brand who created the closure by saying, "I have had enough." [Laughter]. I have very nearly had enough, but I shall call Mrs. Margaret Ewing.
4.1 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the nationalist parties in the House, may I add our own warm wishes and endorse the motion so eloquently propounded by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition.
This Bench has not always been your most peaceable one and from time to time we nationalists have been extremely restless. However, we have been very grateful to you for recognising the specific viewpoint that we have wished to express democratically and for the courtesy with which you have listened to it.
I wish you and "Mrs. Speaker" a very long, happy and healthy retirement. I assure you that there will always be a warm welcome for you in Wales and Scotland. During one of your early visits you may, perhaps, wish to offer us some advice on the running our new Parliaments in those nations.
4.2 pm
Rev. William McCrea: I join the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all hon. Members in expressing, on behalf of my colleagues, our deep appreciation of your kindness and thoughtfulness during your period of Speakership.
When I came to the House in 1983, you took over the office of Speaker, and I can honestly say that I have been treated very fairly by you. I should also like to express to you the deep appreciation of my constituents, bearing in mind that my constituency has suffered as perhaps no other constituency in the United Kingdom has suffered from the violence of terrorism. I should like to thank you for your thoughtfulness in allowing me to express their worries, concerns and fears.
I trust that "Mrs. Speaker" also knows that she has a place of great affection in the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland. Your recent visit to Hillsborough and to the Province was deeply appreciated. I trust that you and "Mrs. Speaker" will have a long retirement and much happiness and that you know that you are always very welcome in the Province.
4.4 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds: As usual, I rise with some diffidence in your presence, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that I have to express my great admiration for the way in which you have conducted your unique office over the past eight or nine years. You and I have had a number of clashes, and I have always been wrong—I absolutely accept that—but all those exchanges have ended in happy and felicitous comments between us, in or out of the Chamber. I have absolutely no complaint about the fact that it has been easier to catch your eye today than it has been on other occasions.
You have been an extraordinarily impartial and fair Speaker—so fair and so impartial that I have never been able to discover over these last nine years whether you admire me and approve of me—as I am sure that you should—or whether you think that I am a total berk.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. David Winnick: Don't take a vote on that.
Mr. Faulds: I do not want a vote taken on that.

981
Speakers come in all qualities. You have sat under some of lesser quality, and we have sat under one or two whom I could name, but who shall remain anonymous—I cannot do accents very well anyway—and who were less than admirable. You have been a remarkably fair, friendly and —if I may use such an improper expression—lovable Speaker. I want to thank you immensely, and I wish you and your wife and you and your thimble a very happy future. May I finish as we usually do when exchanging our greetings by putting my hand on my heart, Sir, and wishing you very well.
4.6 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: It is a mark of your distinction, Mr. Speaker, that there is still one thing left to mention which has not yet been said, and that is the way in which you launched the magnificent appeal for the moneys that were successfully raised to completely refurbish St. Margaret's, the House of Commons church, which now sits as a jewel in Parliament square. It is appreciated by people inside and outside the House, and it is a living memorial.
4.7 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: As one who, from time to time, has given you no end of bother, Mr. Speaker—and I have to say in all honesty that there have been times when I have not been too pleased with you, either—may I join in these tributes to you on your retirement?
I do not know what on earth I shall do for exercise after you and I have left the House, because the number of times I have stood up and down without being called in the past nine years is beyond counting. Every time you leave me to the last, I am reminded of the great story of the Scottish islands Member who was always being called last. He goes home to his constituency for the summer recess and decides to visit one of his island communities, travelling by one of our famous coastal puffers. As the vessel approaches the harbour, it is held up just outside. The harbourmaster shouts to the skipper, "What's your cargo?" The skipper shouts back, "Manure, two dozen sheep and the local MP." The hon. Member says, "Called last again."
You have not called me last this time, Mr. Speaker, but you have called me for the last time. May I leave the House and yourself with another story? I am making a confession about my retirement, because yesterday I went down to the hairdresser—as you can see—to get my hair cut. He asked me what size of majority I had and I said, "Oh, 14,500." "You'll be all right, sir," he said. I said, "No trouble, no trouble." I was damned if I was going to tell him that I was retiring, because he would have expected a big tip instead of the usual 10p.
So, Mr. Speaker, you go with all my good wishes to yourself, your good lady and all your immediate family.
4.10 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: Throughout the House a large number of hon. Members have one thing in common: 85 per cent. of Members on both sides of the House belong to the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Over the years when we have had delegations to this country from all parts of the world, we have invariably asked you, Mr. Speaker, if you would be kind enough to
982
meet them to speak to them, to entertain them in Mr. Speaker's House or, on their last night here, to give them a grand dinner at your table. You have never failed to assist us in that way.
I know that I speak for all IPU members, past and present, when I say that you have enabled us to give to our visitors from abroad a memory that they will never forget. We will never forget the way that you have helped us to do that. Thank you.
4.11 pm
Sir Robert Rhodes James: If I may, I shall speak for a moment as a former Clerk in the House of Commons. I have been asked by my former colleagues and members of the staff of the House of Commons to express on the Floor of the House their deep appreciation to you, Sir, and to "Mrs. Speaker" for the kindness, care and consideration that you have given to them. It is not a tremendous secret that there have been Speakers who have not commanded the complete respect of those who worked for them. I can say, Sir, that you have commanded their complete respect.
I know that we are a dwindling breed, but I should like to add a word about the Burma Star Association and the forgotten Army. There are not many of us left, and I hope that we are not completely forgotten, although probably we are. It is an important part of my life, my father's life, my brother's life and, I know, of your life, Sir. You have been a wonderful Speaker. All of us who have been your servants and have served under you admire you and thank you.
4.12 pm
Mr. Colin Shepherd: I have previously had occasion to express the appreciation of the executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the help, leadership and inspiration that you, Mr. Speaker, have given to the CPA United Kingdom branch in this House. The vast proportion of the membership of this House has participated to some extent in CPA affairs as it has in the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Your generosity in this respect, in terms of both helping us to go abroad and receiving incoming Commonwealth parliamentarians, is a source of enormous gratitude from us all.
The leadership that you, Mr. Speaker, have given to the presiding officers across the Commonwealth is also enormously appreciated. The 41st parliamentary seminar is now taking place in the Palace of Westminster—the eighth in which you have participated as Mr. Speaker. You also participated in earlier seminars in earlier incarnations. We are all enormously grateful for your contribution and wish you well.
Mr. Speaker: It is now my duty to put the motion moved by the Prime Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That this House tenders its warmest thanks to the right honourable Bruce Bernard Weatherill for the skill and distinction with which he has maintained the traditions of the Speakership through momentous changes in the practices of this House; thanks him for the genial and wise exercise of his authority; records its appreciation of his fairness and tolerance in dealing with all Members; and unites in wishing him a long and happy retirement upon his departure from the Chair and from this House".

Business of the House
4.13 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the rearranged business for Friday 13 March and Monday 16 March.
FRIDAY 13 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill.
Timetable motion on the Finance Bill and the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.
Proceedings on the Finance Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.
Supplemental timetable motion and consideration of Lords amendments to the Education (Schools) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Army Bill.
At the end of business the Question will be put on all outstanding estimates.
The House may also be asked to consider any other Government business and any Lords messages that may be received.
MONDAY 16 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Friendly Societies Bill.
Proceedings on the Charities Bill [Lords].
The House may be asked to consider any Lords amendments that may be received to the Transport and Works Bill and the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill.
The House may also be asked to consider any other Government business and any Lords messages that may be received.
Warm and thoroughly deserved tributes have just been paid to Mr. Speaker. Although he has now left the Chamber, I put on record as Leader of the House how much I support and endorse those tributes and how much I wish to thank Mr. Speaker and Lyn, his wife, for their many kindnesses to me. I wish them a very happy and long retirement.
Dr. John Cunningham: I begin by associating myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House. The greatest tribute that can be paid to the Speaker is that throughout his time he has enhanced the reputation of the Chair. That, above all else, has been the best guarantee of the proper and orderly conduct of our business in the House.
How typical it is that the Government should conclude this Parliament by introducting three guillotines on the penultimate day of our consideration of business, and how appropriate it is that one of the guillotines applies to the Finance Bill—a reckless economic misjudgment and a huge political misjudgment.
Can the Leader of the House assure us that another Bill that is subject to the guillotine tomorrow, the Education (Schools) Bill, will be made available in the Vote Office today? That Bill, as amended in the House of Lords, which is to be debated and guillotined tomorrow, is not yet available in the Vote Office. That seems an appalling way to conduct the affairs of the House. Opposition Members and, I suspect, even some Conservative Members would like the opportunity to consider the Bill in its latest form
984
and to table amendments before it comes before us for debate. Will the Leader of the House assure us that that will take place?
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the centenary version of the Conservative publication, "The Campaign Guide 1992"? I am not sure whether it has yet been published. May we be assured that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, speaks on the Finance Bill tomorrow he will draw the attention of his right hon. and hon. Friends and of the House generally to page 10 of the section of "The Campaign Guide 1992" on the economy? Will he point out to the House that in the campaign guide the Government say:
"The Government expects the PSBR in 1991–92 to turn out at about £10.5 billion"?
Does this not make the Conservative campaign guide somewhat out of date?
Will the Leader of the House also draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the sentence in the same section which says:
"The result was an accumulation of debt, with interest charges being met by taxpayers of later generations"?
During tomorrow's debate, may we have an explanation of that inclusion in the Tory campaign guide?
Mr. MacGregor: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has it all wrong. If he thinks that we could end this Parliament without a Finance Bill, he must face the fact that the House would be moving into a general election without allowing excise duties and revenue from income taxes to be raised for the forthcoming year. Given the high-spending programmes that the Labour party is putting before the country, that would be highly irresponsible and would mean an enormous borrowing requirement. That is one reason for the business tomorrow.
The other reasons, first in relation to the Finance Bill, are that we are keen to see tax levels reduced for the lower paid rather than imposing additional burdens on them with unemployment such as a national minimum wage would involve. We note that it is likely that the Opposition will vote against that reduction in tax.
We are keen, as are all the higher education institutions in Scotland, to see the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill on the statute book. We are keen to see the extension of parental choice, with information being given to parents, which will come through the Education (Schools) Bill. We shall arrange for copies of that Bill to be available in the Vote Office—depending on whether any changes are made in the other place—as soon as is practicable.
There will be plenty of time tomorrow and on succeeding occasions to debate the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about the borrowing requirement. I look forward to doing that with him tomorrow morning. We are ending this Session in excellent order, completing the vast majority of an extremely good Government business programme, and I hope that by the end of Monday we shall have got most of our Bills on the statute book.
Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on managing to pack in so much legislation. May I be assured that the Charities Bill, which shows the Government's concern for the millions of people in the United Kingdom and overseas who are served by Britain's

985
extensive network of non-governmental organisations, will continue to be a top priority for the succeeding Conservative Government?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I assure her that charities issues will continue to be a top priority for the succeeding Conservative Government, just as we have devoted a great deal of time and attention to charities matters in this Parliament. I hope that it will not be necessary to deal with the Charities Bill in the next Parliament, because it is very much my intention to get it on Monday.
Mr. James Wallace: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for including the Charities Bill in the legislation that he hopes to get through quickly, and he is aware of the representations that I and others have made on that matter. It is noteworthy that the Asylum Bill does not feature in any of the proposed legislation; that, too, is welcome.
At Question Time, the Prime Minister said that the appropriate forum for a debate between himself, the leader of the Labour party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was the House of Commons. One wonders when and where that debate could take place, bearing in mind the business that the Leader of the House announced. In the absence of any reference to such a debate, might we use the mock-up Granada studios?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has participated in many debates in the House and has won all of them hands down. The hon. Gentleman made representations to me yesterday about the Charities Bill, and I hope that we shall complete all its stages on Monday. We believe that the Asylum Bill is right as it stands, and if the Labour and other parties would accept the measure unamended, it would reach the statute book. We—and, I believe, the country—would regard that as desirable.
Mr. David Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of the change of business on Monday I shall not be able to move my ten-minute Bill to grant city status to Basildon? My constituents and probably the country will be deeply disappointed about that. I had intended to talk about the marvellous achievements of Basildon, about our plans to build a cathedral and possibly the appointment of a Bishop of Basildon. In the light of that missed opportunity, I hope that my right hon. Friend will pass the message to the appropriate authorities that Basildon deserves to be made a city.
Mr. MacGregor: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was going to spend 10 minutes telling us about Basildon. I am well aware that Basildon is the oldest and largest new town in the country and I am sure that the appropriate authorities will have heard what my hon. Friend said. I assure him that we all look forward to his having another opportunity in the next Parliament to present his ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that, in view of the extra hours that he proposes for Friday's business, it makes him seem somewhat foolish, given that he is the architect of the proposal to diminish Parliament's hours? That is in direct contravention of his proposals for tomorrow—
986
[Interruption.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman was the architect of the Select Committee report to curtail sittings of the House, yet he wants longer hours on Friday.
As we shall have extra time on Monday, could we have a debate on the homelessness crisis created by the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to announce, even at the last ditch, the release of some revenue from the sale of council houses so that local authorities such as Bradford, where thousands of people are on the housing waiting list, can gain some hope of having houses built again by local authorities at rents which they can afford? If the right hon. Gentleman will not announce that, it will be one of the first priorities of the new Labour Government after 9 April.
Mr. MacGregor: The reason why I looked slightly surprised at the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks was that I was not Chairman of the Committee which made the proposals; I simply set up the Committee. It will be for the new Parliament to decide how to proceed with the recommendations made by the Committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I stress yet again that those recommendations do not involve a cut in the amount of work that Members of Parliament will do, but reflect the desire that we all share to reduce the sitting hours of Parliament so as to enable hon. Members to attend to their constituency interests on Fridays more than they have been able to do in the past and, at the same time, to cope with the large amount of business.
Mr. Cryer: What about tomorrow's business?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that tomorrow is slightly exceptional.
On the hon. Gentleman's point on homelessness, he will know that local authorities can spend a proportion of their receipts from the sale of council houses and other assets each year and that we have a £2 billion housing programme currently being taken through via the housing associations, which is an appropriate way to deal with the matter.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to confirm that there will be a vote on the Asylum Bill and therefore a chance for it to be legislated in this Parliament? Many of my constituents, although flattered, are deeply concerned that hundreds of thousands of foreigners with no proper right in this country now seek to come here. If the Bill is passed before the election, or even if it is not, my constituents will want to know about and discuss the issue, and they should know that the Labour party does not share their concern.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I cannot give the assurance that he seeks. Although the Government believe that the Bill is right as it stands, it depends whether other parties in another place will be willing to let the Bill go through. If not, we shall have to consider the position, but we have made it clear throughout that we regard the Bill as a priority in this Parliament.
Mr. Greville Janner: How long will the House have on Monday to debate the Consolidated Fund Bill? The Leader of the House will understand that hon. Members will wish to raise many matters in the

987
debate. I should like to discuss the 14 per cent. increase in crime in Leicestershire in the past recorded year, matched by an increase in the police force of only just over 6 per cent. in 13 years. The chief constable says that, in the midst of that misery and the soaring increase, he will have to cut his budget for the year by £1 million. Surely matters of immediate concern to our constituents should be raised in the House, and I hope that the Consolidated Fund Bill will provide an opportunity to do so.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. and learned Gentleman should know, proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday will be formal.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that we have a heavy day's debate ahead. I hope that hon. Members will put relevant and succinct questions.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the devastating news that certain former Maxwell pensioners, including constituents of mine, will no longer be paid by the Mirror Group, and the excellent recommendations of the recent Select Committee report, can we not squeeze in just a little time to debate that report, not least the fact that the report omitted to investigate the huge pay-offs—£200,000 in one case—to senior Labour party members? Should not those people, in all conscience, pay the money back? Is there not a sleaze factor to be looked into before the general election campaign starts properly?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents, but I am afraid that, given the need to complete the Government's legislative programme, it will not be possible to have a debate on that matter in the next two days.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House and explain, for the benefit of a lady from the constituency that I have the honour to represent, why it is that, left to bring up two children on her own, going out to work to make things a little better and thus earning £17·48 per week, she has £2·48 taken straight back off her by the Government, with no allowance for the further £3 that she has to spend on bus fares? In effect, therefore, she is taxed at 33 per cent. What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget do for that lady—apart from nothing?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are currently debating the Budget.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the £240 million road programme recently announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is threatened by the Labour party's proposal to declare a moratorium on all road building and its refusal to endorse either the upgrading of the A1 or the A1-M1 link road.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. How can that possibly relate to the statement?
Mr. Batiste: I was about to ask the relevant question, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend confirm
988
that there will be an opportunity during debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill to raise those important issues so that the differences between the two parties can be made clear during the forthcoming election campaign?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand why my hon. Friend puts that matter forward for debate, and I am sure that he will make that distinction clear during the forthcoming election campaign. I regret that it will not be possible for him to do so on Monday morning on the Consolidated Fund Bill, but he has made the point now, and I am sure that he will find other opportunities to do so.
Mr. Harry Barnes: While I know that this Parliament is dying, it is to remain in existence for another two days, and during that time we should try to ensure that democracy is not dying. Therefore, before Parliament dissolves, will the registration figures for the election in England and Wales finally be published so that hon. Members can see them? They are available in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the total figure for England and Wales, and the figures for individual constituencies, are not available. We should know those statistics in case we wish to use the procedures of the House to comment on them. I ask the Leader of the House not to give the standard answer, given to me week by week, as my question has nothing to do with my constituency, where the figures are healthy and there has been an increase in the electorate since the last general election. The question relates to the general pattern in England and Wales.
Mr. MacGregor: I note how sensitive the hon. Gentleman is getting about his own position in his constituency. On his general question, as I have repeatedly told him, the electoral figures for as many parliamentary constituencies as are available will shortly be published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
Mr. Keith Raffan: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Secretary of State for Wales told the Welsh Grand Committee on 12 February that he would seek a meeting of the Committee before the general election on the subject of the structure of government in Wales. Why has that debate not been held, particularly as devolution is such an important election issue and the Scots have already had two debates on the issue?
Mr. MacGregor: I know the importance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attaches to that matter, and I hope that it will be possible to debate it widely and publicly during the election campaign. However, we simply did not have enough time to fit in that debate before the election was called.
Mr. Max Madden: I thank the Leader of the House for dumping the Asylum Bill in the parliamentary waste bin, which is where it has always belonged. All those who believe that political asylum should be dealt with on the basis of natural justice will rejoice at that. I repeat the question that I put to the right hon. Gentleman last Thursday: will he give an assurance that the extradition treaty between Britain and India, and the bilateral agreement between Britain and India on the confiscation of terrorist funds, will not be laid before the House before the Dissolution of Parliament?
Mr. MacGregor: Political asylum will be dealt with on the basis of natural justice, to use the hon. Gentleman's

989
words, in the Bill. I still very much hope that it will go through. I believe that it gets the balance absolutely right; it deals with the large number of additional economic migrants who are coming here, enabling them to be dealt with speedily, and I believe that it is much wanted by large numbers of people in the country.
I have just written to the hon. Gentleman about his second point. What he refers to will not happen in the course of the next two days.
Mr. Harry Greenway: While I do not challenge the right of genuine political asylum seekers to come here, may I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about dropping this important measure? There is enormous pressure in my constituency on public housing and much of the demand is not considered genuine by my constituents—indeed, it is probably not genuine. Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 200 units of housing have been given up to asylum seekers in the past year or two, and that the same is true of other constituencies around Heathrow, where we are under enormous pressure? The Bill is urgently wanted.
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree, although it is not I who should think again—I want the Bill on the statute book—but the Opposition parties who are opposing it.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I do not recall seeing you in the Chair selecting people to ask questions at business question time in the past 11 years.
The rising of the House next week means that my Bill —the Criminal Activity (Proscribed Equipment) Bill—to restrict the supply of scanner equipment which can interfere with police telecommunications, introduce a licensing system for such equipment, and restrict the sale of skeleton keys which can he used to pick the locks of motor vehicles, will not have enough time. Would the Government have supported that important little bit of legislation?
Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that I am not familiar with that Bill, so I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As about 3,000 secondary school children and several hundred teachers in Southend-on-Sea will be in a state of total uncertainty about whether their schools will be allowed to continue, depending on the result of the election, would it be possible to hold a small debate on Monday to seek all-party agreement to allow certain issues such as school organisation to be left to the people in communities to decide? That would be much better than a great upset for children and teachers every time there is an election. Bearing in mind that 3,000 real kids, including two of mine, depend for their education on the result of the election, would it not be great if we could leave decisions of this kind to local communities so that education is not disrupted by election results?
Mr. MacGregor: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is referring to grant-maintained schools—
Sir Teddy Taylor: No— four grammar schools.
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will know, the kind of choice that we are endeavouring to extend in many ways to children and parents would be jeopardised only by the policies of the Labour party. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the right way to ensure the choice which he and I would both like to achieve is to make sure that we win a resounding victory at the election.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the leaders of the parties to address the House in the next two days on the conduct of the coming general election? A month after the last one, I received a written apology from the then leader of the Liberal party for the lies that his party had published about me in a document called "101 Damnations". Could we have the apologies first this time, so that the leader of the Conservative party can apologise to me for the lies printed in the publication, "Who's Left?"? Would it not be a better idea if the Conservative party entirely withdrew this wildly inaccurate and fatuous piece of muck-raking?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand that that document simply refers to the past and present support exhibited by Opposition Members for motions and policies.
Mr. Graham Riddick: In which debate next week or tomorrow shall I be able to draw attention to the advertisement placed in a national newspaper this morning by the National and Local Government Officers Association, which is paying for part of Labour's election campaign in the expectation that if by some mischance a Labour Government were elected they would pay the bill for NALGO's future demands?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure when my hon. Friend can raise that in the debates in the next two days, but I am sure that he will make the point strongly outside the House.
Mr. Tony Banks: I was quite relieved to find my name in that Conservative booklet. If I had not been in there, it would have quite destroyed my street credibility.
Can the Leader of the House give any estimate of how long the House is likely to sit tomorrow? I ask that not because I want to do a runner from the place, but because I do my advice surgery in Stratford on a Friday evening and if we shall be sitting past half past five I need to know until what time he thinks that we shall do so. Perhaps he and I could escape during the vote so that he can come to my advice surgery and meet some of the many people who have suffered so badly under Conservative policies over the past 13 years.
Mr. MacGregor: I would love it if the hon. Gentleman came to some of my advice surgeries to make known to my constituents some of the left-wing policies to which he has attached his name in that document.
I cannot give a firm time for the end of the debate because it will depend on the number of Divisions and how long each of the debates takes. The hon. Gentleman will have to keep in touch with progress as we work through the day.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—

(1) At this day's sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion moved by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to Ways and Means —Amendment of the law not later than Ten o'clock.

(2) At the sitting on Friday 13th March—

(a) notwithstanding the provisions of the Order [6th November] relating to Business of the House, Government business shall have precedence, and may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour;

(b) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.), Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion in the name of Mr. Francis Maude relating to Estimates; and

(c) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions), no petition shall be read.

(3) At the sitting on Monday 16th March—

(a) this House do meet at half-past Nine o'clock;

(b) the time for private business shall end not later than a quarter to Ten o'clock;

(c) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 17 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members;

(d) Standing Order No. 19A (Motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business (Budget day)) shall not apply;

(e) Government business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour; and

(f) Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House before a Message is received from the Lords Commissioners. —[Mr. MacGregor.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether you can do anything, but the Standing Orders require that parliamentary questions should be answered. I tabled a question on the export of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons by the United Kingdom in 1991. The answer was that the information was confidential, but the information was provided for 1990, after I had received a corrected reply from the Minister denying that the information given originally was confidential and saying that 40,000 tonnes had been exported. This obviously destroys the credibility of the Government's alleged concern for the ozone layer. Even at this late stage, given what is obviously a ploy by the Government to get away from their responsibility to give proper and correct answers, could the Standing Orders be brought into operation so that they are made to provide the answer?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Chair has no responsibility for the content of ministerial replies, but doubtless what has been said will have been heard by the Government Front Bench.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 March],

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  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;

  (a) 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.]

  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  [Relevant document: European Community Document No. 10212/91 and COR2, the Commission's Annual Economic Report 1991–92.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  4.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I begin by welcoming the fact that the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are to speak for the Opposition in today's debate. We had originally understood that the lead speaker for the Opposition was to be the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Secretary of State for Health. Fresh from his triumph over David Frost on Sunday morning, the hon. Gentleman, who is a noted horseman, was no doubt anxious to speak today on the time-honoured principle that, if one has had a nasty fall, one must get back in the saddle as quickly as possible.
  But the hon. Gentleman has been unceremoniously booted aside. The fact is that 48 hours have now passed since the dismal performance of the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday. As the awfulness of that performance has sunk in, Labour's business managers have realised that since the shadow Chancellor spoke yesterday, they have got to give equal time to their other two leadership candidates—the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East and for Sedgefield.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will, no doubt, put his usual doom-laden gloom on the Budget, on this morning's retail sales figures, encouraging as they are, and on any other piece of good news that he can get his hands on. The hon. Gentleman is a happiness hoover, the gloom-monger in chief. When the story is grim, and the policies are dim, one knows that "It's got to be Gordon."
  Four weeks today our nation will go to the polls. The people will be deciding on the future course of our country and they will entrust their support to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government whom he leads. They will choose a Government who believe in free

  993
  enterprise as a matter of conviction, not electoral convenience. They will endorse an approach which involves leaving people with more of their own money, not less. They will back a leader who has steered the country with great skill through 16 difficult months and who has a clear vision of the future that he wants to build.
  Tuesday's Budget has set us on course for election victory. It is a Budget that will increase incentives, encourage enterprise and help employment to grow. It is a Budget for industry, a Budget for enterprise and a Budget for jobs. It will help to accelerate the end of the recession and advance the progress of steady and sustained recovery.
  The framework for recovery is already in place. We have: low taxes, the lowest of any of the G7 countries; low inflation, lower than the EC average; and lower interest rates, four and a half points lower than we had 18 months ago. We have created the conditions in which enterprise can thrive and jobs can be created— as they were during most of the 1980s. Today, there are still more than 2 million more people at work than there were in 1983; we have a greater proportion of our work force at work than any other EC country apart from Denmark; and there are more women at work than in any other European Community country.
  The Budget will reinforce the conditions that have made these achievements possible. Its measures to assist small firms are particularly significant. My right hon. Friend's proposals will encourage the creation of more small firms, and enable existing ones to grow.
  The Government will help those who have to pay higher rates because of the revaluation of business properties and accelerate the benefits of those who gain from these changes. We shall take action to speed up the payment of bills. We shall relieve business of the worst effects of inheritance tax. Those measures have been warmly welcomed.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer a question to which I am having great difficulty getting an answer? I was looking at the Red Book yesterday and I noticed that the public sector borrowing requirement—the high level of borrowing that we have this year, which will increase next year—goes on right through till the year 1995–96. That suggests that the Government intend to borrow substantially—about £110 billion—over the next six years. However, we are repeatedly told that this borrowing is being undertaken to take us through the cycle and carry us over the recession. Are the Government saying that the recession will last until the mid-1990s? Is that what they are planning for by ensuring that the PSBR is maintained at that level until almost the end of the century?
  Mr. Howard: The Government are not saying anything of the kind, but I can understand that the hon. Gentleman, who has come to these notions of fiscal prudence somewhat late in life, finds it difficult to grasp the essentials. It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman, who belongs to a party that has consistently espoused high borrowing throughout the time that he has supported it, should fail to grasp those points.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to recall that, for the past seven
  994
  years, I have been a member of the Committees examining the Finance Bills. Every year, I involved myself in debates on public expenditure matters and on the PSBR.
  Mr. Howard: And after all those wasted hours, the hon. Gentleman still does not understand the basic principles that govern these matters. As I was saying—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even on the eve of an election, we do not conduct our affairs by bellowing across the Floor of the House. Labour Members will have adequate opportunities to put arguments in rebuttal.
  Mr. Howard: These measures have been warmly welcomed. I understand that the Labour party is reluctant to listen to these words of welcome, but it will have to.
  The Union of Independent Companies has said:
  "The greatest thing in the Budget is the encouragement to the owners of independent businesses that they can keep their companies intact".
  The Forum of Private Business has said:
  "The Chancellor has tackled some of the most important obstacles facing small business."
  The National Farmers Union has said:
  "This is a substantial help for the farming industry and something we will welcome".
  The chief executive of the Forum of Private Business put his finger on it when he said:
  "Many businessmen and women are motivated because they are working to leave something for their family".
  We recognise that fact. We welcome their enterprise; we want to encourage their endeavours. What a contrast with the Labour party. While we want to reduce taxes on income and inheritance, it wants to increase them both. It intends to introduce proposals
  "to secure the effective taxation of wealth".
  Labour says:
  "The key to the most effective action is to tax wealth when it is transferred through gift or inheritance."
  Labour will not own up to the form that tax would take or come clean on the levels at which it would bite. But one thing is clear: instead of encouraging the owners of independent businesses, Labour would clobber them; instead of removing the obstacles facing small firms., Labour would increase them; and instead of motivating people who want to leave something to their family. Labour would punish them. That is the attitude of the Labour party to inheritance and transfer.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: How would the Secretary of State explain to those running small businesses that he was the Minister who introduced the uniform business rate?
  Mr. Howard: Small business people recognise that the uniform business rate offers them a guarantee of keeping increases, once revaluation has come into effect, to no more than the rate of inflation. The hon. Gentleman should have chosen his ground much more carefully before intervening.
  We listened with great interest to the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke after the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the measures which my right hon. Friend proposed to take to limit increases in the UBR, which he had provided for in his Budget. It would be impossible for the Labour party to do anything of the sort. It wants to let these things rip. It wants to put them in the hands of local authorities, with no

  995
  control, no capping and no restrictions of any sort. The Leader of the Opposition was welcoming a measure that was proposed in the Budget that he would not have the power to put into effect because of the policies that he is putting before the British people. That is the truth of the matter.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman wants to get up after that, I shall happily give way again.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State seems to have forgotten his role in introducing the UBR. When he introduced the measure, he said that it would be in the interests of British industry, especially small businesses. He said also that the system would work in a way that would cause no injustices and no anomalies. Why is it that, within two years of the introduction of the UBR, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had to announce that changes will be made to it and has set out the measures that the Government would take? Does this not show that the Government failed in the first place, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was responsible for that and that a great burden has been imposed on small businesses?
  Mr. Howard: I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He represents a Leeds constituency, and businesses in Leeds have benefited from the introduction of the UBR. The measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will let them have the benefits even earlier than would otherwise be the case. The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.
  No one should be surprised by the sheer ignorance that the Labour party brings to its consideration of these matters. The truth of the matter is that the Labour party still does not have the faintest idea how a free enterprise economy works. It remains a party in thrall to economic illiteracy. I make this offer to the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, sadly, it not with us at the moment—the shadow Secretary of State for Employment and the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. After the election—when we have won—I shall personally see to it that they are offered training places on a programme that will teach them the basic principles of free enterprise. But I cannot promise them the prawns. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has banned them. After the election there will be no more prawns for the right hon. Gentlemen and their friends.
  The most economically illiterate policy of the lot is the proposed introduction of a national statutory minimum wage. Every independent expert who has looked at Labour's proposals has come to the conclusion that it would destroy jobs. James Capel concluded that a minimum wage would result in
  "higher inflation, which deteriorates competitiveness and profitability and ultimately results in an increase in unemployment".
  Goldman Sachs has said that a minimum wage
  "can be expected to raise both inflation and unemployment".
  It added that Labour's policy "is unambiguously bad news". The Reward Group has reported:
  "a national minimum wage would create havoc in some regions. The West Midlands' industrial base would be
  996
  desperately hard hit by the increased costs … it is likely to create further job losses in the areas with the highest unemployment rates".
  Every expert is agreed that the introduction of a minimum wage would result in an increase in unemployment. It is a question not of whether jobs would be lost but of how many. Under stage 1 of Labour's proposals, Nomura Securities estimates that 145,000 jobs would go; UBS Phillips and Drew predicts that 400,000 would go; and the university of Liverpool forecasts the loss of 500,000 jobs.
  But that is not the limit of Labour's ambitions. Labour is committed not only to introducing a minimum wage but to increasing it. Stage 2 of Labour's policy would result in even higher increases in unemployment. UBS Phillips and Drew believes that 1·25 million jobs would be lost. The university of Liverpool has put the figure at 1·4 million. Economists in my Department have calculated that 200,000 jobs would be destroyed even without any restoration of differentials. If differentials were restored in full, up to 2 million jobs would be in jeopardy.
  The extent to which differentials would be restored is crucial in determining the cost and employment implications of the Labour party's policy. Only last week the CBI estimated that, excluding any attempt to restore differentials, the Labour party's proposals would add £2·5 billion to the annual costs of employers and destroy 150,000 jobs. If full differentials were restored, the extra costs would soar to £50 billion a year.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figures from the university of Liverpool are from Sir Patrick Minford, a notorious right-wing extremist? Will he confirm also that all the people making these predictions are on rather more than the basic minimum wage? Does he not think that it is particularly distasteful that well-paid Cabinet Ministers and well-paid Tory Members, who are busy lining their pockets with parliamentary adviserships and directorships by the score, will vote against the poorest of the poor?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Labour party's proposals will not help the poor, as I shall demonstrate. It is a rum approach to economic forecasting—the new approach that the Labour party urges upon us. It is that we should accept forecasts only from those who earn less than the minimum national wage. It is extraordinary. We have an interesting proposition from the hon. Gentleman and it deserves very careful consideration.
  I have cited the estimates of the City experts of the consequences of Labour's policy. It may be that the shadow Secretary of State for Employment sees himself as essentially a provincial figure, a man of the people, keeping his distance from the City circuit, distrustful perhaps of its estimates in these matters. If so, let me help him. Some of the employers in his own constituency have been making their views known on the subject of the minimum wage. The managing director of Filmco Euroform, for example, says that there would be a problem with differentials. The proprietor of the aptly named Walworth Castle hotel is quoted as saying:
  "Labour's plan would be nothing short of disastrous. It would be ridiculous to believe we would be able to maintain our staffing levels if the minimum wage was introduced. We would be talking about redundancies and lay-offs".

  997
  So there you have it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Every independent expert proclaims that it would cause job losses. Employers in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency spell out the consequences.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on the east end of London trade union convenor who told me only two weeks ago that this time around he would vote Conservative because the Labour party's spending policies would not soak the rich but would take money from the pockets of people such as him and his union's members?
  Mr. Howard: I am not in the least surprised by what my hon. Friend says. The trade union leader to whom she spoke is not alone in his view. There will be many more like him who see the evils of the Opposition's policies.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State knows that I share his opposition to the statutory minimum wage and think that it would result in unemployment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given the likely unemployment figures that would result from a national mimimum wage. Will he estimate whether unemployment will rise or fall and by how much as a result of the Chancellor's Budget on Tuesday?
  Mr. Howard: I have made it clear that over a period, as we put in place a framework to encourage the creation of jobs, as they came forward in unprecedented numbers in the 1980s, so we would see job creation again in the 1990s.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose—
  Mr. Howard: I must get on.
  In the face of all that evidence, the hon. Member for Sedgefield says that not a single job would go. His approach to statistics makes the hon. Member for Livingston look like the epitome of respectability in these matters. It is not as if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have not been warned about the consequences of their policies. This week the veil has been lifted on the way in which the Labour party makes such decisions.
  This very day, Eric Hammond's autobiography is published. On the minimum wage he says:
  "I have told Kinnock it simply will not work. So has Gavin Laird, the AEU General Secretary, among others. Everyone in the world of work is paid and expects to be paid extra as they develop additional skills. They are not going to allow any government to diminish their earnings as part of a Utopian dream to guarantee a minimum to all. Employers will be dissuaded from taking people on. It will create more unemployment and chaos and conflict on the shopfloor. Already, the backtracking has started with news that Tony Blair says the scheme will exclude youngsters. It should include nobody. I have warned Neil Kinnock of the electoral consequences of pursuing a policy foisted upon them by unskilled unions not capable of doing their own job of representing lower-paid workers. They want it all to be settled by law."
  There is one particularly revealing passage. Mr. Hammond says:
  "At Labour's 1990 Blackpool Conference, they deliberately exluded me from speaking on the National Minimum Wage … However, I did rather redress the balance the next day. BBC television asked me to join a panel reviewing the day's conference with John Edmonds and Tony Blair. Instead of dealing with that day's events, I launched into an attack on the National Minimum Wage. It upset Mr. Edmonds and caused Tony Blair to have a long discussion with me afterwards. I don't think he had fully understood our objections. As he stormed out of the studio, Edmonds said to
  998
  me with all the pomposity he can muster, 'Thank you very much for that.' Blair obviously had not thought through the effects of the policy on skilled people like ours."
  Hon. Members: More, more.
  Mr. Howard: It is a very good book and I commend it to my hon. Friends.
  While the Government are looking to leave people with more of their own pay, the Labour party's policies would leave people with no pay at all. Its minimum wage would hit the very people whom it is intended to help, wantonly increasing the level of unemployment. The minimum wage makes minimum sense.
  Today we see the ultimate in the ridiculous. We see the Labour party proposing a minimum wage, ostensibly to help the low-paid, while planning a tax increase for the low-paid to help foot the bill. What Labour would give with one hand, it would take away with the other.
  Of course there are people in low-paid jobs who need help, and we help them. We help them in a sensible way through family credit. We shall not introduce a law which, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, would help the richest third of the population more than it would help the poorest third.
  Mr. Tony Blair rose—
  Mr. Howard: I shall give way in a moment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will particularly take the opportunity to comment on this observation by the director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies:
  "If the point is to avoid people being poor, then this is an extraordinarily stupid way of doing it."
  Mr. Blair: The point is not the difference between Labour's national minimum wage and the status quo but the difference between the national minimum wage and the Secretary of State's plan, which he will carry through if re-elected, to abolish the wages councils altogether. If that is what he intends and there were a pay cut, even of as little as 30p per hour, I million catering workers, 1·25 million retail workers and more than 60,000 of those who work in hairdressing shops will lose more than £600 per year if they are full-time employees.Is that right or wrong?
  Mr. Howard: We have made our position on the wages councils clear time after time. We shall keep their position under review although we see no permanent place for them in our system. We have said that before and we shall say it again. That is our position on the wages councils.
  Mr. Blair rose—
  Mr. Howard: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall give way to him if he will answer the charge made by the director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies. Will the hon. Gentleman answer that?
  Mr. Blair: Yes.
  Mr. Howard: Yes, the hon. Gentleman says. Let us see how he answers.
  Mr. Blair: I do not agree with the Institute of Fiscal Studies on that point. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman is rather unwise to mention the Institute of Fiscal Studies since it has also said that the 20p tax band is not the way to help the low-paid. Can we have a firm undertaking from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he will not abolish the wages councils and lose

  999
  protection for those 2·5 million people, mainly women, who are covered at present by the wages councils—yes or no?
  Mr. Howard: I gave the hon. Gentleman a clear answer on our position in relation to the wages councils. There is no change. We have made it clear time after time.
  Mr. Blair rose—
  Mr. Howard: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I have answered his question repeatedly.
  The mischief of the minimum wage is not simply that it would destroy jobs; it would cause havoc in many other ways. No doubt one reason why the hon. Member for Livingston was pulled out of the debate was that the Labour party was afraid that he might be asked about his admission that the minimum wage would cost the national health service half a billion pounds—half a billion pounds without any improvement in patient care.
  Let us look at the effect of the minimum wage on Labour's so-called recovery package. The centrepiece of that package is supposed to be an extra £800 million for training. It is supposed, so we were given to understand by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East on "World at One" today, to stem the rise in unemployment, to lower interest rates and to achieve a miraculous transformation in our economic circumstances. What the hon. Gentleman did not mention was that £630 million of the £800 million would go towards those people who are currently on training schemes because Labour insists on paying them the rate for the job instead of benefit plus £10, which they currently receive. Therefore, £630 million —80 per cent. of the total training portion of the recovery package—would be spent without providing a single extra training place.
  In "On the Record" last week, the hon. Gentleman pledged himself to the introduction of a work experience programme with a throughput of 150,000 people a year. It would not be introduced "as resources allow" or "over the period of a Parliament"; it was not accompanied by any of the other weasel-worded formulae of which the Labour party is so fond: it would be introduced from the very first year and everyone taking part would be paid the rate for the job. At the level of the minimum wage, that would cost £551 million a year more than we are spending on employment action. How will that be paid for? Where will the money come from?
  It is not surprising that it is not only the shadow health spokesman who has been booted from the debate: it is the shadow Chief Secretary who was to reply to the debate and who would, no doubt, have been extremely embarrassed by the hon. Gentleman's indiscretion. The fact of the matter is that Beckett's law is in tatters.
  I shall make this prediction: after we have won the next election, the Labour party will have another of its policy reviews. It will discover that it was wrong about the minimum wage, wrong about inheritance tax and wrong about the 20p rate of income tax—just as it has discovered that it was wrong about defence, about the trade unions, about public ownership and about taxation; and wrong about socialism itself.
  The basis of the Labour party's appeal at this election is the simple proposition: "Aren't you lucky you didn't vote for us last tittle?" "Aren't you lucky", Labour says to the electorate, "that you didn't vote for a Labour
  1000
  Government in 1987? After all, if you had, we would have saddled you with all those wrong policies on defence, on the trade unions, on public ownership and on taxation." "Never", the Labour party says of itself, "has a party been so wrong so often on so many measures so recently". That is the clarion call with which the Labour party enters the fray for this election. It is a clarion call that will be rejected with contempt by the British people.
  The Labour party has never believed in free enterprise. Labour Members came into politics to sweep it away. The Labour party has never believed in a market economy. Labour Members came into politics to destroy it. The Labour party has never believed in capitalism. It thought that it had a better system, called socialism. Now Labour Members sit there and believe in nothing.
  We are the party that believes in free enterprise. We defended it when it was unfashionable; we have championed its cause through thick and thin. We shall be returned to Government to preside over a free enterprise economy that will bring ever greater prosperity to our people, ever greater resources for our public services and ever greater help for those in need.
  I commend the Budget to the House and the Conservative party to the country. Both will be returned by substantial majorities.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Is it not extraordinary that the Secretary of State for Employment, faced with the biggest rise in unemployment in western Europe over the past year, could speak for more than 45 minutes to the House without even mentioning the unemployment that his Government have caused?
  Mr. Howard: On a point of information, I spoke for less than 30 minutes. The hon. Gentleman cannot even get his basic arithmetic right.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman confirms that, as Secretary of State for Employment, he can make a 30-minute speech without mentioning any measures that the Government are prepared to take to bring down the appalling level of unemployment in this country. That is an absolute disgrace. The Secretary of State mentioned the Budget, and that was especially bad, because the framework for the Budget assumes that unemployment will continue to rise for many months.
  Our argument is not just that people who are unemployed are hit by the Government's failure to deal with unemployment, but that thousands more are in fear of unemployment in every region, in every industry and in every sector, trade and profession. Thousands more people know that confidence will not return to the economy, investment will not substantially expand, and the housing market will not fully recover until employment and investment prospects improve. That is why we need an employment, industrial and regional policy for this country.
  Three years ago, there was what was called a "Budget for jobs". The result is that, since then, nearly I million jobs have been lost. Last year, the Budget was entitled the "Budget for business". The result of that was that 50,000 businesses went under during the course of the year. Now we have a Budget which is blatantly a Budget for the Conservative Government. The result will be the same: they too will go under.

  1001
  There is nothing in the Budget for the construction industry, no special incentives for manufacturing, and nothing targeted on increasing industrial investment. There are no special new measures for training, and, as the Secretary of State must be the first to know, there are no measures to tackle the rising problem of the 2·5 million people whom the Government have left unemployed.
  The nearest that we came to a Budget for jobs was when the Secretary of State, to tide him over another embarrassing set of unemployment figures, announced at midday on 13 February:
  "I have no doubt we will see a Budget for jobs".
  By the afternoon, a Treasury spokesman—no doubt acting on the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—had corrected the Secretary of State, saying:
  "The Chancellor never said that".
  How right he was. This is no Budget for jobs. We would be more impressed by the Government's claim to be a party of the poor and the low-paid if they had not created so many of them.
  A year ago, the Chancellor told us in his Budget speech that recovery was just around the corner. At least he is consistent—in this year's Budget speech he told us the same thing: that recovery was just around the corner.
  The small print of the Budget statement shows that jobs will continue to be lost—the Chancellor had to admit that. He also had to admit, in the small print of the Red Book, that business investment would continue to fall. In our view, public services will continue to deteriorate and unemployment will continue to rise.
  We are talking about a generation of young people—many qualified, and all eager to work—who have been successively disappointed. Many have been embittered and disillusioned by rejection after rejection, as unemployment continues its remorseless rise. We see the young couples who are forced to give up their homes and go with their young children into the misery and the unhealthy uncertainty of life in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—and there is the skilled man in his 50s who knows that, when his workplace closes, his working life, too, is over.
  The Government cannot blame all that on the Trades Union Congress, the European Community, the American recession or—their latest pretext—world recession. They have no one to blame but themselves.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): In giving his view of the future, the hon. Gentleman said that public services would continue to deteriorate. I am not sure what he meant by that. Presumably he meant that not enough money is going into public services. Will he tell us whether he would increase taxes, increase borrowing, or increase both?
  Mr. Brown: If the Chancellor is in any doubt about the deterioration of public services in this country, let him visit our schools and hospitals, and let him travel down our roads and look at our railways. A report today by the King's Fund reveals the problems that the health service faces under the Conservative Government [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I am happy to answer the Chancellor's question.
  Mr. Lamont: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber for Treasury questions today, he would have heard one of his hon. Friends complaining about
  1002
  borrowing and two of them complaining about the tax burden. How can he then say that not enough resources go into public services?
  Mr. Brown: The Chancellor seems to have misunderstood the whole argument. We say that a tax cut at this time is wrong, because we should be investing in the economy, including the economic infrastructure. Our argument is that the Budget, which should have been a Budget to strengthen Britain, will do nothing to reduce unemployment and little to increase investment. It does not begin to add up to an economic recovery programme for the future of Britain. At its heart there is a complete void, because there is no purpose, no vision and no direction.
  Let us remember what has happened in the past year. More than 500,000 more people are unemployed; there have been 50,000 more business closures; several hundred million pounds in investment has been lost; and, according to the census yesterday, there are even 190,000 more self-employed people out of work.
  Last March, the Government told us that many of those redundancies, closures and cuts could not happen, because they predicted that there would be a recovery last June. The Chancellor should apologise to the House and to the people he has betrayed. Those are the business failures that the Government promised could not happen. In the summer, the Prime Minister said that a recovery would start "in weeks". He should apologise not only to us but to the people who have lost their jobs.
  Those are the closures that the Government told us that we could not suffer. On I January, the Prime Minister said that the recovery had already started "as we speak". It is a disgrace that, when people have been cruelly misled in that way, there is not even a hint of remorse.
  This is the Chancellor who said that unemployment "is a price worth paying". One of the Ministers with responsibility for social security said that unemployment was a "liberation" for thousands thrown out of work. The Chief Secretary said that training was a luxury that we cannot afford. The Prime Minister said that if it was not hurting it was not working. Let us be clear: this is the Government who are hurting but not working. They are a luxury that we cannot afford. If unemployment is a price that people are prepared to pay, they are prepared to pay for the unemployment of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench today.
  If we look at what is happening in the country, we find that 22 people are chasing every job in the north of England, 28 in Yorkshire and 33 in the west midlands. In jobcentres in some constituencies, 100 people are chasing every vacancy on offer. There is a one in a hundred chance of people in many areas getting a job under this Government. The real national lottery is ever more thousands of disappointed men and women facing ever lengthening odds as they go after ever fewer jobs.
  What has the Secretary of State for Employment done? Two years after the recession started and a year after he promised that action would be taken to create employment, how many people are on employment action schemes throughout the country? With unemployment running as high as 10,000 people in some constituencies, what do the Government offer? The Secretary of State for Employment plans to create 30,000 places under the employment action programme. Many of those places, I believe he will admit, have not yet been created. That

  1003
  amounts to 40 employment action programme places for a typical constituency, yet in some constituencies there are 10,000 people out of work. That is scarcely even tokenism, and is hardly even cosmetic. The Secretary of State has certainly not taken action commensurate with the scale of the problem, but after 9 April the Secretary of State may have a greater concern for the interests of the unemployed.
  Our argument is clear: unless we tackle unemployment and the fear of unemployment, we cannot and we shall not have a swift economic recovery. As long as the fear of rising unemployment is there, people will hesitate about spending, about moving home and about investing their savings. As long as that fear is there, many of our shopping centres will remain quiet or empty, the housing market will be slow to recover and investment will continue to falter. It is not just the unskilled or the semi-skilled but the skilled and the white collar workers who are now anxious, with reason, about the economy. We cannot move the economy swiftly out of recession unless we diminish the fear of unemployment. We cannot diminish that fear unless we have a Government who are prepared to start to bring down unemployment.
  Who influenced the shape of the Budget that the Chancellor put before us on Tuesday afternoon? Certainly it was not the unemployed. They were never consulted, and they will not be the beneficiaries of this Budget. Was it industry? Many sectors of industry were not consulted and do not feel that they will benefit from many of the Chancellor's proposals. Was it the regions? There is to be no action on regional policy. Who sketched and drafted this Budget? Was it the people at the Treasury or was it, more likely, the people at Saatchi and Saatchi? The Tory party's secret weapon is the double Saatchi. The Budget owes less to manufacturing industry than to the advertising industry.
  I have been checking up on Saatchi and Saatchi and on what it has been saying not just on behalf of the Conservative party but on behalf of many other people. In the advertising industry, Saatchi and Saatchi has an unenviably notorious record for complaints made, for prosecutions initiated and for verdicts handed down by the Advertising Standards Authority.
  I have here a letter from the head of the Advertising Standards Authority—not about the one or two prosecutions for misleading the public, or the half-dozen prosecutions for not telling the truth, but about the 71 prosecutions that were upheld against Saatchi and Saatchi: twice as many complaints as have been upheld against any other agent. Let me read out what the head of the Advertising Standards Authority said about the organisation upon which the Conservative party relies. She said that it was disappointing to find Saatchi
  "producing quite so many complaints. It is too many complaints too often. It is not a very good record. They need to pay greater attention to detail, show firmer control of substantiation and take more copy advice when they are dealing with sensitive areas."
  What has been the substance of the complaints against Saatchi and Saatchi? It has been prosecuted for advertising products that are no longer available. That ideally qualifies Saatchi and Saatchi for talking about certain services in the national health service under this Government. It has been prosecuted for advertising old products that are described as new. Again that ideally qualifies Saatchi and
  1004
  Saatchi for presenting Majorism at the election. It has been prosecuted for advertising products that fall below the standards claimed on billboards, such as the claim about economic recovery. These are the prosecutions that have been brought against Saatchi and Saatchi in the last few years. It has been prosecuted for advertising considered inadmissible because of misleading, restrictive, dishonest or undisclosed terms of offer. We have yet, however, to see the Conservative party's manifesto.
  The persistent offence which best qualifies Saatchi and Saatchi to represent the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government in their present plight is that of advertising products at give-away prices and advertising them only in the last few days of the period on offer.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way later.
  What is the basis of this perfect, indeed enduring, relationship between Saatchi and Saatchi and the Conservative party? I have read the memoirs of Lord Young. One must go to him for his description of what happened during the last election when advertising was being prepared for the campaign. The Secretary of State for Employment may not remember this, but others will remember wobbly Thursday, or panic Thursday, when Maurice Saatchi wobbled. However, as Lord Young said, he steadied him by the lapels. Let me quote what Lord Young said to him. Then we shall see the truth behind the relationship between Saatchi and Saatchi and the Tory party, and who benefits.
  "'Now look, Maurice—
  Lord Young said to him, taking him by the lapels—
  "'how much are you worth? How much are your companies worth? Do you know what you will be worth this time next week if we lose the election? You will be broke, we will all he broke. I'll he broke.'"
  That is the relationship between Saatchi and Saatchi and the Government.
  Mr. Howard: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the message that he wants to send to the country is that there is so little in the Budget that he can criticise that he is spending all his time talking about the Conservative party's advertising agents?
  Mr. Brown: The Secretary of State for Employment has the audacity to rise on that point when he did not even mention unemployment in his speech.
  Let us be absolutely clear about the scale of the problem that this country faces. In 1992, investment—which has already fallen—will fall again. Business investment, which has already fallen, will fall again. Construction and housing investment, which has fallen, will fall again. Having been bottom of the league in the European Community for investment in 1991—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like it, but they are going to hear it—this country will be bottom of the league again if current policies continue. Moreover, having been bottom of the league in the European Community for industrial production in 1991, we shall be bottom of the league again, if current policies continue. Having been bottom of the league for losses in manufacturing employment in 1991, according to the European Community we shall be bottom of the league again, not just in 1992 but in 1993.
  Anybody who listens to what the trade associations throughout the country are saying knows of the problems

  1005
  that industry faces in holding on to people. Does the Secretary of State for Employment deny the accuracy of the forecast by the Engineering Employers Federation, that 70,000 people employed in the engineering industry alone are in danger of losing their jobs this year? Does he deny the forecast from the Retail federation that more than 10,000 jobs are at risk? Does he deny that more than 50,000 jobs in the construction industry are at risk? Is the CBI right to claim that 200,000 jobs in manufacturing alone are at risk and could be lost this year?
  The failures that began under the Government in 1987 and 1988 were compounded in 1988, 1989 and 1990. Our argument is that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have failed to correct those policies in the Budget. Having said that unemployment will rise, will the Chancellor tell us, under his forecast, for how many months it will rise?
  Mr. Norman Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman chose to quote from what he called the Retail federation. Why does he not quote what the Retail Consortium really said about the Budget? The director general of the Retail Consortium said:
  "The retail sector was looking for a Budget which would boost consumer confidence and revitalise small business while retaining sound financial good sense. We believe this Budget fits that bill."
  That is what was really said.
  Mr. Brown: Does the Chancellor deny that the Retail federation and other organisations in this country are predicting job losses this year? Does he deny that the scale of the job losses predicted is of the order of 200,000 in manufacturing and 400,000 in total if we include retail jobs? When we know that those are the forecasts for job losses from industry, why did we have a Budget that took no action to deal with the problems that we face?
  Mr. Howard: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the only question that we should be addressing is which policies are best designed to create jobs. He knows that the national minimum wage would wantonly destroy countless jobs in the retail trade. Why does he not abandon that job-destroying policy?
  Mr. Brown: It is interesting that the Secretary of State said nothing about unemployment when he spoke, and now—
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hansard will clearly show that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was speaking, he did mention unemployment and said specifically—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Brown: The key question in the debate is whether there will be a substantial economic recovery as a result of the measures in the Budget. The Chancellor admitted in his Budget statement that unemployment will rise. The Red Book makes it clear that investment will fall in 1992. Does the Chancellor agree with the forecasts from the trade associations including the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and others that 200,000 manufacturing jobs will be at risk this year if current policies continue, and that 400,000 jobs are at risk throughout the
  1006
  economy? The Chancellor refuses not only to answer the question but to take any measures to act directly on the unemployment that the Government have created.
  The truth is that the Government have been wrong this year and throughout the five years during which the Chancellor has been at the Treasury, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—he has not appeared today —was at the Treasury and when the Prime Minister, with only a few months exception, was a Minister at the Treasury making economic policy.
  What is their defence for the failures of the past few years? Were they not consulted when the wrong decisions were made? Were they not involved in making them? Did they advise differently? What is their defence for the mistakes that have cost thousands of people their jobs? What is the Prime Minister's alibi? We know that the Secretary of State for Employment has an alibi. He was not in the Treasury. He was involved in another crime at the time—the poll tax. We know that the Secretary of State for the Environment was not in the Treasury. He was not even at Westminster at the time. He was touring the country trying to win the leadership of the Conservative party.
  There is no doubt who was in the Treasury during those years. It is not just the Chancellor but the Prime Minister who will have to answer to the electorate for the mistakes that have been made. The Prime Minister was wrong in 1988 when he said that he would have a balanced budget —he has failed to deliver it. He was wrong when he predicted that the trade deficit would fall substantially in 1988 and 1989 and it did not. He has been wrong ever since. He was wrong when he told us that there would be no recession, when he told us that there would be an early recovery and when he told us that the recovery had arrived. He had to admit in the House only a few days ago that we were still in the midst of the recession.
  The failures that the Government refuse to address are the failures not just of the past three, four or five years but of the past 13 years. Let us be absolutely clear about the extent of the Government's failure. Despite all the talk, all the boasts and all the rhetoric from Ministers, and despite all the statistics that Saatchi and Saatchi produce and put on billboards and in leaflets for them, no other country in the European Community has such a poor record of manufacturing investment since 1979. Our record is worse than that of Greece, Spain and Portugal. The real value of manufacturing investment under a Conservative Government, even with the unparalleled advantage of North sea oil, has fallen.
  What of manufacturing growth? From being second bottom in manufacturing growth since 1979, we are now incontestably bottom of the league. In Japan, manufacturing has managed to grow by more than 60 per cent. outside the EC. In Germany, manufacturing has managed to grow by nearly 30 per cent. In this country, the growth rate for manufacturing has been one tenth that of Japan, and substantially below that of Germany.
  That is why we need a policy that addresses the problems of under-investment. That is why we need a policy for the regions. It is absurd that we have a Minister responsible for regional policy who says that regional policy is a "phoney activity" of Government. The Government will pay the price for that when it is told to the electorate during the campaign. That is why we need a Government who are prepared to take seriously the problems of investment in the country's infrastructure.

  1007
  I invited the Chancellor to look at our hospitals and schools. There are 7 million children being taught in schools where, according to independent reports, repairs are long overdue. There are thousands of pupils in schools with only outside toilets. Classrooms are still accommodating and teachers still have to teach more than 40 children at a time. The Secretary of State for Education and Science even admits that standards are not as good as they used to be, and that we lag behind our competitors abroad in the number of school leavers participating in further education.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science is prepared to tear up the pledge made 20 years ago by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) that there would be nursery education for all. In Britain in 1992, parent-teacher associations are reduced to having to write to parents asking them to make donations and begging for money for equipment and even for money to employ teachers. All that is a scandal that the Conservatives cannot defend. That is not educational autonomy. The pay-as-you-learn education policy is educational neglect. There was nothing in the Budget for education or training. There was nothing for the unemployed and nothing for the health service.
  More than 1 million people are on waiting lists for the national health service throughout the United Kingdom. In some cases, people still have to wait two years for operations that they know they could have within days in the private sector. Two of the country's leading children's hospitals have lost faith in Government funding and have had to launch huge appeals for millions of pounds—not for extras, but for essential development. Disgracefully, in the Budget the Government have approved the transfer of £80 million from the health service to private medicine. A terminally ill cancer patient who needs radiotherapy for pain relief has had to wait four months—too long—to get it. I say—[Interruption.] Conservative Members will listen to what is happening to the national health service. The reason they need to be told is that they do not use it.
  Mr. Norman Lamont rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am not giving way again. I have given way three or four times to those on the Treasury Bench.
  Up and down the country, the principles of the NHS are being eroded by the Government as surely as hospitals are crumbling, and the Government must shoulder the blame. It is interesting that, when we mention the words "unemployment", "education" and "health", the Government cannot react in any other way than to try to shout speakers down. That is what happens.
  This country does not want a Britain in which one can be turned away from an opt-out hospital because no one is prepared to pay, but a Britain—
  Mr. Roger King: That is untrue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must level at Government Back Benchers the advice that I offered earlier. We conduct our affairs not by bawling across the Floor of the House, but by reasoned debate. I very much hope that hon. Members, particularly senior Ministers, will set a better example.
  Mr. Brown: The Chancellor is getting anxious because, as we can see from the press, this will be one of his last public appearances before the election on 9 April. As we know, the Budget was under wraps for two months, but for the next three or four weeks it will be the Chancellor who will be under wraps.
  Mr. Norman Lamont rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am not giving way again.
  The country does not want a Britain in which parents have to raise funds for the basic essentials, but one in which every classroom has books for children to learn and no one has to pay to learn. We do not want a Britain in which literally millions are condemned to a life without either the training they need or the jobs they deserve. What we want is a Britain in which, no matter where one is or who one is, one will have a chance to learn and to develop skills with the highest quality training. We do not want a Britain in which, by Act of Parliament, the poor must literally beg and borrow from a state charity social fund. What we want is a Britain in which compassion, fairness and justice are the values of the Government as well as the values of the people.
  The British people have rejected the values of the Government who brought us the poll tax, the social fund, cardboard cities and the commercialised NHS. On top of all that, the Government have brought us abject economic failure. The country will reject this last-ditch Budget from a beleagured Cabinet that is trapped by time, failure and, now, by the certainty of defeat. They are the men who, by their mismanagement, have put thousands out of their homes, tens of thousands out of their businesses and millions out of their jobs. Now is the time for the people of this country to put them out of office.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Earlier, Mr. Speaker advised that I should apply the 10-minute limit to the length of speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. However, given reasonable restraint, we might be able to get by without it.
  5.43 pm
  Sir William Clark: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) did not once mention the increase in public expenditure that was announced in the autumn statement or the increases in public expenditure, in real terms, on roads, health and so on since 1979. Many of us listened with bated breath when the hon. Gentleman called for more expenditure on this, more expenditure on that and more on the other, but not once did he say where he would find the money.
  We have been promised that, next week, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will unveil the plans of a Labour Government. I hope that they will be spelt out in clear terms because the Labour party's fudge on public expenditure is beyond belief. The only time that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East roused Labour Members was when he attacked Saatchi and Saatchi. For the life of me, I do not understand what Saatchi and Saatchi has to do with this Budget.
  You will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have been in the House since 1959. With the exception of three or four years when my service was broken, I have taken part in practically every Budget debate. In 1979, I was

  1009
  elected chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench finance committee and, since then, I have taken part in every Budget debate. Towards the end of one's career, one looks at the transformation that has occurred. In 1979, under the previous Labour Government, the standard rate of income tax was 83 per cent. in the pound. If one happened to have investment income, the rate was 98 per cent. Now, however, the top rate is 40 per cent. I should have thought that one should continually remind people of that transformation which has been achieved since 1979, when the Conservative Government took office.
  Not only have we increased public expenditure in real terms but, at the same time, we have reduced the taxation charges for the higher bands. In addition, the standard rate of income tax, once 33 per cent., is now 25 per cent. and it will go clown to 20 per cent. We have also done much to help businesses and manufacturing industry because the corporation tax, which stood at 52 per cent. in 1978–79 —a real crippler—is now down to 33 per cent.
  The Government have also abolished many taxes and they have disappeared from the statute book. The composite rate and the investment surcharge have gone. However, I understand that if there were to be a Labour Government, that tax would come back because Labour intends to add national insurance contributions to investment income, which, in itself, is an investment surcharge under a different guise. We have abolished the differential between husband and wife in terms of taxation and that has proved a great boon to all families. The land development tax, the investment surcharge estate duty, dividend control and exchange control have all gone.
  We must admit that the current recession is much deeper than was thought not only by the Conservative party but by many pundits in the City and throughout the world. However, there are some good signs and I should like to point out some of them. When one has an international economy such as our own, one cannot wave a magic wand to make everything all right. However, the economic signs are looking promising.
  Wage rates have come down tremendously and are now moderate. The number of production days lost through strikes is lower than it has been for many years. Inflation, which was nearly 11 per cent., is now just about 4 per cent. and it will fall further. That has been a great boon to everyone whether on low pay or on a middle-range income. It is a bit much that Labour Members should criticise us about the inflation rate, but I do not hear them say much now that it is standing at 4 per cent. They do not like to be reminded that inflation rose to between 25 and 26 per cent. when they were supposed to be in charge of the economy. That inflation rate was a killer. Anyone with small savings had up to 26 per cent. of them eroded each year and that, too, was a crippler. The Labour party has a lot to answer for.
  It is claimed that the production rate in manufacturing industry has not increased. However, the statistics show that that rate is now 15 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1980. Productivity and investment have increased by 50 per cent. and exports have increased by 60 per cent. Let us make an international comparison. Twenty-seven of the top 50 performing companies in the European Community are United Kingdom companies. That is not a bad record; it is one that should be mentioned.
  The Opposition do not like privatisation, but it has several advantages. Industries such as steel, the National Freight Corporation and the other privatised industries
  1010
  have been turned into far more profitable organisations. In many cases—for example, steel—a loss-making industry has been turned into a profit-making industry. That is good for the economy and means that the Chancellor's receipts are that much greater.
  It is wrong and regrettable that—for, I suppose, party political purposes—so many right hon. and hon. Opposition Members always talk down the British economy. They give the impression that nothing pleases them more than bad news and bad trade figures so that they can say that our economy is a shambles. We must remember that it is not only the United Kingdom that is in recession—we need only to consider Australia, West Germany, Italy, France and the United States which have all suffered. Therefore, one should not blame only the British Government for the world recession.
  A foreigner to this country may ask why we have the highest rate of inward investment of any country in the European Community. The Japanese and the Americans would not invest here if they thought that their investments were at risk. They come here because they know that we are competitive and that they can have a profitable outfit.
  Let us consider the increase in the number of the self-employed. The number of people in work today has been compared to the number in 1979. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was right to say that it is regrettable that unemployment has increased—it will probably climb a little in the next few months—but it is plateauing out. There is no easy way to make unemployment fall. My right hon. and learned Friend's devastating demolition of the statutory minimum wage was so logical that I do not understand how any Opposition Member can continue to believe that it would do anything for the economy. It is not only my view but that of the Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce and the trade federations that the minimum wage would jeopardise employment.
  Mr. John Battle: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the remarks made to me recently by the Korean ambassador about the investment by Samsung in the north-east? He expressed surprise that in real terms the wage rates in the north of England are now lower than those in Korea and that people in the north had less protection from trade unions than people in Korea. What does the right hon. Gentleman deduce from those remarks?
  Sir William Clark: I am not familiar with the economic circumstances of the Koreans. If the Korean gentleman believes that, he should talk to people from the United States and Japan who will tell him that our wage rates are very competitive and are not lower than those elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman makes accusations about the Koreans, but I should not have thought that one could possibly compare the Korean economy with that of this country.
  The public sector borrowing requirement is really an overspend. People in the House and elsewhere often speak in initials but people outside the House do not know what we mean when we talk about the PSBR. We should spell it out in easy terms—it is an overspend. The Government receive money and spend a proportion of it. As they do not receive sufficient to cover their spending, there is overspending. It looks as though the overspend in the

  1011
  current year will be about £14 billion and it is projected that next year it will be £28 billion. That means that over the two years it will be £42 billion.
  In considering any economy one must examine what has happened in previous years. If we look back one year to 1991 we find that we repaid £26 billion—so over three years my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has overspent about £16 billion. Over three years, £14 billion plus £28 billion equals £42 billion, less £26 billion which gives—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws the attention of the House to this matter, but has he studied the cumulative figure? By 1996–97 it will be £110 billion. When the Minister of State was asked today by one of my hon. Friends about the relationship between that increased borrowing—and, in particular, next years's doubling of the borrowing—and interest rates, she said that there was no relationship. Does the right hon. Gentleman—he is the chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench finance committee—believe that there is no relationship between the doubling of the PSBR and interest rates?
  Sir William Clark: I shall come to that in a moment, but let me finish my analogy. The £28 billion and £14 billion equal £42 billion. We have repaid £26 billion, so there has been an overspend of £16 billion in three years, which is just over £5 billion a year. That is about 2·5 per cent. of gross domestic product, which is well within any guidelines on how much a Government can borrow.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is extremely important to consider the overall national public sector debt which, as my right hon. Friend will recall, has fallen from 50·6 per cent. of GDP in 1979 to 28·5 per cent. today. That is a significant cut and, even taking account of the increases forecast in the Budget, it will not return to the same proportion of GDP as in 1979. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the figures must be viewed in the context of overall borrowing and not considered merely on an annual basis.
  Sir William Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he makes the point more succinctly than I could have done. I agree that if we consider the national debt as a proportion of GDP, it is way below that of our competitors. If we wish, we have a tremendous leeway of borrowing capacity.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) spoke about 1996. That is too far ahead for us to judge what the effect will be. One must be fair—the extrapolation of what might happen in 1994, 1995, 1996 or 1997 is bound to have changed—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is in the Red Book.
  Sir William Clark: It may be in the Red Book. Something has to be put in the Red Book, and that is what is thought today—it is all based on estimates. Anyone who knows anything about business will understand the analogy of cash flow. The cash flow of any company in any country changes every three to six months.
  Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the uncertainty of making predictions. At Prime Minister's questions today the Prime Minister in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)
  1012
  seemed to say that as a result of the Budget there would be a balance over the period of the cycle. Does the right hon. Gentleman also reject that analysis?
  Sir William Clark: No, I do not. One cannot make definite predictions about what will happen four years hence. Just taking the past three years—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir William Clark: No, I want to get on.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: But it is interesting—
  Sir William Clark: Of course it is interesting. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman finds this interesting, but the debate should not be a dialogue between us. Perhaps afterwards we could have a cup of tea and go into the matter.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Let me intervene once more, very briefly—
  Sir William Clark: No, no. I have given the hon. Gentleman a lot of licence, if I may put it that way, and I wish to turn to the taxation proposals.
  We had a reduced rate band in the past and it has been reintroduced in the Budget. The first £2,000 of taxable income will be taxed at 20 per cent. rather than 25 per cent. I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody could oppose that. The pension exhausts all the personal allowances of a retired pensioner, whether single or married, who must pay 25 per cent. on any sum over it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor proposes that an individual will pay only 20 per cent. tax on the first £2,000 over the personal allowance. I hope that I am right in saying that this is a step towards the goal set down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). The Conservative party and the Conservative Government are committed to getting the standard rate of tax down to 20 per cent.
  That compares with what we are promised by Labour politicians. We know that under a Labour Government the top rate of tax would be 50 per cent. and that the investment surcharge would be 9 per cent., making a total of 59 per cent. In addition, an investment surcharge of 9 per cent. would be levied on the investment income of those who do not happen to be in gainful employment or who are not necessarily enjoying a pension which has always been considered as earned income rather than investment income.
  The car tax reduction will be a great boon to the car industry, one of our key industries. It is extraordinary how some people run down British industry given the amount of Japanese investment in our car industry that will come on stream in 18 months' to two years' time. When it does, the United Kingdom will again be a net exporter of motor cars. The action on the unified business rate is welcome. It will help small businesses in particular. In addition, the concession on inheritance tax is good for business.
  I have always thought that the rule of thumb for economics is that in good times we start to repay our debts and in a bad year it is fair and right to borrow to give an impetus to the economy. In the long run, that will generate taxation back to the Treasury. As I said earlier, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stressed the amount of extra investment in the infrastructure, schools and the rest.

  1013
  On 9 April the electorate will face the stark choice between a high taxation Government or a low taxation Government. At the moment we are on the road to prosperity. It would be a catastrophe to change course.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: At times during the speech of the right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) we heard a somewhat typical reaction from Conservative Members. The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out what was good about the economy —for instance, that inflation was relatively low and set to decrease—but everything that was good was the result of the Government and all the failures were someone else's fault. He blamed the failures not least on the French, other foreigners and whoever else might be responsible for the recession. Those who are unemployed, those who face unemployment and those who have the fear of unemployment hanging over them know where the blame lies. The head of the Government was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer before he became Prime Minister. His fingerprints are well imprinted on the recession.
  When I heard that the Secretary of State for Employment was to open today's debate, I thought that he would tell us how this is a Budget for jobs, which he predicted when the unemployment figures were last announced, but so far no one has been able to see how that is so. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) quoted the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement following the release of the unemployment figures on 13 February and said that during the afternoon they had been somewhat glossed over by a Treasury official. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but on a programme for Central Television recorded later that evening, in which the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and I took part, the Secretary of State again said that we would have a Budget for jobs. None of us can work out what has happened to that Budget for jobs.
  I accept that there has been a welcome boost for the car industry. That was very necessary, although I would not necessarily have adopted the measures in the Budget. More should perhaps have been done to promote environmental objectives at the same time. Nevertheless, the boost is welcome. There has also been a welcome boost for the small business sector, to which I shall return.
  Clearly—no one has sought to deny this—the Budget will do nothing to stem the rise of unemployment which has been going on for almost two years. The figures this month will almost certainly show that unemployment in this recession has risen by more than 1 million people. That is 1 million individuals, with their families, all of whom feel the blight of unemployment in a very real way.
  We have heard that the great centrepiece of the Budget is the reduction of the tax rate to 20 per cent. on the first £2,000 above personal allowances. But the unemployed do not have the earned income to benefit from that in any way. It has been argued that the tax cuts are intended to help the low paid. The Institute of Fiscal Studies, which the Secretary of State for Employment was pleased to pray in aid during his speech, has said that the measure is an inefficient way of targeting help on the low paid. It would be far more effective to use the same sum to increase personal allowances.
  1014
  I do not know whether anyone has done the calculation, but for many people the additional income that will derive from the tax cut will mean that they will no longer qualify for as much family credit as they do now. Some people will be taken out of family credit and will lose benefits—such as free prescriptions. [Interruption.] If the Minister is about to say that that is not accurate, I shall be only too pleased to hear it.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): I am only too happy to give the hon. Gentleman the figure. The cost of the tax cut is about £1·8 billion, £20 million of which will be clawed back in lost benefits. That is 1 per cent. of the total, which is a very small amount.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister points out that the tax cut costs £1·8 billion, but the cut is not concentrated solely on the low paid. The highest paid will also enjoy it. It is not £1·8 billion being enjoyed by the low paid from which £20 million has been taken away. There will be an impact on the higher paid as well.
  Mr. Battle: This is a debate in which I take great interest. I put the point about the low paid to the Chief Secretary yesterday and in reply he gave me the figure that the Economic Secretary gave just now. If Parliament lasted longer, I should be tempted to table parliamentary questions to draw out the true figures. If £617 million is being spent on family credit, the percentage works out at 3 per cent., not 1 per cent. as the Government claim. If we take into account access to other benefits, the little gain that the low paid have left is wiped out.
  Mr. Wallace: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have no doubt that he has gone into the figures in greater detail than I have. There will be some among the low paid who will lose out through losing family credit and through losing further entitlements such as free school meals and free prescriptions.
  As has been said, the impact of the Budget on the public sector borrowing requirement shocked the House. I heard the Chancellor mention the figure of £28 billion for 1992–93, which was far higher than I had expected. When I looked at the face of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), I realised that it was also considerably higher than she had expected.
  As the Chancellor introduced one small measure here and another small measure there, and even after he had announced the 20 per cent. tax band, I kept waiting for the big idea which would explain that level of borrowing. The Chancellor then sat down and one was tempted to say, "Is that it? Where is the big idea?" The truth is that the borrowing requirement is so high because of the depth of the recession, because of the transferred payments that have to be made, such as unemployment benefit and social security benefit, and because of the loss of revenue. The extent to which the Chancellor will have to borrow emphasises the depth of the recession.
  The right hon. Member for Croydon, South has said that he thinks that borrowing is quite acceptable if it gives the economy an impetus, and I agree with that as a principle, but I believe that the real question in the debate is whether the Chancellor's proposals are sufficient to give an impetus and whether they have been targeted in the right direction. We believe that to borrow principally to finance consumption, which is what one does through tax cuts, is not nearly so effective an impetus as borrowing to

  1015
  embark on a programme of investment. When the right hon. Member for Finchley was Prime Minister, she often used to give the House little homilies on prudent housekeeping and the corner shop business. We were always told how the books had to balance. I am sure that the corner shop business man or woman accepts that it is prudent to borrow money if one uses it to extend the range of goods, to put in new shelving, to extend the premises, to make the premises more attractive or to employ another person. The same corner shop business man or woman would not consider it prudent to borrow money and then to hand it out to customers who might spend some of it in the shop down the road, which is what will happen to some extent with the tax cuts.
  We are not talking about very much money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out yesterday, we are talking about the equivalent of buying a daily newspaper every day for a year. Some of the money will be spent on imports, and some will be spent on repaying debt. We are nationalising private debt, which will not give the impetus for which the right hon. Member for Croydon, South looked.
  Sir William Clark: We must be logical. The hon. Gentleman has agreed that part of the borrowing requirement is caused by welfare benefits and transferred payments. Surely all those payments go to consumption.
  Mr. Wallace: Indeed they do. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that the resulting borrowing should be encouraged. It would be far better —hon. Members of all parties would agree—if the borrowing was not necessary. If we had a lower level of unemployment, it would not be necessary to make so many unemployment payments. If we had lower levels of unemployment and higher levels of employment, the greater buoyancy of the economy would generate revenue.
  Before the Budget, we suggested a package to try to turn the economy round and to create jobs. Our estimate was that in the first year we could create up to 400,000 jobs, with perhaps another 200,000 the following year. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East mentioned, we could carry out the much needed repairs to schools and college buildings.
  Everyone tries to make the issue of housing more complicated than it is. We have homelessness, yet capital receipts from the sale of council houses have been frozen and local authorities are not allowed to invest in housing. The recent report by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service in response to the autumn statement says that there is a case for using local authority receipts to try to give a boost at appropriate points in the cycle.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wallace: I have given way a fair amount and we are trying to keep our speeches brief. I may give way later.
  Rail investment, energy conservation programmes and training, both in quality and quantity, are worth doing in their own right and are especially worth doing when there is a deep recession. They are temporary because after the house is built or after the school is repaired, the borrowing
  1016
  does not recur, whereas borrowing for tax cuts has to continue unless the tax cut is only a temporary phenomenon.
  Many local authorities have been prevented from undertaking school repairs because of poll tax capping. British Rail has drawn up projects which it could implement relatively speedily. Such projects would have a more immediate and noticeable impact in trying to turn the economy round than will the tax cuts proposed in the Budget.
  We should give particular help to the construction industry. So long as unemployment is set to rise and so long as the fear of being unemployed hangs over families and communities—and with it the fear of losing their homes—where will the confidence come from to boost consumer demand?
  I try to be fair and to give credit where credit is due. The Government's targeting of help towards the small business sector and the changes in the uniform business rate are welcome moves. I heard what the Chancellor said about why he did not go down the road of corporation tax allowances, and I believe that his judgment was probably right. When I heard the Chancellor list some of the measures that he proposed for the small business sector, it was like hearing one's own words coming back.
  For a long time, I have tried to point out that for a business to lose its transitional relief if it sought to move premises was helping to freeze the property market and meant that smaller businesses which wanted to expand were being contained, whereas larger businesses in larger premises which wanted to contract in the recession were being hampered. The proposal on the UBR was a sensible move which, as is often the case, came late. The measures designed to keep down the rate of UBR are welcome, although I would have preferred the Government to take the simple step of freezing this year's increase and, as we propose, to give equivalent help to Scotland. That would have been of greater help for the small business sector.
  I also welcome the steps towards tackling the problem, about which many small businesses complain, of the late payment of debt. It is not solely a question of large company customers because it can happen at all levels. The real problem is a customer on whom a business is dependent, which means that the business does not like to push its luck too much. The Government have suggested that businesses will have to publish in their accounts how late they pay. I make the constructive suggestion that it might be better if companies had to make a statement of overdue debts in their accounts. If we were to introduce statutory interest, companies would have to list those debts as well. Last week the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) introduced a Bill to allow for interest on debts after late payment by 28 days. He was given leave to introduce the Bill, but clearly it will not reach the statute book on this occasion. The measure has considerable support in all parts of the House and I hope that it will be revived in the next Parliament.
  The Secretary of State did not refer to unemployment this afternoon, except in the context of trying to attack the minimum wage. When the unemployment figures are published each month, he tries to put a statistical gloss on them. He says, for example, that perhaps it is the second lowest month's figures in relation to trend and rate of increase. I thought that he might have said last month that it was the lowest rate of increase in a month when England had won two successive test matches against New Zealand

  1017
  since 1979. The right hon. Gentleman has run out of excuses, to the point where he cannot even address the subject.
  The Labour party's approach to unemployment is disappointing at times, in terms of the number of press releases in which unemployment seems to matter only in the context of how much it has increased in a constituency compared with the sitting Conservative Member's majority. That does not do much for the unemployed, who are looking for a message of hope.
  The package that we put forward would not bring about employment as we knew it in the 1950s and 1960s, but it would turn the economy around and produce that ray of hope for which the unemployed are looking, and which the country as a whole thinks is right and proper to get the country moving again. On 9 April the British people will have an opportunity to vote for a party of hope with a message of hope.
  6.20 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: It is a relief to follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and I am grateful to have been called to speak now, rather than having to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who I see is about to leave the Chamber.
  I could not help thinking that, if Tchaikovsky had written the 1812 overture when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was around, he would not have needed an orchestra. He would simply have scored it for the hon. Gentleman. If Wagner had been scoring Gotterdammerung, he would have done so similarly, solely for the hon. Gentleman, but with 12-inch howitzers at the end of every bar. I was reminded during his speech of the famous comment that the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava was magnificent but was not war. What the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said was not magnificent, and it bore little relationship to the major problems facing all the major industrial countries of the western world, the subject which I shall discuss.
  As in your case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is my 28th Budget debate. Unlike you, I have always participated from the less elevated position of the Bench below the Gangway. I expect that we both share similar regrets and have listened to a great flood of rhetoric and argument. I have always been much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and to your colleagues in the Chair, and to all those who have tolerated my perhaps somewhat eccentric views on economics, science and southern Africa, to say nothing of industry. That tolerance has also been extended by my constituents, most of whom, I am glad to say, have taken a broad view of the alignment between the national interest and their own.
  When we arrive here, many of us step on the great glacier of history and think that, by our personal efforts, we can shift it perceptibly. I suggest that we should not be here if we do not hold that view when we arrive. We have learnt nothing if we still hold that view when we leave. On arrival, most of us step firmly on to the ice, find somewhere where we can lean on solid rock, and heave. From time to time, great chunks of the glacier crash into the sea miles away and the more hopeful among us attribute the noise and rumble to our personal efforts.
  Some of us band together in government, a process which reinforces the perception of power. But if we are frank with ourselves, we realise that the forces operating
  1018
  on the glaciers of human history are far more powerful than any which we might bring to bear, personally or even collectively, in this place. It has always been thus.
  In August 1914, a great Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, stood not at that Dispatch Box—it did not exist at that time—but at its predecessor and made a speech that was crucial to political support in Great Britain for the first world war. The distinguished historian, the late Barbara Tuchman, described his task as
  "reconciling the past, persuading the present and speaking to posterity."
  The Chancellor faced an equally daunting challenge in recent days. He had to reconcile economic realities with political perceptions on both sides of the House, expose the prejudices which exist in all parts of the House, convince the City and speak to the posterity which will judge Britain's economic performance in the new era of a united Europe. Those have been formidable tasks, and he has made a pretty good fist of them.
  The arguments are not about objectives but about methods. They have been going on since, in my intellectual and political youth, I read Harold Macmillan's "Middle Way" before the second world war and Keynes's "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" shortly afterwards. Since then, the debate has filled a few thousand books, a few million articles and thousands of tons of newspaper commentary. It will continue for some time yet, but the argument will be advanced only by better definition and information. The paradigms must change, and the one general criticism I offer—it will be my last —is that we tend to ignore significant, objective and devastating analyses which challenge our definitions.
  I have on the Bench next to me three such reports from the OECD which it is obvious most Opposition Members have not read. Good definitions scar our political prejudices more severely than any other factor. That is why we avoid them. But in doing so, we allow our debates to be dominated by obsolete paradigms and criteria. I therefore give a warm welcome to the reorganisation of the budgetary procedure announced by the Chancellor, and the White Paper is significant and long overdue. It is also a solemn and significant acceptance of the fact that this House neither controls public expenditure nor debates it adequately. Public recognition of that conclusion is the essential basis of future reform, and later I shall give an example of that.
  The electoral processes and forces in a democracy persuade most of us to offer £2-worth of entitlements where there is normally only £1·99-worth, or less, of provision. It is the modern version of Micawberism on a large scale. In my judgment, the most significant figures produced by the Chancellor on Tuesday were contained in two tables of the red document, the Budget report. The first appear in table 2A.1, which reveal that, over three decades, all Governments, irrespective of political philosophy, have had the greatest difficulty containing public expenditure and the tax burden associated with it.
  Up and down it goes like the proverbial yo-yo, never less than 37 per cent. of gross domestic product, as in 1963–64, nor more than 49·25 per cent., as in 1975–76. Again on an upward curve, it is scheduled to fall, hopefully, in 1996. It is an issue on which most of us and most of our constituents are somewhat schizophrenic. We resent the burdens, but we claim the benefits. We should be

  1019
  more concerned about—we do not discuss it with any relish or with much competence—the wealth-creating effectiveness of the expenditure in either sector.
  The second set of figures appears in table 1·2. The magnitudes are much too large for public comprehension. They are galactic figures, for most people the economic equivalent of light years or black holes, depending on one's point of view. I will try to summarise them. In 1991–92, our best estimate is that we shall spend £87·2 billion on social security and health combined. That amounts to £1,516 per head of population of 57 million in this country, or £3,910 per head of the employed population.
  Significantly, that expenditure is now so large that the whole of the taxation derived from income tax and corporation tax—some £76 billion or £1,312 per head or £3,421 per employed person in this country—is not enough to pay for it. Only if social security receipts are added does the total rise to £113 billion—a colossal £1,963 per head, or £5,000 per employed person. The significance of that is that the whole of the remaining revenue from Customs and Excise is not enough to cover the other items of public sector expenditure, including defence and education. In relation to those massive total receipts from privatisation, borrowing and other sources are minuscule.
  For what are doubtless regarded as sound political reasons, we concentrate our fire not on basic determinants but on residuals. That must change if the House is to retain credibility as a representative or controlling institution. I have argued before and do so again for the last time that we must look at the boundaries between the great spending empires and ask whether, how soon and in what direction they must change. Most of our supervisory instruments and procedures are directed not at the strategic or structural elements of public expenditure and revenue, but at the nit-picking level of waste and inefficiency within Departments. That is not enough.
  I trust that the House will understand if I discuss science for the last time. Our national endeavour in basic science is the critical component of long-term success—more so today than ever before. Its development, understanding and transfer into industrial performance is a function of many things, not least academic excellence. But only the most assiduous among us—we all have other things to do—are prepared to wade through the vast, comprehensive research and development analysis now published each year so that we can begin to form a judgment about that.
  The sum spent by the Government on the public sector is large—some £6 billion—and by the nation as a whole even larger—some £11 billion. Its adequacy is debatable, but the fact that it is almost impossible for the House, given the present emphasis on other matters, to make significant judgments about what the nation is doing in that area is not debatable.
  Responsibility in the public sector is spread between dozens of Departments and institutions. The most important Ministers—Education, Trade and Industry and Defence—have other major concerns, and brook no interference in their scientific domains. No one except the Prime Minister can take an overall view, and no one
  1020
  speaks to him on behalf of the science community as a whole from within the political establishment, either in the House or in the Cabinet.
  The miracle is that so much good science is still undertaken and applied in the United Kingdom, but "muddling through" will not always produce the best results. There are disturbing signs that, because of that, the overall performance of British science is declining compared to that of other countries, which see the problem in a different light.
  The most depressing document that I have come across recently is an OECD report which classifies research and development intensities in the 1980s and compares various groups of countries. The first group is technological leaders which includes six countries—Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and South Korea. The second group is the other hi-tech countries, and the United Kingdom comes at the bottom of the table. I found that immensely disturbing, and far more attention must be paid to it. We are led by Taiwan, Norway, the Netherlands, France, Finland and Belgium in the second group of countries.
  President Bush has referred in disparaging terms to the "vision thing". Political realists doubtless advise him and others that, where there is no vision, the people perish, but that where there is no defence, law and order, or where the vision is distorted by political distorting mirrors, there is little opportunity for calm reflection on problems or events that sustain both academic and scientific excellence. That may be so. Judgment, as the poet Robert Bridges reminded us a long time ago, lies in the "masterful administration of the unforeseen", and the political leader will always be assailed by the unforeseen, whatever his scientific advisers predict.
  However, in this age of exponential change, if scientific excellence is not the whole vision, it is undoubtedly the coal face of our civilisation and the most vital component of the spectrum. The Government must pay more attention to that question. They must ensure that they keep up with the performance of our principal competitors. We must give the structure and direction of our scientific machinery far more attention in this place.
  If I have one criticism of the Budget, it is that, within the substantial increase in public expenditure that it envisages, there seems to be no specific mention of the science budget. Science represents the seedcorn of the future, and it should come first. That is why I hope that, when the House returns—whichever party is in power—it will endorse the recommendations of the new Information Committee, which has recommended a significant change in the relationship between Parliament and the organisation set up by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee called the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
  It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the tremendous support that I have received from hon. Members and others in that endeavour, but the staff must now pass to others, for this place will not survive as a valid democratic institution, as it must in this scientific age, unless it is adequately informed about the immense potential and consequences of science at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries. As a tribe much maligned by Swift, we politicians should be kinder and more generous to those who, today more than ever before, provide through modern science an unlimited and exciting vision of the standards of health and welfare,

  1021
  output dissociated from drudgery, and leisure and security unimagined by our forebears, and certainly unimagined in the lifetime of many living today.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I am grateful for the opportunity to sing my swansong this evening. I shall leave this place when Parliament is dissolved and there is no doubt that I shall miss it. I have thoroughly enjoyed every moment I have spent here, but one can only enjoy those moments—[Interruption.] I am already bringing tears to the eyes of a Conservative Member. One can only enjoy one's stay in this place if one is not left completely alone but gets a fair amount of assistance.
  I will start with the Chair. The Chair has been very good to me, and there is an important reason for that. I spent 10 years or more in the Whips Office. Whips are more or less a go-between between the Chair and hon. Members because the Speaker or Deputy Speaker cannot leave the Chair if they want something done.
  We cannot manage in this place without the Serjeant at Arms Department, which does a wonderful job on our behalf. One particular officer in the Serjeant at Arms office —Michael Cummins—has helped me in many ways ever since I have been here. He and the rest of his team have done a wonderful job, and I am grateful for his help. When we discuss Bills in Committee we could not manage without the wonderful doorkeepers, under the leadership of Mr. Roy Usher. I recognise immediately that they do a first-class job, and I feel that I must make particular reference to them.
  Police and security staff have been mentioned; we cannot manage without them, particularly with the things that are happening nowadays. They do a good job on our behalf.
  Mr. Speaker's staff do a first-class job. He would not be able to do his job properly unless they were doing theirs, and I am grateful to them.
  I want to recognise the place above you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We could not manage without the Hansard writers, who do a first-class job. Behind them sit representatives from the media, who can sometimes be kind and sometimes be awful. A little chappie who works for The Guardian does a good job on my behalf and has been kind to me. I shall not mention one other reporter, who writes for The Times, as he has been a naughty boy.
  Mr. Michael Alison: I hope that in his list of commendations the hon. Gentleman will not forget the admirable official who adjusts the volume control. It is normally so difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman, but thanks to the guy who turns up the sound, we can always hear the hon. Gentleman when he speaks in his usual soft voice.
  Mr. Ray Powell: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Haynes: I do not need any back-up from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). It is also said that patients in bed at St. Thomas's hospital can switch off the television if they want to hear a speech in the Commons provided by my good self.
  I want to travel a different road from that travelled by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd). I do not want to talk about science, so I shall leave that subject and make my speech in my own way, but for the moment I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore
  Mr. Ray Powell: We normally look at the Annunciator to know who is speaking in the Chamber. Earlier, when we were gathered in the Tea Room we started listening to a strong voice from the Chamber. It was only then that we realised that the voice was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). As we do not like to miss any of his speeches—I am sure that the House appreciates all his contributions and excellent speeches —we all dashed in. That shows clearly the volume of his voice and the excellent content of his speeches.
  Mr. Haynes: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know as well as I do what I have to put up with sometimes. In fact, it happens nearly all the time.
  I want to concentrate on the Budget. I am terribly disappointed with this Tory Government's Budget, which is not going to get us out of the mess that we are in.
  Mr. Don Dixon: They put us in it.
  Mr. Haynes: We are all in it. They make the decisions and carry out the policy, but we have to live with it until we can get rid of them. I have no doubt that we shall do that on 9 April, when there will be a Labour Government and such Conservative Members as manage to get back in will be sitting on the Opposition Benches.
  When I retire from this place, I shall be able to sit in my little old armchair and watch all the activities going on here. I shall keep my eye on things, and no doubt I shall see my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Ogmore sitting on the Government Benches.
  Mr. Dixon: If we get re-elected.
  Mr. Haynes: My two hon. Friends will definitely get re-elected. With their majorities, they cannot but get back here, and the same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). I know Pontypridd because I knew the previous Member. With his nice majority, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd is certain to get back in.
  I thought that the Secretary of State for Employment had a nerve to stand at the Dispatch Box and make a Budget speech with no reference to unemployment and what the Government intend to do about that problem. Our constituents are up to their necks in unemployment, and they tell us in no uncertain terms how they are struggling to live.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was sitting on the Treasury Bench earlier, but he is not there now. I bet he is having a nice rich meal. Some of my constituents back home in Ashfield will have to be satisfied with bread and jam, or bread and cheese. I have been through those days. I am 66, and I know what goes on. I had to live through such days under a previous Tory Government many years ago, and I know what rough living is. I know how to go without.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who has a big grin on his face, will not be coming back. He need not have a grin on his face—he is only a young lad and has not yet experienced poverty. He has no idea about poverty, and nor have the Treasury Ministers. They have no more idea about it than flying to the moon.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) talked about the unemployed, the Chancellor sat on the Treasury Bench with a big grin on his face, which I thought was disgusting. I remember when the Chancellor had a black eye and he put a 141b steak on

  1023
  it. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a 141b steak on a black eye? Some of my constituents can't afford fish and chips, never mind a 141b steak. The way this lot carry on shows that the sooner we get rid of this shower—
  Mr. Roger King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Haynes: No, sit down.
  The sooner we get rid of that shower, the better off we shall be. That was shown by the Budget, which contained nothing about halting the pit closures which are ruining the economy of Nottinghamshire and my constituency. There were 10 pits in my constituency when I came here. That number is down to three due to the Government's policies. They never mentioned what amount of money is available to keep the pits open. Oh no, instead they organised a survey with a view to Rothschild drawing up a report on closing the pits that are left and leaving the nation with only 12 pits. How is the economy to survive on that sort of decision?
  When we consider borrowing money it is no wonder that the shares are falling like nobody's business in the City. I am laughing my flipping socks off at the Government's wrong decision. There is no doubt that the City is realising the Government's bad mistake on borrowing. I have heard some Tories say that borrowing is all right, can be spread over time and will all come right in the end. One thing that they have not mentioned but have forgotten is that the money has to be paid back from somewhere. If the economy fails, as it has done under the Tory Government, how the hell will that money be paid back? The problem will get worse and worse.
  I have two wonderful grandchildren. What do they have to look forward to under this Administration if things go on like this? We have got to get rid of the Tory Government on 9 April in the interests of the nation and the people who follow behind us. The hon. Member for Havant and I are two elderly gentlemen who are bowing out. We do not want to spoil the economy so much that living standards will have fallen by the time our young people have grown up.
  The Government brag about how they have helped pensioners. They do not realise—or perhaps they do, but they are keeping it to themselves—that the new income tax band of 20 per cent. filters all the way through to the rich bods at the top who have been raking off for years under this Administration.
  There is another thing about this Secretary of State for Employment. He was partly responsible for the poll tax, and look at the misery that that has brought to lower paid workers and struggling families. And what else did he do? He privatised water and then allowed the directors of the new companies to bump up their salaries as high as the clouds at the expense of ordinary people who have to pay their massive water bills. The Government use the excuse that they will make the water authorities more efficient in the private sector, but that will cost the ordinary folk whom we represent a great deal. Tories represent them too, but they could not flipping care less. Ordinary people will suffer more and more under the Government's policies.
  We need to get Labour into office to change direction. People in this country need the kind of help that we can give them. The Government have had billions of pounds of
  1024
  oil money and they have squandered every penny of it. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. If they had spent it properly we would not be in this mess.
  The chairman of the education authority back home is a wonderful man called Fred Riddell. He does a marvellous job for Nottinghamshire's education, but what has he been told by the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? If he spends too much, he will be capped. But he needs to spend the money to provide improved education facilities and accommodation for the kids of Nottinghamshire. The Government have ruined adult education. I sat on the relevant Bill and I got sick to death of listening to the Minister reeling off what the Government were going to do. We had to sit and listen to the Government destroying adult education. We heard nothing about education from the Dispatch Box today. Opposition Members have argued that people need help —that their buildings are falling down and that they will keep falling down so long as this lot are in office. To change things we need more money, but the Government are not providing it. They are just borrowing money in the interests of the people they represent.
  All this will go on unless the people of this nation have some sense and realise where to put their crosses—in the right place, next to the Labour candidate, throughout the land.
  Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman is killing my flow; I have really got going now.
  Mr. Maples: I will give the hon. Gentleman's voice a rest just for a moment. Will he explain why, if Labour government is so good, his constituency was won by the Conservatives in a 1977 by-election?
  Mr. Haynes: The Minister is not getting away with that one—it was a fluke.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Where is the winner now?
  Mr. Haynes: He sits up at the back on the Conservative Benches. He is with Price Waterhouse. We all know about the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. We all know about Price Waterhouse. We hear reports that those organisations are crooked, and the Conservative Member in question has got his flipping nose in them. He is known as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), and he won by 263 votes—
  Mr. Maples: But he won.
  Mr. Haynes: It was a fluke, but I can tell the Minister this—I took the seat back, and it has been Labour ever since.
  I am going now—I have said my piece. I look forward to the election. I shall play my part back in Nottinghamshire. We shall win there; we shall get them out in the city of Nottingham. Conservative Members who sit for that area should never have been there in the first place. We shall get them out and replace them with Labour candidates. We shall get a decent Government—and we have not had one of those for a long time.
  The Government have repeated history. I recall the last time the Conservatives went out after 13 years of terrible rule. History is repeating itself—the Conservatives are in

  1025
  their thirteenth year. You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are going out, but so are they—and we shall have a Labour Government after the election.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), and it has been a pleasure to serve in the House of Commons with him. He always has amusing things to say and he says them positively—and we never have any difficulty hearing them.
  Much of what the hon. Gentleman said was all heart—
  Mr. Roger King: All mouth.
  Mr. Hind: No, all heart, but he did not deal with certain problems. It is easy to churn out rhetoric and say that we want to spend money on this, that and the other, but in the end we have to ask how that money will be raised and how the prosperity that creates it can be generated. If we take it out of industry and out of people's pockets, we reduce their standards of living and the amount of investment in the country, thereby reducing the number of jobs available for our people.
  If, as the hon. Member for Ashfield claims, the economy is in a dreadful mess, he and his colleagues should be asking themselves how on earth the increased taxation that they propose will drag our economy out of the recession. The answer is that it will not. It will deepen the recession and make matters worse. It will not help to improve the standards of living of the British people.
  Today's theme is employment. It was my privilege to serve as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Employment after the last general election, when the Government increased the number of jobs in the country by more than I million and reduced unemployment by 1·4 million. We did it then and we can do it again.
  The British people can expect as much from us in the years to come, provided that they recognise that there must be a degree of prudence in our economic planning and that there are limitations, because of the exchange rate mechanism, on what can be done. No longer can we lower interest rates to generate economic activity or to protect the parity of the pound against the deutschmark and other currencies in the ERM. The public must realise those limitations.
  We are left with the public sector borrowing requirement. I have listened to what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and his colleagues have said about that. They ought to remember that the PSBR run by a Labour Chancellor in 1978 was 9·5 per cent. of GDP. We at least will not forget that, and we will remind the public during the campaign that it was a Labour Government who borrowed to provide tax relief in the 1978 Budget—except that on that occasion they reduced taxes from 35p to 33p in the pound in the year before an election.
  Now Labour is turning around and saying, "It doesn't matter what we did in the past. You've got to forget all about that. That was in a past era and we've changed our habits. We're not going to do it again." I do not accept that. A leopard never changes his spots. The public will be able to tell from history that the Labour party will pursue the same policies if it ever gets into office again.
  1026
  Over the past few months, we have been able to analyse the Labour party's proposals. We know that they amount to a £37 billion increase in public expenditure. That is the same problem that Labour had after 1974, when it had promised the public that it would spend, spend, spend. The fact that the country could not afford it then and cannot afford it now has nothing to do with the Labour party's policies. If that spending were to start again, the country could only look forward to more borrowing, above the level proposed in the Budget, and major increases in taxation.
  The Labour party will increase taxes not just in the higher rates but in the basic rate. A Labour Government would raise £12 billion from taxation—that is in the party's plans. However, between £12 billion and £37 billion there is a £25 billion gap, and that can be paid for only by increasing the standard rate of tax, which will amount to a return to a 35p in the pound rate of tax. That is what the public can expect from Labour—imprudence in borrowing, higher tax rates and inevitably higher inflation and prices.
  Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman is comparing the PSBR of 1978 under a Labour Government and Labour's proposals for the coming year. Would he care to include in his comparison the advantage enjoyed by the Tory Government, who have scooped £150 billion from selling the family silver and harvesting the crop of North sea gas and oil? Will he make some sensible and clinical comparisons between the one and the other and not use distorted methods?
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that I can. The 1980s saw record levels of investment, right up to 1990, a fall in unemployment of 1·4 million, an increase in participation in companies through the increase from 2 million shareholders in 1979 to 12 million today. The public have a greater say and participation in industry than ever before. There was a record increase in jobs, by 1 million. Britain had more jobs as a proportion of the population than any other country in Europe and the G7. This is where the money worked its way through, and it has resulted in a higher standard of living. The public are better off than they have ever been, and that is where the oil revenues went—to benefit the British people. The Conservative Government need have no shame about the way that they used that money.
  It has been suggested by the Opposition parties that the 20 per cent. band set out in the Budget is a bribe and that it is not enough and does not achieve what it set out to do. Both cannot be right. It is not a great deal of money in itself. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has injected 0·33 per cent. of GDP back into the economy. It is part of the picture, part of the strategy to kick-start the economy and move it forward. For the seventh month running, there have been improvements in retail sales in the high streets. Organisations such as the House of Fraser are saying that they are astonished by the increase in sales. The CBI has said that retail sales are improving.
  The Budget makes a contribution to moving the country out of the recession. Inevitably, that move must be demand led, which means putting money into the pockets of people. If one takes the money out of their pockets, one deepens the recession. Putting money into pockets helps to pull the country out of recession. The country will face a clear choice when the parties go to the hustings over the

  1027
  next four weeks. The public must realise—I am sure that they will do so quickly—that increasing taxation will not stop the recession. However, decreasing taxation at a time when it is prudent to do so, in limited measure, will help and will result in Britain turning the corner and getting back on the right track towards prosperity.
  We have seen the Labour party's confusion over the 20 per cent. band. I am delighted with the Budget for this reason. It is a Budget for the needy, not the greedy. It will benefit the lowest-paid workers, and it will benefit 5 million pensioners by making additions to income support. They will see that and realise that things will improve for them.
  Pensioners will realise that the lower rate of tax, with the 20 per cent. band under a Conservative Government, will improve their standard of living. The alternative to that is the investment income surcharge to be imposed by a Labour Government which would add 9 per cent. to the tax on savings, taking it to 34p in the pound. That would drag away years of savings. That is what pensioners are up against and do not let us forget that more than 50 per cent. of pensioners have savings, occupational pensions and investments, all of which count. They will turn their backs on the Labour party because they will realise that the Labour party will put its hands into the pensioners' pockets rather than putting money into their hands.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
  I welcome the proposals for small businesses, such as the changes in VAT. The most important is the improvement in the uniform business rate. That will be welcomed by small businesses throughout the country. They will be frightened to death at the thought of the UBR being taken over by profligate Labour councils which would use it to draw cash into their communities. Businesses would be used as money milch cows to the detriment of employment, investment and the prosperity of their communities.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hind: I have already said that I will not give way.
  Small businesses will welcome the changes in inheritance tax concessions which will allow owners to pass on to their children more of what they have worked for. These are not wealthy people, the rich about whom the Labour party talks. Labour thinks that somebody on £20,000 a year is rich, but it is misguided. It will find that police sergeants, staff nurses and many others doing essential jobs that are not particularly highly paid will fall into its so-called rich category.
  Our economy is highly dependent upon cars and the cut of 5 per cent. in car tax—50 per cent. of it—will help to generate economic activity. If there is one factor that will bring my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) back to the House of Commons, it is the realisation among midlands workers that the Government are behind the car industry. They will be helping to export cars. They will not be turning their backs on the workers. That is what it is all about.
  People throughout the country—in Sunderland and Derbyshire and those on Merseyside who work for
  1028
  Vauxhall and Ford—will realise that they are being given exactly the sort of help that they need. They will understand that Government policies will help to end the recession and push the country forward. The Budget will not inject an especially large amount of money into the economy—we are talking about £2·2 billion in the context of gross domestic product—but it will help to move the economy forward. There is a balance: the Budget is prudent and it is targeted at areas where it will produce the maximum results for the benefit of the people and for the economy.
  Mr. Battle: Nonsense.
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that I am talking nonsense. Labour Members speak nonsense when they make promises about training, the health service and all the money that they will spend. We are never given figures. We do not know how much a Labour Government would spend. We never hear from the Labour party how it would raise the money; we hear only rhetoric. We can all trot out rhetoric but the Labour party cannot back it with hard facts. The difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party is that Conservatives do what we say. We do not make promises, only to lead the public up the garden path. No doubt, we shall have four weeks of promises from the Labour party at the hustings, but we, the Conservative party, will deliver what we promise.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the lower band of income tax will put an extra £250 million into the pockets of the people of the north-west? It is entirely wrong for Labour Members to think that they should take that money out of the pockets of those people because they know better how to spend it.
  Mr. Hind: That is right. As my hon. Friend said, the money will go into the pockets of the people of the north-west, who will spend it on goods and services. The consequences of that will work their way through into the economy. Jobs will be protected in the north-west as a result. Job opportunities in the region will increase and there will be a gradual move towards prosperity.
  There will be slow recovery but it will come and we shall see it by the end of the year. We can do it and we can deal with it. I am sure that the public will realise that, if they vote for a Labour Government, they will have to pay more tax, which will increase interest rates, inflation and unemployment. That will postpone the recovery. That will deepen the recession, not help to end it. The Budget is one step forward towards recovery and I welcome and support it.
  7.12 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) was correct when he said that recovery is slow. I would say that it is imperceptible. There are many people, especially my constituents, who fail to find any evidence of it. They have suffered massive unemployment for many years.
  When I opened my mail last week I took out The House Magazine from its cover. At first, I thought that I had come across a satirical magazine. On the front cover was a picture of St. Margaret's church, and beneath it was the caption, "Reviving the economy". It seems that the

  1029
  Conservatives have turned to divine intervention in the absence of policies. I am sure that their predecessors would agree with the proposition that faith without converts will not save the Government.
  I found it incredible that the Secretary of State for Employment could make a lengthy speech without saying one word about unemployment levels. On Tuesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said casually—it seemed to be a throw-away remark—that unemployment would continue to rise until he finally managed to bring about economic recovery. How can anyone say that and claim that he has concern for the low paid, the unemployed and those living in poverty? That must be nonsensical.
  In the past few days we have heard Conservatives expressing their concern for the low paid and we have seen their breast beating, but we remember their policies over recent years, which have shown clearly how little they care for the low paid. There are tens of thousands of low-paid employees who do not have the protection of wages councils, and thousands of others who come under wages councils but find that the councils can do only very little under the current arrangements. When the Secretary of State was pressed on this issue today by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), he said that the Tory party's policy on wages councils was under review. He said nothing at all about protection.
  Mr. Battle: He said that the policy was under review, but in the document entitled "People, Jobs and Opportunity" he states that the councils should be phased out.
  Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend is correct. The Government's intention is to phase out wages councils. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made that intention clear over and over again when my hon. Friends and I have debated employment Bills. The Government's position is clear—so much for their concern for the low paid, if that is their attitude to wages councils.
  The Secretary of State claimed that family credit is a great scheme for those on low pay. It is a scheme that uses taxpayers' money to subsidise low-paying employers. If employers were required to pay decent rates, there would be no need to use taxpayers' money to provide a subsidy.
  The Government are hoping that we have already forgotten the poll tax. If ever a policy was designed riot to take account of the needs of the low paid and the impoverished, it was the poll tax. Everybody had to pay the same if weekly family income exceeded a low threshold. A person whose income barely crossed the threshold had to pay the same as the richest in the land. That policy was supported by those who have claimed today that they care about the poor. We see them beating their breasts and expressing concern for the poor, but they supported the poll tax and forced it through Parliament.
  There was not a word in the Budget statement about improving unemployment benefit. As a result of small increases in the price of beer and cigarettes, for example, the unemployed will be even worse off. Nothing was said about housing benefit. We know that the Government want gradually to reduce the value of the benefit. They have not said anything today about improving it and making it more valuable to those who receive it. We have heard nothing about child benefit, either.
  The Government's approach shows that their so-called concern for the low paid and the poor is entirely insincere.
  1030
  It amounts to nothing more than a death-bed conversion. If they are concerned about the poor, it is only because we are on the eve of an election.
  The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland has written to me drawing attention to two areas in which the Government, in the context of the Budget, have been negligent. There will obviously be consequences for small businesses in Scotland and for those who work in them. We know that the uniform business rate will be reduced slightly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Scottish business rates would be similarly reduced. In Scotland, small businesses pay a higher level of business rates than their equivalents in England. That deters the provision of work in Scotland. The problem is not so great in England and Wales.
  Businesses throughout the United Kingdom should pay their fair share towards the cost of running their local authorities, but the anomaly between what Scottish businesses pay and what their counterparts in England and Wales pay is a problem for Scottish businesses trying to overcome unemployment and to create work in our localities.
  Likewise, it is not entirely clear what is planned to help the whisky industry in Scotland. The Chancellor spoke of protecting our spirits industry, but I should welcome some clarification of what precisely he meant by that in terms of protecting our important whisky industry.
  For months, the Secretary of State has attacked the minimum wage in a wearily repetitive way, as though we were incapable of taking in his points, just as he is incapable of taking in our answers to those points. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman care about how many jobs are being destroyed simply because people are unable to buy goods in the shops because they are too poor, because they are scraping a living and have no money to spare? Lack of money for households in which earnings are less than £3·40 per hour, and sometimes not even half that figure, means that there is no demand for goods that people could otherwise be employed to make.
  The Secretary of State quoted some hotel keeper as saying that if the minimum wage were imposed he would be forced to pay off staff. I should have liked to know what that hotel keeper pays his staff—in many hotels the pay is scandalous—but perhaps it would have been too uncomfortable for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us that. Is that hotel keeper really employing more people than he needs? If so, he would be unique among employers generally, who obviously have no reason to employ more people than they require to carry out the work which needs to be done.
  Debates such as this always remind me of the days of Lord Shaftesbury. Let us imagine in our mind's eye what this House would have been like when Lord Shaftesbury was bringing forward reforms to prevent small children working in factories. At that time, people said that he could not possibly do that, that it would bring the country to ruin, wreck the economy, prevent us from competing with our competitors and create unemployment. All those arguments were heard then, and we are hearing them now in relation to the minimum wage.
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend agree that the workers about whom she is talking who are supposed to benefit so much from the 20p rate of income tax will, because of the low level of their earnings, benefit by the princely sum of 20p per week?
  Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend is right. As has been pointed out, that is the price of a box of matches. Big deal. Perhaps that box of matches could usefully be used to set fire to Tory propaganda. That is the only good that will come from that measure.
  People listening to tonight's debate, even if they know nothing about economics, even if they had just arrived from Mars and knew nothing about what was going on here, need only contrast the performances of the two Front Bench spokesmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) spoke with the deep sincerity that comes from genuine concern about unemployment and the low paid—a concern which is well respected and recognised throughout the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend will be one of the major figures in the Labour party's Front Bench team when we form the next Government.
  Contrast my hon. Friend with the Secretary of State for Employment oozing insincerity from every pore. The right hon. and learned Gentleman strikes me as a man for whom the word synthetic would be a compliment because at least some synthetic things can be capable of useful service. I was reminded of the saying,
  "The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons".
  The Secretary of State and the Chancellor continually spoke of their concern for the low paid and the more that they did so, the more we counted the tens of thousands on low pay who are not protected by wages inspectorates and who have had their trade union rights abolished, and the more we counted the millions unemployed in our constituencies. But the counting that I am thinking of now will come on 9 April, when the votes counted will show Conservative Members the consequences of their cold and heartless policies. They will then start learning something about what it is like not to have a job any more.
  7.24 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I am delighted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have the opportunity to say a last few words in this Parliament while you are in the Chair. This afternoon the House has had an opportunity to pay tribute to some remarkable people who look after our well-being in the Chamber and to have a moment or two to thank you personally means much to me, not least because you are a south-west Member of Parliament and, as such, must be among the greatest and best.
  My prime memory of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is of the day when I found that I needed a cow in London. That was a difficult thing to achieve because I was told by the authorities in London that a cow was a wild beast. So far we have strayed from our agricultural background in this great city of ours that a cow is deemed to be a wild beast. The result is that one is not allowed to bring a cow into London; at least, if one is, one cannot offload her on to the pavement, because the pavement is not for wild beasts, nor can one offload her on to the road, because the road is not for wild beasts either.
  So well served are we by the police in the House of Commons that, ever inventive, they carved out a small space with barriers off the pavement which they deemed not to be the road. It was an enclosed space just outside St. Stephen's entrance. That was deemed to be neither road nor pavement, so we could unload the cow.
  1032
  How on earth do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, come into this caper? I have to tell the House that the cow was yours. I had cheated. I had wanted a cow from Torridge in west Devon but, alas, it was deemed that the cows there were too delicate beasts to travel up to the evil city of London. None the less, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you unwittingly and unknowingly were able to provide a cow. I was feeling a little guilty. I had pinched a cow from your constituency. The cow's minder from the NFU had driven up with her at 5 o'clock that morning and had had eggs and bacon with me at 7.30 am. There the cow was, standing on what was neither the road nor the pavement, this famous wild beast, just outside St. Stephen's entrance.
  By pure chance—it was quite a neat thing—along came the then Minister for Health and, again by pure chance, our good friends from the BBC and ITN were there too. That was the most peculiar concatenation of happy circumstances that any cow could wish for who was producing unpasteurised green top milk and who wished the sale of it to continue. There I was, guilt ridden, while the Minister for Health was just about to quaff his first ever draught of health-giving, bacteria-ridden, beautiful creamy green top milk which is absolutely wonderful, and along you came, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  You did not say, "Goodness me, what are you doing with my cow?" You said, "How wonderful to see you, Mary" addressing the farmer, and you and she sat chatting. In the end we managed the impossible and, together, we managed to persuade the Minister to take his pint of green top milk into the Cabinet meeting five minutes later where it was decided to continue the sale of first-class green top west country milk.
  That episode, Mr. Deputy Speaker, personified your urbanity, charm, delightfulness and inventiveness. Your humour, wit, courtesy and kindness to us all are legendary. I am grateful to you for all that you have done for me as a Back Bencher and for so many others during your lengthy term of office.
  I do not intend to talk about animals throughout my Budget speech. I could not help but listen to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I am sorry that he is temporarily not with us; I am sure that he will be back in a moment. I wonder whether he quite knew what he was talking about. [Interruption.] Here he is. Wonderful. How glad I am that the hon. Gentleman is back in his accustomed place, or one of his accustomed places; he bobs around the Chamber quite splendidly these days. I want to comment on part of what he said. I wonder whether he knew what he really meant when he said so charmingly, in his usual dulcet tones, that his last speech, which he had just delivered, was his swan song.
  I was a little fearful, as the hon. Gentleman revved himself up in his usual wonderful way, that his speech might turn out to be more like the song of a corn-crake, or perhaps an advertisement for throat pastilles, but he managed to get through his speech and sit down.
  Mr. Haynes rose—
  Miss Nicholson: This seems to be a splendid duet.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), who spoke before the hon. Member for Ashfield, said during his magnificent and masterly speech about science and technology that he had been listening to Gotterdammerung—but that means the twilight of the gods, and the past two days have been no twilight of the

  1033
  gods. The Labour party's opposition to the Budget has not been Gotterdammerung at all. As a matter of fact, it has reminded me more forcefully of an organ piece that I recently played at a funeral—"Pavane for a Dead Doll" by Tchaikovsky. That is the level of banality that has characterised the Opposition's objections to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's excellent Budget.
  It will be a lot of fun for the rest of us to see the Labour party wriggling, wheeling and dealing in an attempt to justify to its electorate the fact that Labour Members are voting against a reduction in income tax to 20p in the pound for those who earn the least.
  In his musical fervour, the hon. Member for Ashfield may not have realised that a swan song is what a swan sings when it is dying. No doubt he will recall that wonderful piece by Orlando Gibbons—"The Dying Swan". That is what a swan song is, and we may have been witnessing the dying throes of the Labour party.
  Mr. Haynes: I am grateful to the lovely lass for giving way. I watch ballet too, and I have seen "The Dying Swan". I am not dying—I shall go on and on and on—but I was making my last speech in this place. I shall be making plenty more speeches outside during the election campaign.
  Miss Nicholson: That explicit tenor statement did not hide the fact that we are witnessing the dying throes of the Labour party, as Labour Members attempt to vote against a 20p income tax band for the lowest paid—I make that point most seriously. I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor who has introduced that magnificent measure to go up the scale as soon as possible and raise the 20p band higher and higher. That is a true Conservative choice—allowing people who earn money to keep as much of it as possible.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield has darted away from the Chamber again, like a gadfly, but during his speech he mentioned his favourite newspaper. He said that The Guardian had done him sterling service. Has that service really been so sterling? Perhaps the hon. Member did not bother to read the headline yesterday. Yesterday The Guardian said that the Budget was
  "good for small businesses and the poor."
  That may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice as he was talking about poverty and rich living.
  I wonder whether the modern Labour party, for all its protestations, can really claim to understand the problems of poverty when it charges £500 a head for a "rich living" dinner. The hon. Gentleman told us that his constituents could not afford fish and chips. It is clear how outdated he is, because the present price of salmon makes it one of the cheapest protein dishes in the United Kingdom—bettered only by chicken. We have never had such low-cost protein before, and we shall never have it again if the Labour party gets into power—it will be £500 a head for dinner if Labour win. Labour's fund-raising efforts are quite unlike those of the Conservative party, which at a recent winter ball charged only £75 a head—we considered that to be really rich living. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ashfield—who has darted out again—is suffering from a surfeit of lampreys. Perhaps that is how the modern Labour party will writhe to death.
  The Labour party will certainly not do very well in its attempts to impress the electorate with its claims that our education policy is all wrong. The hon. Member for Ashfield wanted more money for his chief education officer
  1034
  to spend on running education. I shouted out—perhaps inelegantly— "Jobs for the boys". The fact that I am right is demonstrated by the fact that schools are opting out and walking out of local education authority control in many Labour-controlled areas—[Interruption.] I am making a very important, accurate, factual point.
  The great difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party emerges when Labour Members talk about the minimum wage. I was in business myself nearly all my life before I entered the House. When Labour Members use the word "differentials", I realise that the modern Labour party does not understand what a differential is—perhaps that is because there are no differentials in the House of Commons. There is a minimum wage flat rate for everything we do.
  Modern Labour Members, who do not come out of industry or business, honestly do not understand what the erosion of differentials means to the lower-paid. Every low-paid person would run away from the idea of the erosion of differentials, because it diminishes people in terms of their skills and aptitudes and the way in which society regards them. Furthermore, it reduces their actual pay. That is why the minimum wage would be no good to anyone—unless differentials were preserved, in which case it would merely encourage the inflationary spiral. That is why, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, inflation reached such intolerable heights last time the Labour party was in government. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said earlier this week, his goal has been to have a generation of people who have not been brought up to see inflation as the order of the day, as it was under the Labour Government.
  Mrs. Fyfe rose—
  Miss Nicholson: I have commented large and long on the problems which arose from the speech by the hon. Member for Ashfield, but I now wish to deal with something much more upsetting to me personally and to many people outside this place. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) acted in an unmanly way —I hesitate to use the word "cowardly", because that may be an unparliamentary term. However, the hon. Gentleman was certainly cowardly—if I am allowed to use that word in the House—because he failed to give way when he was ripping apart what he saw as the terrible Tory tactics on advertising. He would not give way either then or when he was talking about the health service, yet the important thing—
  Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Lady give way now?
  Miss Nicholson: I am sorry; the hon. Lady has just spoken and I shall not allow her to butt in now. I had not spoken before the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, as everyone knows, and I tried twice, courteously, to intervene, but he would not let me.
  Why did I wish to intervene? It was because I found it truly unspeakable, in the real sense of that word, that he should talk about advertising and attempt to destroy a perfectly honourable advertising company which has served the country well—Saatchi and Saatchi—and attempt to destroy our record on the NHS in a week in which the Labour party has destroyed the lives of a family by claiming in an advertisement that the death of their daughter was due to underfunding and understaffing at Great Ormond Street hospital. I find that despicable. I am

  1035
  appalled and horrified. I ask all Labour party members to spurn their party's advertising campaign. It is despicable. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, who must have known what I wanted to refer to, was too cowardly to give way and allow me to make that point.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Lady allow me to intervene?
  Miss Nicholson: I shall give way with pleasure if the hon. Gentleman will say that he does not support that filthy advertisement.
  Mr. Battle: I remind the hon. Lady that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) simply read out what the Advertising Standards Authority had said about the advertising company in question. Does she dispute or challenge the authenticity of the ASA's statement?
  Miss Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman has not bothered to pick up the point. Obviously it hurts him too much. The hon. Gentleman is an honourable man. Perhaps he does not support that foul advertisement. I did not comment on what the Advertising Standards Authority had said. I am more than willing to bow to its authority; this matter is its particular concern. I was commenting on the failure of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to let me ask him whether he supports that form of advertising, because he purported to criticise our advertising by means of one particular advertising company. It is a squalid and despicable advertisement. I am ashamed for him for not saying that he does not support it.
  When the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East referred to advertising he was not talking about the Budget. I support the excellent Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented. I support also the excellent points that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made this afternoon. I am glad to note that Computer Weekly agrees that the Budget offers a boost to software. As David Bicknell writes:
  "Chancellor Norman Lamont has ironed out discrepancies in capital allowances on software."
  My right hon. Friend has allowed suppliers and users to obtain tax relief on all software, as he stated yesterday. This is a boost for business. Do the Opposition not realise that software is the information marketplace upon which the single market depends? This is a major initiative, but they have chosen not to recognise it, or they have failed to understand what is included in the Budget. It is an excellent move. It will encourage suppliers to download electronically transmitted software, which is the preferred method of supply. It is a first-class initiative which I heartily commend.
  This is a prudent Budget, which I heartily support. I suspect that the Labour party has talked about everything other than the Budget this afternoon because it has no alternative to put forward. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East spent an enormous amount of time on saying that he believed that the national health service was deteriorating and that the principles of the national health service were being eroded by the Government. His sense of history is hugely at fault. It is a great shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James), one of Britain's leading historians, is not here. He would be able to put the Labour party right on that.
  1036
  The principles of the national health service are to offer assistance to the poorest in health, free at the point of delivery, so that they can become healthier and be less of a burden on the NHS. The Conservative Government have increased expenditure on the NHS by 50 per cent. in real terms. What sticks in the Labour party's gullet is that we are achieving real reforms that have cut waiting lists and led to many more operations and to the greater range of operations that science, doctors and the medical profession in general can now offer to patients.
  I have personal experience of a flagship NHS trust hospital. I have continuing personal family experience of Guy's hospital in Lewisham. I commend most highly the plastic surgery team, the children's ward, the Rothschild ward, the nurses, the doctors, the support services, the administrators and the chairman, Sir Philip Harris. They are carrying out a first-class job. I shall continue to have family experience of that hospital for many years to come. The truth is that the Labour party does not understand what the principles of the national health service were, are, or will be. It has no alternative to offer. Therefore, it falls into the usual Labour party trap of whining, moaning and whingeing about excellent policies that, in all honesty, it ought to have difficulty in not supporting.
  We are offering a lot of extra money to pensioners. The Labour party moans about that. We are offering help to family businesses and small farms. That is a first-class measure. The help that we shall give to family businesses and small farms relates to inheritance tax. Again that goes against the grain. The Labour party wants everything to go back to the centre, to the state. However, our proposals go with the grain, since the nation wishes us to conduct its affairs on its behalf in that way. The help to be given over the uniform business rate will be widely welcomed in my constituency. Many people in my constituency will also welcome the help that is to be given to small businesses in terms of the disclosure of the time of payment in the company accounts of big companies, as well as the introduction of best practice by the Government when it comes to payments to small businesses after they have secured Government contracts.
  This is a prudent, thoughtful, intelligent and caring Budget. It epitomises the Conservative party's philosophy. As I prepare to return to my constituency to fight the election—where, I am delighted to say, we shall continue to enjoy our cider without any unwarranted intervention by the French—I can say that we shall win the election on this Budget. The society that the Conservative party's values represent is the larger part by far of society in modern Britain.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) graced yesterday's Budget debate with what will be his final speech in the House of Commons. He spoke movingly of his experiences in the past 30 years as a Member of Parliament for Leeds. I have the privilege of representing part of my right hon. Friend's former constituency of South Leeds. I wish to put on record not just my thanks to my right hon. Friend but the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) as well as the thanks of literally thousands of people in

  1037
  Leeds who will always regard my right hon. Friend as a citizen of our city and as one of whom they can be totally proud for having given great service to the city.
  As I listened to my right hon. Friend's speech I compared its grace, style and wisdom with what, sadly, was the cheapjack speech of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The latter was a knockabout speech,. As someone on these Benches rightly pointed out, it was a speech appropriate for a Chelsea supporter but not for a Government Minister. The same sort of speech was made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Employment. It is indeed sad that at the fag-end of this Parliament the Government and their Ministers should behave in that way. They could certainly learn a lesson in decorum and behaviour from my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South.
  My right hon. Friend made one very important point. He referred to the fact that Leeds had grown on account of its manufacturing industry. He talked about the wealth that had been created by our engineering, textile and clothing industries. He made the point that we have a Government who seem, at best, indifferent to manufacturing and, at the very worst, anti-manufacturing. It seems almost as though the Government do not believe that we need to produce goods in order to pay our way in the world. When the Government's attitude to manufacturing comes to the fore, I am always reminded of the comment of a leading industrialist in manufacturing industry who said, "We cannot live in a service economy; we cannot live by taking in each other's washing; we cannot live on a service basis; we need a manufacturing base."
  In Leeds we are asking not to go back or for a return to the old industries but for support, help and hope for existing industries and future developments. Over the past 18 months we have experienced the longest recession of the past 60 years. My constituency is now faced with over 20 per cent. unemployment. There is a loss of hope and ambition. Leeds is an affluent city, but the pockets of poverty are deep and desperate. Ministers talk about generalities of statistics. They should see the pockets of poverty and hopelessness and consider them alongside those generalities. Even on the Government's official statistics, sufficient people are unemployed in Leeds to fill Elland road football ground. If the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) thinks that that is funny, he should visit Leeds. Each day those unemployed people get up and know that there is no hope and nothing that they can put their hands to. That is why we make the plea for improved manufacturing industry. We do that not in the cheapjack way of the Conservative party but because we believe in producing wealth and real jobs. That is why we want the new industries to develop and why we want to preserve our existing industries.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): The hon. Gentleman is keen to support manufacturing industry and to encourage the development of manufacturing industry in Britain. Will he take this opportunity to dissociate himself from the motion passed by the Trades Union Congress last year which described investment from overseas as being alien and made some thoroughly disgraceful and offensive remarks about such investment? Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen have not yet dissociated themselves from that motion. Does the Labour party support that disgraceful attitude?
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman should know that the TUC is not the Labour party.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The Labour party is the TUC.
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) shows a lack of understanding and ignorance worthy of a member of the Government, but it does not do him justice. The Labour party's position on such issues is clear.
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Fatchett: I will give way later. I want to develop my point further.
  Manufacturing industry in Leeds has suffered under the Government's policies. A survey published last year by the Leeds chamber of commerce showed that 91 per cent. of its firms referred to high interest rates and the Government's high interest rates policy as the main factor affecting their performance. That is a telling criticism of the Government. In a city that is trying to improve its economic and manufacturing base, firms feel that the real constraint on increased performance has been the Government's high interest rates. That was not a comment from the TUC. Unlike the Government, Leeds chamber of commerce understands the importance of manufacturing.
  Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South made some telling points about manufacturing. I echo those comments. We need a Government who invest in and help manufacturing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South also said that many of our constituents feel that there is no hope for them. They have no ambition. That is why training is important. It provides the skills for the future. It provides people with passports, hope and ambition.
  In today's Yorkshire Post is a letter from a 19-year-old. That young person wrote to Dr. Jenny Cozens on the reader's problem page. Dr. Cozens is a clinical psychologist at the university of Leeds. It is a typical letter from a young person. It says:
  "I am 19 and I haven't had a job for over a year and I think I've lost my confidence. I realise I've got to keep trying and that it's my fault if things don't go right, but I've become so unhappy lately that sometimes I think things are too much for me. I still write for jobs, but not as much as I did and then I feel I'm not trying hard enough. I got mugged recently and that seemed like the last straw. I used to sing a lot, but now my voice sounds awful a friend said that it might be the blow to my head."
  The response from Dr. Jenny Cozens is very important. She said, "Stop blaming yourself". Under this Government, it is always supposed to be somebody else's fault—very often that typical young person's fault. I enjoyed the final comment from Dr. Cozens. Talking about job losses and the difficulty of readjustment, she said:
  "Even Prime Ministers like Mrs. Thatcher get upset when it happens to them."
  It is a funny old world for Prime Ministers, but it is not such a funny old world for that 19-year-old. That is the cost of unemployment and it is about time Ministers understood that.
  The Government's training and enterprise councils say that the employment training programme is important arid that it is a pathway to jobs and hope for the future. The Leeds training and enterprise council has suggested that we need 2,200 jobs on employment training. The Government have offered 1,800—a cut of more than 20 per

  1039
  cent. At a time of rising unemployment—it has increased by more than 40 per cent. in the past 12 months—this Government, alone in western Europe, have cut back on their training budget. That is criminal. It is criminal in terms of investment for the future, for the young 19-year-old and for my constituents who have been waiting for a future.
  This is a Budget in which the Government have tried to deceive. It is very much like last year's Budget. The Government cry crocodile tears about those on low incomes. I can tell the Financial Secretary that when the poll tax was introduced—every Conservative Member sitting on those Benches now voted for it—more than 70 per cent. of my constituents were losers. The Tories in Leeds voted for the poll tax regularly. We did not hear then about concern for those on low incomes. The hardship and injustice of the poll tax in my constituency has to be seen to be believed. Conservative Members should see the elderly constituents who come to my surgeries because they cannot pay their poll tax bills. They are in fear. For the first time in their lives, elderly ladies are in debt and running against the law. They are not law breakers. They want to pay their poll tax, but they simply cannot afford to pay it. They lose sleep over it. I do not want to hear from the Government about their concern for those on low incomes. After the introduction of the poll tax every Conservative Member is guilty of inflicting a great deal of hardship on my constituents.
  The Government have missed political, social and economic opportunities in the Budget. It should have been a Budget for investment in our future. It should have been a Budget for investment in skills and education. It should have been a Budget that would have given us the work force for the 21st century. What have we got? We have an education system in which one in four children in primary schools is taught in classes with more than 31 pupils. Conservative Members who buy private education for their children would not be satisfied with a class of 31. In many schools there is a shortage of books, teachers and scientific equipment. Many of our science and technology classes are taught with yoghurt pot Blue Peter technology. The youngsters do not have the resources to enable them to carry out real learning and real work.
  That is the reality. We have crumbling schools with a backlog of repairs worth £4,000 million. The Budget simply does not address those problems. It is criminal for the Government to put their own skins before the skills and knowledge of our children and the future of this country. The Government will be damned for that on 9 April and for a long time after. In their 13 years in office, the Government have shown they they are cheap fixers who are not concerned about Britain or its future. Labour Members are concerned about Britain's future—that is why we shall win on 9 April.
  8 pm
  Mr. Roger King: While listening to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I reflected upon the fact that we all share the challenge of providing employment for our constituencies. We all try to create a system that will provide jobs, wealth and health to our communities.
  1040
  My community is the centre of a substantial portion of our car manufacturing industry, with Rover's Longbridge plant dominating the local economy. We like to think, justifiably, that after the death throes of socialism 12 years ago, when Red Robbo was finally sent packing, we have produced at that factory some of the finest products, to the highest standards of productivity and quality.
  We are justifiably proud of the Metro car, which ranks as probably the best small car that one can currently buy. Among the various car magazines that are on offer, What Car? named it as its small car of the year for 1990. The Rover 200 and 400 series continue to break new records in productivity, quality and market acceptance. We are proud of the fact that we make cars that are saleable and that are wanted by the public, because that brings jobs to the community and to our young people.
  I watched Labour party members cavort about Birmingham in early January with their "Buy British" campaign. They visited the factory in my constituency and spoke to the workers on the shop floor. The Labour party said it was not in the business of helping that factory and it said that it was not going to abolish the special car tax. No future Labour Government would give any help to the car industry. It would not revise all the company car taxation problems that have built up over the years. No —to the Labour party, the company car is a bad thing which must be destroyed. We all have to travel by public transport, courtesy of the transport unions.
  After the Labour party visit to the factory, some of us did some investigating, but we did not have to do much, because the newspapers did it for us. At the same time as the Labour party was advocating its "Buy British" policy, we discovered that the deputy leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), drives a Citroen. I have no objection to that. They are outstandingly good cars. I have no objection to anybody buying a car from whatever country in the world—the world is full of wonderful products—but I maintain that our local products are as good as any others. If people think differently, they are entitled to buy other goods.
  Where I part company from the Labour party is that anyone who insists that we should buy British should emulate that policy. It was with great shock that I saw the other weekend, in the News of the World, a report that the Leader of the Opposition no less had slunk away quietly last May to buy a Fiat car. He said, "No news, please. Don't you dare tell the rest of the world." The salesman said "Mr. Kinnock, we have not got a red car for you, but we have got a blue one." The Leader of the Opposition refused to sit in that. He ordered a red car instead.
  I repeat that I have no objection to people buying what they like, but when the hon. Member for Leeds, Central talks about the morality of providing jobs for young people, he should ask the Leader of the Opposition why he supports the working people of Turin and denies the people of Birmingham the opportunity to supply his needs. That is the question that the hon. Gentleman should consider. I hope that he does so because, on 9 April, my constituents will want to know why they were betrayed by the Leader of the Opposition.
  I have written to the Leader of the Opposition to ask why he chose to buy a foreign car and what was wrong with our home products. Was it discount? I could have arranged a good discount and helped him out. Was the colour a problem? Do we not do a bright enough red? We

  1041
  could have had a car sprayed especially for him; I am certain of that. I have had no answer, and my constituents do not know why the Leader of the Opposition, who hopes to be the future Prime Minister—of course, that will not happen—bought an Italian car and denied the working people in my constituency the opportunity to provide that product for him.
  Mr. O'Hara: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to pursue the logic of his argument? Will he state his opposition to the freedom from exchange controls which allows capital from this country to be invested in millions of jobs abroad —in any country but this?
  Mr. King: That has come as a bolt out of the blue. The hon. Gentleman is advocating capital control, a siege economy and the raising of tariff barriers. That would deny the Japanese the opportunity to bring businesses to this country, because we could not export businesses and opportunities there. We are a trading nation and, if we put up such barriers, no wonder that Liverpool is happy to be in its current state, given that kind of advice. One will never get the foreign investment wanted in Liverpool if one denies the opportunities to two-way trade.
  Mr. O'Hara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: No, I will not. I have saved the hon. Gentleman from certain defeat by not allowing him to intervene again.
  Mr. O'Hara: That is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, not mine.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Mr. King: I am sorry if the truth causes some conflict of opinion.
  We heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) give a tour de force or something or other. He certainly did not give any suggestions about what the Opposition would do in the unlikely event of them winning the majority at the election. He made lots of comments about the Government and about the possible level to which unemployment might rise, but he gave no suggestion about how to create jobs. The hon. Gentleman's speech contained plenty of criticism of the Government's decision to reduce taxes to give working people on lower incomes more disposable income. What was central to the hon. Gentleman's speech was his belief that, somehow or other, it was immoral to make those reductions, and that there were plenty of other things on which the money could be spent.
  The sum involved is £1·8 billion, and the hon. Gentleman suggested that that money should be spent on hospitals, schools, manufacturing investment and the railways. One would not get very much for £1·8 billion if one threw all those spending commitments in, but that was just for starters. Presumably the Opposition have an endless list of expenditure promises which are supposed to be met from that relatively small sum, in terms of Exchequer levels, of £1·8 billion. The Opposition ignore the fact that they have to find the extra money for all those commitments—which have been made on top of the commitments already given by the Government.
  We will provide new hospitals, new opportunities in our schools and systems for industry whereby it can invest using its own money. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor
  1042
  and his colleagues on the Treasury team launched an important initiative by containing the level of the uniform business rate. That decision will put a significant amount of money in the pockets of the manufacturing and retailing sectors, which undoubtedly will be used for investment.
  Mr. Battle: The Government invented the uniform business rate.
  Mr. King: Indeed, and the uniform business rate has been uniformly welcomed in the manufacturing sector. Some of the reductions in the business rate have a transitional element, but they will filter through quickly to much of the manufacturing sector in the west midlands, which is delighted and grateful.
  The Government have certainly helped industry by their decision in the Budget to reduce the special car tax by 50 per cent. In the January visit to which I referred earlier, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer went to the Rover plant at Longbridge, and was asked on the shop floor about the special car tax. He said that Labour had no plans to abolish it. I pressed the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that yesterday. I must say, he is fleet of foot and agile of mind. He said that what he had said was that Labour would not abolish the special car tax but that that did not imply that it would not reduce it.
  I do not want to use the expression "weasel words", but in that context we must examine closely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in January. When asked whether he would abolish the special car tax and after he had replied that Labour had no plans to abolish it, he did not add that Labour would reduce it. Therefore, we deduce that, because the Government have done something that has been warmly welcomed by the country's largest manufacturing sector, the Labour party would not reverse it. That means that it will have to find another £700 million for its expenditure programme if it is to keep that element of tax reduction.
  The changes that the Government have introduced in company car taxation have also been warmly welcomed. The Chancellor has answered many of the criticisms that I and others made for more years than I care to remember. For example, the scale charge reform based on price—as opposed to the arbitrary cut-off point of engine cubic capacity—seems to be a commitment and must be a more sensible and economically viable way of working out the benefit charges for business car use.
  At long last, the Government have considered fuel scale charges in relation to diesel. Diesel is a more environmentally responsible fuel and is acknowledged to emit less carbon dioxide and far fewer noxious gases. The Government have considered diesel in a far more favourable light. If most of Britain's company cars were exchanged for diesel cars, we could fulfil the Government's commitment to maintain carbon dioxide levels in 2000 at last year's levels. That is a tall order, but the encouragement given in the Budget is a clear sign that industry can and should examine closely the idea of providing company car users with diesel vehicles.
  I was delighted to learn that, from 1 August, value added tax will be recoverable on certain elements of business car purchase for car hire firms—not black cabs because they can get back their VAT, but for the new and burgeoning growth sector of community life. The private hire taxi firms will now have the opportunity to recover VAT on new car purchases. That represents a sizeable

  1043
  saving on their investment in vehicles, because they will be able to recover the 17·5 per cent. in addition to benefiting from the 5 per cent. cut in special car tax which is available to everyone as of midnight on Tuesday. The cars of private hire companies which ply their trade in the streets of our cities are generally fairly dilapidated. The saving will provide those companies and their drivers with the opportunity to buy new, environmentally acceptable cars. I look forward to that.
  It is also a step forward that VAT can be recovered by car hire firms, the self-drive organisations. That will be a tremendous fillip to the car industry and to driving schools. No one could understand why a driving school that must have a car in which to teach someone to drive could not get back VAT on the car that it employed in its everyday work.
  The capital allowance limit has been increased from £8,000 to £12,000. That is long overdue; it has been campaigned for for a long time. At long last the Government have seen fit to introduce the change, which has been well received.
  What will be the end results in our economy of all those changes? I am convinced that our car industry is the element of our manufacturing base which will power the economy forward. The indicators are extremely encouraging. We have had massive inward investment from the Japanese and from the French—Peugeot at Ryton in Coventry—and from multinationals such as Ford and General Motors, which are building new factories, new plant and new equipment to produce new models and engines in this country.
  We are beginning to see the fruits of that after the debacle of the 1970s, when hardly any factories operated on a 24-hour basis without a stoppage. We now have almost wholly strike-free conditions in the motor industry, in the component and car plants. That has been translated into a superb export performance in the past 13 months. Exports have increased by 50 per cent. so the deficit in motor vehicles, which was around £6 billion, has been closed dramatically to no more than £1·5 billion. In turn, that will become a surplus as Toyota's production gets under way later this year, as Nissan starts to produce a new small car for sale throughout Europe and as Honda's production gets under way in Swindon.
  The indicators are very encouraging. Within a few years, our car and component exports will be in surplus. I cannot envisage a time when we shall move into deficit, because of the tremendous investment that has taken place, and this is only the beginning.
  The Japanese, with their British management and British partners, will realise the quality of the product that we can make in this country. The Nissan Primera made in Sunderland is exported to Japan because it is of a higher quality than those which the Japanese are making.
  The Japanese will realise the excellence of the highly trained British working people. Training to achieve the right results on our shop floors is exceptionally good, because British industry on its own spends well over £20 billion on training schemes, without Government interference. As people realise the quality of the products that can be made in this country, they will not only maintain production here but seek to double and treble it,
  1044
  so that the United Kingdom will become the supplier of cars to the rest of the European Community and eastern Europe.
  That is the opportunity before us, and it is an opportunity that this Government alone will grasp. The Opposition do not like Japanese investment: they have said as much, and have continued to criticise it. Can anyone seriously believe that, under a Labour Government, we would continue to get the same level of Japanese investment? The Japanese would no doubt be driven out by import tariffs, by the lack of movement of capital which has just been advocated by the Opposition, and by penal rates of taxation.
  The United Kingdom's success has been caused by the Government creating the right framework—the right personal tax policies and the incentive to put in a decent week's work for a decent week's salary which enables people to buy the home that they hitherto rented from the local authority and gives them a stake in society through privatisation measures. These incentives have filtered through society, so that our manufacturing units, especially in the car industry, are the most efficient and effective we have.
  However, we have to go much further merely to stand still in comparison with the competition. The Germans and French are trying to compete with us, and the Japanese continue to forge ahead with more examples of higher and higher productivity, so we must be very efficient. To load our factories with extra taxes, to abolish the uniform business rate and then to allow authorities to get what they can from businesses within their communities to bankroll their expansionist programmes, would act as a major brake on the investment that we need and are getting as a result of the Government's policies.
  Yesterday, 24 hours after the Budget, The Birmingham Post, which is probably the most influential regional newspaper and the second city's major morning paper, had as its headline "Car firms celebrate £80m sales bonanza" thanks to my right hon. Friend's decision to reduce car tax. That is the way forward. We should cut taxes and provide incentives to invest in business. We should allow people a little more take-home pay as evidence that Britain is a great place in which to work and earn money, and in which to live. It will continue to be a better place under a Conservative Government after 9 April.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. John Battle: I suspect that the Budget may be remembered for the contrast between the period of Budget purdah and the reception that it has justifiably been receiving.
  At the beginning, the air was heavy with expectation. There was a fanfare of flyers about what the Government would offer to the people. I should like to compare it to a firework—brightly coloured paper, lighting the touch paper and the rocket going up. What do we get? After Government press releases and one morning's headlines, within days we find the remainder, rather like the remains the day after fireworks: we are left with a burnt stick in a bottle. That is what the Budget will prove to be as the people of Britain start to examine it in detail. There has been something of a contrast between its muted reception and the hype it was given before it was presented.
  The Budget will be noted for its silence and absences: the absence of measures to tackle the economic crises and

  1045
  the needs of our people; and the silences about the decline in manufacturing industry, about mass unemployment which is experienced by 3 million people and about the shift of 10 million people into low-paid jobs in the past 13 years. Even Tory Members have mentioned the silence on science, the silence on the seedcorn for the future.
  The Budget will not be praised for tackling unemployment. Nor will it be praised for finding real pathways out of poverty. There was a time in the past 13 long years when the Conservative party proclaimed that the decline in manufacturing was good. I recall the attitude of Lord Young when he was Secretary of State for Employment. He advised people that his strategy to reduce unemployment was to encourage people to eat out more. He suggested that, if only more people would eat out, unemployment would sink. It was as if the service sector only, the McDonalds and Burger King economy, would be Britain's future. We all know, as it is practical common sense, that a land of rent-out car parks and fast-food outlets is not a sustainable means of running an economy.
  I say that as a Member who represents a city with a proud manufacturing base and history. Leeds was based on the traditional manufacturing industries of engineering, textiles and printing. What has happened in the past 13 years? The decline in manufacturing in Leeds is absolutely typical of the decline in manufacturing in the country as a whole. Between 1981 and 1987, the number of full-time jobs fell by 8,600, and the total number in manufacturing fell by 13,900.
  What was happening? Yes, there was a shift from manufacturing to the service sector, but there was also a shift from full-time to part-time work. When Tory Members tell us of all the new jobs that they have created, they should also tell the House and the country that many, if not the majority, of those jobs are part-time. They should also tell us that they are not jobs for men, because there has been a shift towards jobs for women. They should also tell us that there has been a shift from well-paid to low-paid work. There has been a shift to a part-time, low-wage economy.
  In my area, redundancies in manufacturing have risen dramatically—to 1,229 in 1989 and to 1,708 in 1990. That is an annual rate of increase of 30 per cent. What comments do we hear about the outlook under this Government? Textiles face tougher times because of high interest rates depressing demand. The outlook for engineering has been described as decidedly patchy because of the present regime of higher interest rates leading to cuts in orders. Where is the strategy for manufacturing investment? The CBI projects that, between 1989 and 1992, manufacturing investment under this Government will fall by 25 per cent. That is the reality. Manufacturing in Britain dropped by 33 per cent. between 1979 and June 1991. It is continuing to fall by 6 per cent. a year.
  When the Chancellor of the Exchequer implies in the Budget that a further 200,000 jobs will go in manufacturing, we should work out the impact on regions traditionally dependent on manufacturing as the source of wealth creation, such as Yorkshire. In practice, at 1989 prices there will be a loss of £329 million of manufacturing investment in Yorkshire between 1989 and 1992. The reality for millions of people whose families have relied on manufacturing industry will be insecurity and fear for the future.
  1046
  Millions already feel that they are a single wage packet away from the dole queue. Unemployment is 150 per cent. higher than when the Government came to power in 1979. It is continuing to rise, yet the Government throw up their hands and declare that that is a price worth paying to get inflation down. There are now 1,426,000 more unemployed people, on the Government's own figures, than when Labour left office in May 1979. Under this Government, unemployment has never been lower than it was under Labour. During the past 13 years, the Conservative party has proved itself to be the party of high unemployment. As we all know, unemployment is a personal disaster and a social evil that the Government simply try to brush under the carpet.
  Every year, the unemployed have been rubbed out, as if by Noddy's magic rubber in Enid Blyton books, by 30 changes to the unemployment benefit figures, just as the poor have been subjected to statistical elimination under this Government. When we look at the figures in practice, who are the unemployed? They are the generation of 16 to 25-year-olds. A generation of our young people is being written off by the Government.
  In my constituency, unemployment rose by 51 per cent. between December 1990 and December 1991. In reality, it is now standing at 15 per cent., yet the number of jobs advertised locally has fallen in the past two years: by 60 per cent. in 1990–91 and by 44 per cent. in 1991–92. There has been a 50 per cent. drop in textile vacancies.
  In December, I looked in the jobcentre to see what was on offer. These were the vacancies: one managerial and professional job, seven clerical jobs, one secretarial job, 11 non-manual jobs, one fitter/machinist job, one catering and domestic job, seven road-sweeping jobs, three processing jobs, one assembly-packing job and one transport-operating job. I read out the list to show that, significantly, there was not one single skilled manufacturing job. That is the reality in our constituencies.
  It is all very well for Ministers to go round the country and make stupid remarks about people who are made redundant being "liberated" from work. Fine—but the problem is that those without work get very little income. It is surprising that the very Minister who declares that those people are liberating themselves from work is a Minister responsible for social security, who does not even guarantee them a decent income to live on when they are out of work.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that this was a Budget for the low-paid—a noise echoed by Tory Members. The Chancellor said that he had given
  "proportionately greater benefit to those on low incomes."—[Official Report, 10 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 760.]
  Yet the unemployed gain absolutely nothing. They do not get a penny from a tax reduction, because they are not paying any tax because they are not working. How will they gain from the Budget?
  When the Conservative Government's Budget details are put under close scrutiny and analysis, they reveal, as usual, that, despite all the instant claims, it is not the poor or the poorest, but the rich, and the richest, who gain. Members of Parliament get more from the tax cuts through the 20 per cent. reduction than do the unemployed. The 10 million workers—46 per cent. of the work force—who now earn below the Council of Europe's decency threshold for wages will get little. The tax changes

  1047
  do not help the low-paid in any great measure, because those caught in the poverty trap of taxes and means-tested benefit will gain even less.
  I give the example of family credit. In my constituency, with high unemployment, 1,124 families claim family credit. My area is a low-wage area, and Yorkshire generally is one of the lowest-wage areas in Great Britain, second only to Northern Ireland. Those people will lose 70p for every pound they may gain under the Budget. Many families are too poor to pay tax, and will not benefit at all.
  An answer to a parliamentary question on 5 March shows that, because of the Government's decision to change the definition of full-time work from 24 hours to 16 hours for family credit, 15,000 families will have their family credit topped up by income support. They have now been pushed towards having to apply for two means-tested benefits. That is the reality for the poor under this Government.
  Conservative Members may tell us that the change will affect few people. Let them do their homework and let them see how the tax benefits disintegrate under the pressure of the social security system. Even if people earn enough to pay tax, and even if they benefit fully from the 20 per cent. band, many will gain only £1·64 a week. The problem is that bringing in the lower rate band as a means of making tax fairer and more progressive is, in this Budget, at the expense of the failure to maintain the value of the personal allowances for married couples. In practice, its effect is limited and many families on low pay will be drawn into paying tax as a result of the Budget. The Government hope that people will not realise that point until they get their wage packets some time at the end of May when the election is over. People will have to take advice to find out why they have been short-changed.
  There was an article in The Independent yesterday by Holly Sutherland, a research fellow on social policy at the London School of Economics. The article was entitled "Poor without work stand to gain least". She pointed out:
  "the top 50 per cent. of families will on average be better off by some 0·95 per cent. of their incomes. The bottom half will be better off by only 0·55 per cent. of their incomes. They gain less absolutely—as would be expected—but they also gain less proportionately".
  That wholly contradicts what the Chancellor told the House in his Budget statement. The Chancellor claims that he is unable to reach those on the lowest incomes through the tax system. The reason is clearly that people's incomes are too low for them to pay tax in the first place.
  Conservative Members refer to pensioners. It would have been a far better and more progressive method of increasing the incomes of poorer pensioners to have raised the rate of the non-means-tested state national insurance pension. That is the key. People should not be pushed further into means-testing or into losing their access to housing benefits or assistance with the poll tax.
  This is not a Budget for the low-paid, for the poorer pensioners or for those in work in the lower income brackets. It is not a Budget to tackle the decline in manufacturing investment. I hope that the fact that the election has been declared means that the Budget will be firmly behind us and that new opportunities will open up.
  I look forward to a Budget that puts investment in manufacturing as a priority, which would reinvigorate the
  1048
  base of manufacturing industry in Britain, and which provides real work opportunities. I look forward to a Budget that tackles unemployment as a priority with a Government who are committed to active intervention in the labour market, and who invest in the infrastructure and who invest sensitively in the regions. I look forward to a Budget which will provide real value for one's work and which provides a real means of taking the low-paid in work out of poverty.
  We heard nothing in the Budget statement about increasing child benefit which still has not caught up after the freeze that was imposed by the Government some years ago. That is an announcement in the Conservative manifesto to which I look forward. I look for a Budget that will establish a skills fund to boost the skills of those in work. I look forward to a Budget that introduces a statutory minimum wage to ensure that people do not degenerate further into a European cheap-labour economy, which some Conservative Members seem to want to inflict on us.
  This is a burnt-out Government. They are a spent force, whose time is up. The Government are well past their sell-by date. It is time for a Labour Government, with a vision of social justice and with new hope for the future of the people of our country.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Alistair Burt: It is a pleasure and a privilege to speak at the end of a Parliament. It is also a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who speaks with knowledge and passion on these matters. The hon. Gentleman and I share one of my most pleasant memories of this Parliament. Some two years ago we both went on a visit to the United Nations. I enjoyed his company then, and I enjoyed his speech today even though I do not always agree with the way he wishes to achieve his ends. He knows enough about me to know that I share some of the aims of which he speaks, although we differ in our methods in terms of how to get there. I do not detract from the knowledge and passion with which he put his case.
  The interesting point about the Budget is that it has themes which link this old Parliament with a new Parliament in which I confidently expect that there will be a Conservative Government. I welcome the Budget, the themes of which underline some of those which separate the Government and the Opposition.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has the reputation of being bold and clever. I was rather disappointed that he chose not to deliver his budget at the same time, or immediately after, the Budget presented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I see no reason why he should not have done so. He knew as much about the economy as my right hon. Friend did and he knew enough about the economy to prepare his budget for next week, yet he chose not to make his statement at the same time. That does not show a great deal of bravery and it enables him to pick and choose among the items introduced by my right hon. Friend, to mull over the Sunday papers and to cobble something together. It would have been braver to produce something the day before, or at the same time, but he has not done so. The other reason why the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East did not present his budget statement at the same time as my right hon. Friend's was that he was

  1049
  wrong-footed. He was afraid that if his budget had been ready immediately after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor sat down, he would have been exposed as being wrong-footed—as, indeed, he would have been.
  The themes which make a difference between the Government and the Opposition, and which are captured in the Budget, are these: freedom, choice and responsibility are watchwords of the Conservative party and are important in a Budget context, although they are sometimes derided by the Opposition. Freedom to choose is important because choice brings responsibility and responsibility builds a decent society. One does not build a just or proper society by taking responsibility away from people.
  One of the mistakes that we made over the past few years, until perhaps 18 months ago, was not to emphasise sufficiently how the building of individual responsibility contributes to society. That is why we have always fallen prey to the argument that individual choice and responsibility are about selfish gain rather than gain to the community. It is easy to argue that social responsibility builds through individual responsibility. I hope that that theme will be developed by the next Conservative Government.
  Because freedom to choose is important, our attitude to taxation is different. Labour says, "It all belongs to the state—we will let you have back what we think you deserve." We say, "What you earn is yours—we will ask for what we need for society." There is a world of difference between the two, and the £250 million that is coming into the pockets of people in the north-west through the tax changes announced by the Chancellor is important because I trust those people to use the money sensibly. They will use it to look after their homes and families, to make a proper choice of purchases and to contribute to society. We must trust people, and in our tax policy, as in many of our other policies, we do just that.
  As well as being important from the point of view of freedom, a low-tax-low-inflation economy works. I fail to appreciate how the hon. Member for Leeds, West can argue that more taxation would help us get out of recession. He and his hon. Friends would have a stronger economic case if they could point to much in their economic background in the way of success. We know what happens when their economics run the country and things go wrong.
  We in Bury still cherish a circular presented to the local authority in 1976 by the then Labour Government when they announced savage cuts because of the mess the economy was in, prior to its being rescued by the IMF. We recall how unemployment increased under the Labour Government. The hon. Member for Leeds, West speaks with passion about the unemployed, but he fails to appreciate that every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they began. The failure of the last Labour Government properly to look after the economy cost my constituents dear in terms of the national health service. It was the only time in the history of the NHS that expenditure on health care in my constituency fell. That happened between 1974 and 1979.
  Today and previously, we have remarked with distaste certain cases being used in advertising by Labour Members in an effort to make charges against the Government in relation to the NHS. How would they feel if I asked my constituents to calculate how many people were killed in my constituency because spending on health
  1050
  care fell under the last Labour Government? Why should we not challenge them with similar cases? We do not do it because we do not believe in operating in that way. It is immoral for Labour politicians to claim that their running of the economy would provide more cash and resources for the NHS. They did not do it when they were last in office and they would not do it in the future. The bottom line is that, if the economy is bankrupt, the Government cannot deliver, whatever promises they make. Such promises were made to the people of Bury by the last Labour Government. They promised, but they did not deliver.
  That is why low taxation and a low-interest economy is right, not only for freedom of choice but because it works better. People do not trust the Labour party to run the economy properly. I assure Opposition Members that the electorate have longer memories than they think, and that fact will be decisive on polling day.
  Bury will enjoy other benefits as a result of the Budget. I welcome the changes for industry and business—for example, in the uniform business rate. Heavy industry has enjoyed a drop in local taxation. Businesses that have witnessed increases, as a result of changes in the rates, will be assisted by the measures announced in the Budget in the sense that the rises that they have suffered will be easier to cope with. The Labour party cannot disclaim responsibility in relation to the UBR because at the heart of it was the revaluation policy that it supported.
  An important aspect of the Budget is the bringing together of spending and the raising of revenue, and I welcome the change that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is making in that respect. The Budget is only one part of the equation. The other part is the autumn statement, which details the spending policy of the Government. Many comments about the Budget, made by hon. Members who should know better and by people outside Parliament, fail to differentiate between the autumn statement—the spending part of the equation—and the Budget.
  We saw in the last autumn statement the aspects on which the Government were spending. That included the NHS, education and extra resources for capital investment in transport. The money that was asked for has been put into those items and I am proud of the Government's record. But there must be a balance, and in future that balance will be seen because the two parts of the equation will appear together. That makes good sense.
  It will be important for the next Conservative Government to address some of the social challenges that we face. There is no point in building an economy for its own sake. It must be built to be used, and the nation faces some of the social problems to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West referred. We have pockets of poverty and unemployment. Those problems cannot be dealt with in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested because high taxation, with inevitable high inflation, would create the problems that had to be faced by the last Labour Government, when the economy collapsed and they could not deliver what they had promised to provide.
  If we in the Conservative party build the economy that we want, we must have the courage to opt for a form of social conservatism which will deliver the conditions that our people need. I firmly believe that a Conservative Government can deliver social justice. Such justice cannot be built on a weak economy. A Labour Government would mean a weak economy. Only the Conservatives can

  1051
  deliver what they promise to deliver. I am confident that we shall be delivering what the nation needs from these Benches from 27 April onwards.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: The Chancellor has received praise from a number of predictable quarters, including sections of the press and, of course, Conservative Members. Clearly, they were bound to heap praise on the right hon. Gentleman.
  I wish at the outset to correct the wilful perversion of what 1 said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). I asked him to pursue his logic in criticising me for speaking of the investment in purchasing power resulting from the sale in this country of the products of foreign workers. I asked him to explain what difference there was between that and this country investing capital in the countries of origin of those workers. I was not advocating controls on capital exchange. I am left wondering, after such wilful misunderstanding—I put it no higher than that—of the views of my hon. Friends and I, how Conservative Members can heap praise on the Budget proposals.
  After much trying, I have discovered an accolade that can be given to the Chancellor—for barefaced cheek, or, as we say in the part of the world from which I come, for brass. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will appreciate what I mean. We also say in my area that where there is muck there is brass. It came to me in a blinding flash that this is a Budget of muck and brass.
  We shall be asked later to support a series of instruments relating to the payment of VAT, penalties for misdeclaration and surcharges for default of payment. I marvel, as I watch the Chancellor clearing up the muck left by his predecessor, at the way in which he is claiming credit for it. For example, the right hon. Gentleman tries to claim credit for alterations to the uniform business rate. The Government claim credit for the mitigation of the worst effects of their actions. The uniform business rate is the ugly sister of the poll tax. The Government were responsible for driving many businesses to the wall because of the uniform business rate. They drove businesses over the edge in the teeth of the current recession and now claim credit for rescuing the victims that they had left buried up to the neck for two years in the face of the incoming tide. The uniform business rate is the muck and brass of this Budget, adding just one small extra cost to the £14·5 billion final account of the poll tax.
  I doff my cap to two small fiscal changes that I came across in the small print of the Budget: the abolition of the requirement for small social clubs to pay bingo duty and the 50 per cent easing of car tax. My postbag will be much lighter, because the priest of my local parish church will no longer complain to me about the burden of bingo duty on his parish social club and the manager of Halewood labour club will no longer lament about the burden that he has suffered from the imposition of bingo duty. People were dancing in the streets of Halewood last night. I was there and I was not sure whether people were rejoicing because of the easing of bingo duty or the 50 per cent. easing of car tax, because Ford of Halewood is an important car manufacturing plant. I suspect, however, that it was part
  1052
  of a splendid celebration of the 25 years of life and work in St. Mary's church there, which I was delighted to attend. Halewood had several reasons to rejoice last night.
  If that 50 per cent. easing of the car tax is fine today, why was it not fine 18 months ago, when it was clear that the car industry was approaching a disastrous decline, in the face of which the Government have at last had to act? The same question must be asked about other measures in the Budget—if they are so good for the economy now, why were they not taken earlier?
  I have been in the House for about 18 months. I referred in my maiden speech to the fact that the recession was the "R" word that Conservative Members dare not mention. At first, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor denied that there was a recession. They then deliberately understated the depth of the recession, before rashly and prematurely predicting its end. Most recently, they blamed it all on "those foreigners". It was a remarkable repertoire of evasion, deceit and hiding from the truth. Throughout those 18 months, the Government did nothing to resolve the problems. We have now gone beyond recession and have the "S" word—slump.
  My constituents in Knowsley, South have suffered. The unemployment statistics for my constituency show that, in the past 12 months alone, unemployment has risen by 25 per cent. I checked the figures yesterday and discovered that there were 101 vacancies in the jobcentres there.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: Before my hon. Friend gets away from the dancing in the streets of Halewood—he is one of the most perspicacious Members in the House—will he say whether that dancing took place because a general election is approaching and people knew that a Labour Government would soon be elected?
  Mr. O'Hara: Indeed. Not only that, but the sun came out in response to the news that at last we were going to have a general election. I planted a tree and my constituents cheered and wished me well in the coming election.
  Mr. Battle: Spring time for Labour.
  Mr. O'Hara: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for allowing me to make that extra point.
  I was quoting unemployment figures for Knowsley, South and mentioned the figure of 101 job vacancies, which is pathetic when one realises that 65 jobless people chase every vacancy. Taking the figure 30 modifications ago, 99 people without jobs in Knowsley, South chase every vacancy in our jobcentres.
  If the Budget is such a good measure to cure the recession now, why could not the Government have introduced such measures when the estimated public spending borrowing requirement was only £8 billion rather than £28 billion? A cartoon published by Credit Lyonnais, which hon. Members may have seen in the press, showed the Chancellor and the Prime Minister as Batman and Robin in a helicopter, showering £5 notes on the ground and shouting, "Holy £28 billion, and it is not even reaching the streets yet!" That is what the Government are about.
  The Budget is not about tackling the recession but is a desperate scramble to rally wavering Tory voters in the marginal constituencies, cunningly targeted on small business men who feel comprehensively cheated and let

  1053
  down by the Government's mismanagement in the past. It provided too little, too late for those tens of thousands of people who had already been made bankrupt and whose businesses had failed. It was cunningly targeted on those in danger of having their houses repossessed, but it gave too little too late for those hundreds of thousands who have already lost the roof over their heads. It was cunningly worked to deceive those pensioners who have been callously robbed by the Government for 13 years. It gave them, as a sop, entitlements that were theirs by right in a blatant attempt to steal the Labour party's clothes. I heard Conservative Members refer to shooting Labour's fox. The fox analogy is appropriate: it is a foxy Budget, if cunning is the defining characteristic of a fox.
  The Labour party is proud of its long-held commitment. It does not use advantageous ploys, like those of the Government, when addressing the problems of pensioners' poverty. As for the proposed 20p rate of income tax, I marvel at the Government's remarkable conversion to the principle of regression after 13 years of punitive and progressive taxation. It was a glance—one might say a wink—towards the principle of regression as the last minute of the last hour of the last day of the Government approaches.
  The cunning, cynicism and blatancy of the Budget takes one's breath away. It is the Budget of deferred accounts and post-dated cheques. Those who will pay the post-dated cheques are the recipients of the phantom benefits put on offer. The Budget tinkers with the margins of recession. It says nothing about the thousands of unemployed residents of Knowsley, South who are doomed to live on income support. It says nothing about investment in training. In my district, as elsewhere in the country, the training budget has been cut. We have the farce of trainers being added to the queue of jobless.
  The Budget contains nothing on the construction industry, transport infrastructure or charting our way out of recession. There is no strategy: it is a Budget for the moment—the ad hoc Budget—and the moment is that of the imminent election. The Budget contains no strategy, just tactics—ducking and weaving. "Si monumentum requiris" said Wren, "circumspice"—if one wants monuments, one should look around. Monuments to the Government's incompetence lie all around us in the ruins of recession. The electorate will not be deceived by the exercise in chicanery that constitutes the Budget statement and will treat it with the contempt that it deserves.
  The chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), launched his double whammy last week, and it fell flat. The Labour party would need an octopus in boxing gloves if it were to present in a poster the octuple whammy that is Conservative party policy. That policy encompasses high taxes, high interest rates—which have only been brought down to 10 per cent. from 15 per cent. to which they had been increased—the poll tax, unemployment, repossessions, cardboard cities, business failures and multiple debt. I have covered the boxing gloves on every leg of an octopus and have enough left to put a kangaroo in the ring with it. We also have crumbling schools and the crisis in the national health service and on the railways and roads. The Conservative party is not the party to talk about whammies.
  I now turn to the obscenity referred to by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt): the Government's sudden conversion to social welfare after 13 years of not
  1054
  only destroying the economy but—in the last minute of the last hour of the last day, in a blinding flash of inspiration —discovering that social welfare for the people ground down in Knowsley, South is as important as private wealth creation. Never was nemesis better deserved, and never was it more certain to be delivered than on 9 April.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), I think that, even were the sun to shine on Halewood, he would see only the gloom. That is not at all how I view the implications of the Budget. In the short time allowed me, I do not have scope to go into the detail on those Budget items that my constituents and I welcome. The Chancellor correctly targeted such prudent tax cuts as he could make on those most in need. I enthusiastically welcome the new 20p rate because it will most benefit those who are beginning to earn and to be taxed at the bottom of the scale, and those working part time whose income is most disproportionately affected by a lower tax on lower earned income. I welcome all those measures; the alternatives which might have been available to my right hon. Friend in other circumstances are to be discounted—he did what was right at this stage.
  I strongly welcome the help for pensioners on income support. Businesses in my constituency will benefit from the changes in the uniform business rate—I have received many representations about it, but not because it is wrong as a system. Hon. Members from the north of England should bear in mind that constituencies in the north, not those in the south, have tended to benefit. The burden of the UBR often affected people who wanted to sell their property, because the transitional relief could not be passed on with the property. That meant that sales were difficult, or if a company had ceased business it was difficult for another to occupy its premises.
  I shall concentrate on the broader Budget judgment, as my hon. Friends have eloquently analysed the taxation aspects of the Budget. I wish to mention some of the weak-willed people in the City who have allowed their worries to overtake their judgment. I readily admit that I am an adviser to two City institutions, which is not to say that they always accept my advice. Often they appear not to.
  In a difficult situation my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has created an extremely responsible framework for the Budget. He made a clear commitment to maintaining our position in the exchange rate mechanism and a further commitment to joining the narrow band at the DM2·95 level. There could be no clearer signal that a Conservative Government mean to maintain a stable exchange rate and will continue to reinforce sound monetary policies. My right hon. Friend's statement on MO clearly underlined that. We need have no worries that a Conservative Government will allow the currency to decline, thereby creating further inflationary pressures, so the City should take careful note of the Budget commitments.
  Certainly the public sector borrowing requirement is much higher than any Government would wish, but as a percentage of GDP it is a great deal less than it was under the last Labour Government—and much less than it would be under a Labour Government if the country unfortunately got one after 9 April. Labour is committed

  1055
  to forgoing privatisation proceeds, which will instantly add a further £8 billion to forecasts of the public sector borrowing requirement for next year.
  The key point about the PSBR under a Conservative Government is that the rise which has occurred since the autumn statement forecast is due to a decline in revenues from taxation. That is both important and positive. It has not been due to a giveaway in the form of tax cuts; the proportion due to tax reductions in the Budget was small —less than £2 billion net. The rise has not been due to additional public expenditure either. We still work in this strange system—I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to reform it—in which we announce our public expenditure plans separately from our revenue-raising plans. The public expenditure plans, including a large increase in spending on key social services, were announced last autumn, since when the recession has led to a decline in tax revenues, which in turn has led to an increased PSBR.
  I said that this was a positive point, because when the economy begins to pick up again the buoyancy of tax revenues will also pick up speedily. That will lead to exactly what the Chancellor predicted—a rapid fall in the PSBR. The City should therefore take good heart from the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set up a reasonable framework in the Budget. Because the PSBR, even at this level, will be fully funded, that will lead to a rapid recovery in Government revenues when the growth in the economy that all the independent forecasters believe is upon us starts.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out another factor in his speech which is not widely talked about but is critical to understand because it gives the lie to the Opposition's claims that we are borrowing to bribe. We are not. We are borrowing at this stage of the recession, with a commitment to balance the budget over the cycle, and at the same time we are financing £30 billion of public sector asset creation.
  This is a sound and prudent Budget which will take us out of the recession. It shows that only a Conservative Government is capable of running the economy successfully. I am sure that the electorate will understand that on 9 April.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: The test that the country applied to the Budget was whether it would bring economic recovery to Britain—and the answer is no. The test that the Tory party applied to the Budget is whether it would bring political recovery to the Tory party—and the answer is again no. It has failed both the high test of public interest and the low test of party advantage. It has failed because it does nothing to promote investment in industry, nothing to rectify the appalling damage done to training by cuts in Government spending, nothing to increase economic confidence, nothing to assist the construction industry and nothing to reduce unemployment or even to stop it rising.
  Almost before the cheering of Conservative Members —at least of those who were not still sitting in a state of shock from hearing the borrowing requirement—in
  1056
  support of their Chancellor had ceased, the Budget as a work of political art began to unravel. In the City, as Morgan Grenfell said:
  "It will have a tiny effect on the economy as a whole."
  As Mr. Lyons of DKB International, said:
  "This was not a Budget for recovery."
  As Mr. Gardner, managing director of ICL UK, said:
  "As the managing director of a large company it did little for me. There were no real measures to break the capital expenditure block; nothing to encourage large companies to spend more money."
  It is not hard to fathom the reason for the scepticism and downright hostility of large parts of industry and taxpayers alike. The vast majority of people know that, when our health service is in crisis, our school buildings are crumbling, our crime levels are rising and our transport system has become Europe's sick joke, borrowing to finance tax cuts rather than to spend on good services is not a sensible use of money. Many in industry who see the daily ravages of a recession that they were promised would never happen, but is now the longest for decades, know that, unless the Budget deals with the fundamental problems of the British economy, it fails. Above all, unless and until we halt the rising tide of business failures and unemployment and begin to turn that tide, we cannot get economic confidence moving and we therefore cannot get economic recovery.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) yesterday asked me to read the newspaper reports about minimum wages. I have taken his advice, and I read from the Employment Gazette that the average hourly wage a year ago was £7·57. If one simply applies 6 per cent. to that, the average wage in Britain this year will be £8. As the shadow Secretary of State for Employment, will the hon. Gentleman be advising the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the pledge of £3·40 is out of date and the Labour party should be pledging a £4 minimum wage?
  Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman must tell us why the Conservative party, as the Secretary of State for Employment said today, is still pledged to abolish wages council protection for some of the lowest-paid in our society.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent what I said, which I shall repeat. I have said it endlessly before and I shall repeat it again. Our position is that we shall keep wages councils under review, but we see no permanent place for them in the system. That is what I said before and that is what I say again. The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me.
  Mr. Blair: That was an extraordinary intervention. I assume from that that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is pledged to remove the wages councils. Is he? Let me give him the opportunity to make his position clear. Let him give us an undertaking that, if re-elected, the Conservatives will not abolish the councils.
  Mr. Howard: We read from Mr. Hammond's book this afternoon about the hon. Gentleman's failure to understand the minimum wage. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand the meaning of the simple English word "review". It means that we are not committed to keeping wages councils and we are not committed to abolishing

  1057
  wages councils. We shall keep their future under review. Does the hon. Gentleman understand the meaning of that simple English word?
  Mr. Blair: I thought that I had asked a simple question. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman not give us such an undertaking? He cannot, because the Conservatives will abolish the councils if they are returned.
  Since the recession began, unemployment has risen by 70,000 in the east midlands, 80,000 in the north-west, 400,000 in the south-east and 100,000 in the south-west. Employment has fallen by over 500,000 in the south, 170,000 in the west midlands, 80,000 in Humberside and 73,000 in the north-west. The vacancy levels become worse month by month. The tightening labour market means that there are 23 people chasing every vacancy in the south-east. Over 40 are chasing every jobcentre vacancy in London and 33 are chasing every such vacancy in the west midlands.
  Many of the unemployed fear that they will never work again. Men in their 40s who are made redundant are told that they are too old even to be considered for a job. Women who have raised a family and look forward to returning to work are now unable to obtain qualifications or work. Many young people have neither work nor training. They are denied even the basic right to benefit. They are shunted from dole queue to training queue to benefit queue. It is not these people who have let down the Government: it is the Government who have let down these people.
  The most significant part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement was that unemployment will continue rising for many months to come. Surely we are entitled to ask in a Budget debate before an election, "How many months and how many people?" Will the number of unemployed increase by 200,000, 300,000 or 500,000? Until when will unemployment rise? Will it be until the middle of the year, the autumn or the end of the year? While there remain hundreds of thousands in fear of losing their jobs, unemployment will blight their prospects and the prospects of the entire economy.
  The impact of such a devastating situation in the labour market is not confined to the personal tragedy of those who are made redundant or unemployed: it is felt throughout the economy. The housing market is not merely stagnant: it is declining. The February edition of Greenwell tells us that there was a 12 per cent. fall in construction activity up to the end of 1991. It is forecast that new construction will fall by 10 per cent. this year. No wonder that the January edition of Building, the chief magazine of the building industry, stated:
  "It is not the job of this magazine to tell its readers how to vote, but imagine if construction companies had the franchise —and had to exercise it in the best interests of their shareholders. Their vote would be cast for Labour."
  That is what is being said within the construction industry.
  Why is the housing market failing? The answer is that, while householders, especially in the south, are worried about their jobs, they will not sell and they will not buy. Even those who are not at risk find the market too cold and stay out.
  Take consumer spending. A report soon to be published by PA Consultants on the problems of consumer spending says:
  1058
  "Three factors are responsible for undermining the prospect of consumer-led recovery: rising unemployment, fear of unemployment for those still in work and falling house prices."
  The message is clear. If there is no stop to rising unemployment, there is no start to economic confidence. If there is no beginning to economic confidence, there is no end to the recession. That is why unemployment today is a problem not just for the unemployed but for the whole country. That is why, when we propose measures to tackle unemployment or to halt the rise in business bankruptcies, we do so not just out of compassion for the unemployed, not just out of sympathy for those who have sweated and toiled to build up businesses and now see them collapsing, but because helping the unemployed is helping all of us. That is the message of the Budget.
  But the crime is not simply one of omission. It is not just that the Government have refused to increase help for the unemployed in the recession: they have cut it drastically. Since 1988, the Department of Employment's budget has been cut by more than £1·5 billion. Last year, as unemployment soared, the special measures for the unemployed were cut again. So outstanding has the Secretary of State been at the helm of the Department of Employment, so enthusiastic has he been in its cause, that now apparently, according to the most recent newspaper reports, the Tories want, if re-elected, to abolish the Department of Employment. Is not that typical of the Tories? Instead of abolishing unemployment, they abolish the Department responsible for helping the unemployed.
  The Government's response, announced last June as an emergency measure, was employment action. I believe that there are barely 20,000 people on that scheme—less than half last month's rise in unemployment. Why is the Government's response to unemployment so pathetic? As the chairman of the Conservative party, in one of his rare moments of frankness, said:
  "The question is how much unemployment affects people's voting intentions and I don't think that there is very much evidence that it has all that much impact."
  The reason why there were no measures in the Budget to help the unemployed is that the Conservative party does not care about the unemployment.
  Consider the absurdity of not acting on unemployment. There are now 150,000 homeless people in Britain, possibly as many as 2 million in substandard homes, and thousands of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation costing hundreds of millions of pounds. Only today, the King's Fund report into health care in London showed that buildings were so dilapidated that some were fit only for demolition.
  Spending on school buildings in Britain is less than half that of the OECD average. There is a backlog of billions of pounds-worth of repairs. Our pensioners often live in cold and badly insulated accommodation, forced to pay high heating bills because they cannot afford the capital cost of insulation. Thousands of environmental improvements are needed in our local communities. Councils want to carry out the work, but cannot find the resources to do so
  When we know that unemployment is damaging our economy, when we know that the unemployed are anxious, if not desperate, to work, and when we have a collapsing infrastructure in need of urgent repair, what sense does it make to cut help to the unemployed rather than marry the unused human resources with the unmet needs of our community?

  1059
  For the past three years, however, the Government have not merely been cutting help to the unemployed: they have betrayed our future in the cuts in training and skills. They have instigated a savage programme of cutting investment in training and skills. For months, the Secretary of State has denied that that is so. For months, he has told us in debates in the House that no such cuts have taken place. But on Tuesday, the same day as the Budget, the Government published their up-to-date estimate of the labour force.
  Not only did it show the catastrophic drop in employment, not only did it show that, on international definitions of unemployment, there are nearer 3 million than 2.5 million unemployed: it showed that, during the past three years, 112,000 places have been cut from Government training programmes for young people and the unemployed. As some of my hon. Friends have already said, all over Britain programmes have collapsed, trainees are being turned away, and training providers are being closed. What other party anywhere in Europe but the British Conservative party would be so cruel and short-sighted as to cut investment in training just when it is most needed?
  What would we say about a private sector company which borrowed money to pay higher wages and then cut investment in training? We would say that it was feckless, irrational and bound to fail—and that is what we say about the Government. Now, in the depths of the recession, we should be increasing investment in training and skills so that, when recovery comes, it is British firms which benefit, British order books which are full, and Britain which is prosperous.
  I shall ask the Secretary of State a specific question. On 6 December 1989, the then Secretary of State for Employment made a speech in which he set out what he called a framework of national objectives, within a time frame that he described as essential for the upgrading of skills. The Government set themselves a specific target for the upgrading of skills. By the end of 1995, all employers, of whatever size, were to be given the kitemark seal of approval as investors in people—the sign of training excellence.
  It is now March 1992. How many employers have received the kitemark? There are about 100,000 major employers, so, although the target was for employers of all sizes, will the Secretary of State tell us how many of the 100,000 major employers have so far received the kitemark? I shall tell the House the answer, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is being coy. In the whole country, 38 employers have received the kitemark. Is that right or is that wrong? It is right. That is why, under present Tory policies, this country is so ill prepared.
  The Tories cannot understand that modern economy requires an active partnership between Government and industry to make it successful. All through the 1980s, they have ignored the importance of industrial policy, and of building a strong industrial base. Even now, in the depths of the recession, what do they do to stimulate the economy? Again they attempt to cut taxes in order to boost consumption, while at the same time cutting investment in training—and this time they borrow to fund the tax cuts.
  1060
  That is the worst of Thatcherism without even Thatcherism's compensation of fiscal rectitude. One might almost say that it is Margaret without Prudence. That is the difference between the present leader of the Conservative party and his predecessor. For the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), the task was to manage her political party in the interests of her political philosophy. For the present Prime Minister, the management of his party is his political philosophy.
  The problem for the Conservatives is that they have lost Thatcherism but they have not yet found Majorism. Let me spare them the trouble of looking for it: it does not exist. That is why they have spent the past 18 months attacking Labour rather than advancing their own ideas. They do not dare to defend the philosophy of the first 11 years of their Government, and they have not had the wit to put anything in its place.
  The Conservatives cannot escape their record, because we shall not allow them to escape it. The country will be reminded of the 13 years in which the Tories have given us two recessions in a decade, ending with the fastest rising unemployment, the lowest output .and the sharpest fall in investment in Europe. And they have the nerve to call that an economic miracle. We shall remind people of the 13 years in which the Government sold our public services, spent the proceeds but still inflicted higher charges on our consumers. We shall remind the public of the 13 years in which the Government have received—alone out of all previous Governments and of all present competitors—the God-given bonus of North sea oil: £100 billion flowing into the Exchequer but squandered on a boom that is now a bust. That is the record of 13 years of Conservative government.
  The Government talk of being the taxpayers' friend. Let me remind them that it was not the Labour party that doubled value added tax but the Tory party; that it was not the Labour party but the Tory party that introduced the most hated and least competent tax of modern times —the poll tax that has cost every family in Britain £1,000, not to pay it but just to get rid of it.
  The questions that the country now asks are these: when the Tory party has got things so wrong, why should the public now trust it to get things right? Why should we trust those who created unemployment now to reduce it? Why should we trust those who scorned the manufacturing base of this country now to build it? Why should we trust those who cut training now to increase it? Why should we trust Tory party politicians—who, even as the mistakes were being made, congratulated themselves on an economic miracle—now to rectify those mistakes rather than repeat them?
  That is why it is time for change, time to turn back the rising tide of unemployment and put our people back to work. It is time to make investment in the education of our children and our work force, so that this country can succeed. It is time to reinstate the national health service as a great public service of which we can be proud. It is time to give our young people hope and to give our elderly the comfort in old age that they deserve. It is time to build Britain as a land of opportunity for all our people, not just for a privileged few. It is also time to recognise that we are not just individuals, stranded in helpless isolation, but members of a community. It is time, in other words, for change—time to turn this Government out, and time for Labour.
  9.32 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): This has at times been a heated debate, which I suppose is hardly surprising on the eve of an election, but it is at least worth recalling that there is one measure in the Budget which commands the support and respect of Members in all parts of the House. I refer to the decision to bring expenditure and taxation together in future Budgets. I believe that that measure has the support of the Labour party. It is a far-reaching reform which will provide us with a much more rational system and much better control of public spending. Above all, it will lessen much of the pressure for tax reliefs, which have given us such a complex and unnecessarily complicated tax system. I was pleased that a number of right hon. and hon. Members felt able to support that measure.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) managed to drag up a few quotations from business men and implied that this Budget had not been well received by the business community. I do not know what newspapers the hon. Gentleman has been reading. Obviously, he does not regard the Confederation of British Industry as a representative organisation in any way. The director-general of the CBI said:
  "This is a prudent and positive Budget—reflecting the prime importance of keeping inflation under control."
  That was the verdict of the CBI and also of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and of the Institute of Directors. The Budget has been well received by manufacturing industry.
  It was a Budget for sustained recovery and prosperity. It will enable the people of this country to do as well in the 1990s as they did in the 1980s. Above all, it was a Budget to deliver real help to business. Within the scope available to me, I was able to cut car tax by half. I know that that was welcomed by my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members. It was also warmly welcomed in the car industry. Many dealers and manufacturers have already said that the halving of car tax is having a good impact on business. That measure seems to have been warmly welcomed. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said:
  "The Chancellor has appreciated the importance of boosting the domestic car market. We believe about 70,000 extra sales should result."
  That was the verdict of the SMMT which, unlike the hon. Member for Sedgefield, regards the Budget as good for business and for the motor industry in particular.
  The chief economic adviser of the Retail Motor Industry Confederation said:
  "This is the stimulus the industry needed."
  I was also able to give immediate help to industry and businesses, big and small, by ensuring that no businesses will see a real increase in business rates this year. That will help some 600,000 business premises in this country. All my hon. Friends know that that measure has been welcomed by small business men and women up and down the country. It is exactly what business was looking for. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce said:
  "Relieving the burden on business of UBR increases will be of enormous help to … businesses, particularly in the South."
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The Chancellor has made great play about how business is happy about the changes to the UBR. Will he tell the House who introduced it in the first place?
  Mr. Lamont: We are keeping the UBR. We believe that it will be much better for business in the long run. It is warmly welcomed by business and by the CBI and the Institute of Directors. They know that it stops irresponsible Labour local authorities from bankrupting businesses by extravagant spending.
  I was also able to make other detailed changes which will be of particular help to small businesses. I was able to alleviate the VAT penalty regime—something that small business organisations have been asking for for years. At modest cost, I was able to take the radical measure of exempting small businesses entirely from inheritance tax. That means that in future businesses will not have to be broken up on death. That was welcomed by the Union of Independent Companies, which said:
  "The greatest thing in the Budget is the encouragement to the owners of independent businesses that they can keep their companies intact."
  The Labour party talks about all its plans for business. There is no enthusiasm in the business community for the Labour party. The hon. Member for Sedgefield tried to pretend that business has not supported the Budget. It has supported the Budget, and the statements from business are clear. Business men appreciate low inflation and the fall in interest rates. They know that the fall in interest rates in the past year will eventually feed through into increased consumer demand, which the hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned. Like his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the hon. Member for Sedgefield has obviously not read what was said by the director general of the Retail Consortium, who said:
  "The retail sector was looking for a Budget which would boost consumer confidence and revitalise small business while retaining sound financial good sense. We believe this Budget fits the bill."
  The chairman of Dixons—I hesitate to quote this—said:
  "It was an intelligent and sensible Budget … a confidence building Budget."
  Mr. William McKelvey: Is the Chancellor aware of what the Scotch Whisky Association said about the incredible 28p increase on the price of a bottle of whisky? Although I understand that the Chancellor has said from the Dispatch Box that he would fight extremely hard to harmonise the prices of spirits in Europe, he knows perfectly well that he may not be there to do that—the strong chance is that he will not. He has lumbered my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench with the prospect of going to Europe to argue for the harmonisation of whisky prices with one hand tied behind their backs. It was certainly stupid of the Chancellor to put 28p on the price of a bottle of whisky because that widens discrimination against spirits.
  Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman said, I have made clear my absolute determination to fight for the Scotch Whisky Association in Europe and made clear our position. That is a very good reason why the Scotch Whisky Association will back and support the Government.
  The economy is poised for recovery. That is not just my view. Take the view of the chairman of Williams Holdings, one of the largest industrial groups in this country, who said:
  "I think we are coming out of the recession … the election will signal the end of the recession."

  1063
  Take the words of the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry's distributive trades panel, which today published some very good figures showing the seventh successive month, according to the distributive sales survey, in which retail sales have increased. The chairman said:
  "There has clearly been an underlying increase in retail trade since last summer, making the seventh successive increase recorded by the survey."
  The Government know and have done what is required to build a strong economy. Low inflation was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, by the shadow Chancellor or by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. It was not mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in the Budget debate or when he made his party conference speech.
  Low inflation underpins everything. Only low inflation can enable business to compete, can enable savers to put money away with confidence, and finance investment. There can be no prosperity and no sustainable recovery without low inflation. Low inflation is what the Government have delivered. Inflation is now below the European Community average. We have also had some excellent figures for producer output inflation—an extremely important measure of competitiveness and a very good indicator of future inflation. We confidently expect that inflation will continue to fall throughout this year, and producer price inflation is expected to decline to 1½ per cent. by mid-1993. That will be the lowest level achieved for decades, as a result of the policies pursued by the Government.
  Mr. John McFall rose—
  Mr. Paul Flynn rose—
  Mr. Lamont: I shall give way in a minute.
  Low inflation provides the crucial building block for the growth that Britain can enjoy in the 1990s. The facts are that we have low inflation and our unit labour costs are expected to grow at a lower and slower rate in 1992 than those of any other of our large competitors.
  Mr. McFall: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), the Scotch Whisky Association does not support the Government. I have a press release in my hands which states that the association reacts with "anger and dismay" to what the Government have done. The increase of 28p on the price of a bottle favours the institutionalised discrimination against Scotch whisky which has happened in Europe. The Chancellor has been lucky to meet representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association.
  If the Chancellor is unfamiliar with Scotland's most famous product, I will give him a bottle of the best malt whisky from my constituency—Speakers Choice whisky. That will at least give him some consolation on the morning of 10 April.
  Mr. Lamont: There is certainly one thing wrong with what the hon. Gentleman said—the best malt whisky comes from Orkney and nowhere else. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that it is wrong to index the duty on alcoholic drinks. If that is Labour party policy, it is extremely interesting to know.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I would not wish the House or the country to be misled. When the Government came to office in 1979, the Scotch whisky industry was in the doldrums. It had massive stocks and was running up losses. It was in difficulty and was laying people off. Today, the Scotch whisky industry is in much better shape and, although there may be differences about some aspects of taxation, there is no question but that the Scotch whisky industry wants a Conservative Government, just like the rest of the people.
  Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but he might have added that the Scotch Whisky Association has done very well in the past decade in the sense that the duty on Scotch whisky has not been indexed.
  I want to deal with one point in particular that was raised by the hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Dunfermline, East and by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). They said that they felt that it was wrong to borrow to finance tax cuts, as they put it. They seem to have completely forgotten that that was exactly what their right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) did in 1978. In 1978 he cut taxes and increased the PSBR to a level well above that which it will reach next year in today's money. Furthermore, he not only introduced a reduced rate band but cut 1p off income tax at the same time—yet the Opposition are anxious to call us irresponsible. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said that it would be all right if the PSBR were used for investment. He seems to have ignored one simple fact: public sector investment in the coming year will total about £30 billion—more than the PSBR itself.
  It is right to cut taxes because our tax cuts are sustainable. They will last and they can be afforded. This country is now in a strong financial position. We have one of the lowest ratios of debt-to-GDP of any industrialised country in the world. We have the lowest ratio of debt-to-GDP of any country in the European Community other than Luxembourg. We are the only G7 country to have reduced its debt-to-GDP ratio in the past decade. We are going to maintain our position as a country with a low debt-to-GDP ratio, and that is not endangered by what we are proposing in the Budget.
  What has been remarkable has been the way in which the Opposition have been so coy about their own policies. They told us that they were going to present an alternative Budget. One might have thought that the moment to present an alternative Budget was during the Budget debate in the House—but no, they do not want to do that. Even before the election was called, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made it clear that he was not going to announce his alternative Budget until next week, after the Budget debate had finished. The Opposition are always afraid to have an argument. They told us that they were going to spell out their spending plans on a costed basis, but they also dropped that. Why could the right hon. and learned Gentleman not come to the debate on the Budget to present his alternative Budget? We shall be waiting with interest—
  Mr. John Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman is interested in public debate, will he engage in a face-to-face debate with me on television?
  Mr. Lamont: Yes, absolutely, I will—delighted.
  Mr. Smith: When?
  Mr. Lamont: Any time. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, he is always inviting me up to debates with him run by his daughter at Glasgow university. I have debated with him many times and I shall look forward to doing so during the general election.
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the Chancellor for accepting that public invitation. Why is he willing to do so while the Prime Minister is frightened?
  Mr. Lamont: I hope that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman presents his alternative Budget he will tell us how many of the spending pledges that his spokesmen are promising up and down the country—bribes to every interest group—will be included in it and how many have been dropped.
  Again and again, we have heard Labour Members repeating Labour's pledges. The hon. Member for Sedgefield was at it again today, and so was the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. They seem to have forgotten that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the Labour party has made only two spending pledges. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was going on about the underfunding of education and health. He was not prepared to say whether, if there was underfunding, he would increase taxes or borrowing. What is the mixture of the two?
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said of a Labour Government:
  "Over our first Parliament we will increase Britain's aid budget to the United Nation's target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP."
  That alone would cost £2½ billion—two thirds as much again as the net effect of all the proposals that I announced in the Budget on Tuesday. Let us have an answer from the Labour party: is that still Labour party policy or not? Will that be included in the alternative Budget?
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr.Cook) has spoken of "pouring" money into the health service. He said of a Labour Government:
  "in the first year we shall start to tackle underfunding and shall continue to do so year on year."—[Official Report, 21 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 673.]
  I hope that those spending pledges will be included in the alternative Budget.
  The Budget is good for the economy and good for the country. It will serve the nation well in one other important respect: it crystallizes the great divide between this side of the House and the Benches opposite. It is the choice between higher taxation and lower taxation. The Labour party has always believed in high taxation. In office, Labour has always increased taxation, and Labour has always voted against our tax cuts from whatever level we were reducing them.
  Labour Members have learnt to mouth the language of free markets, but they have not yet learnt the value of lower taxes, or the importance of incentives and the expansion of choice. For them, a tax cut is a give-away. It is revealing, is it not, how they do not seem to realise that money belongs to the people who have earned it? That is why they use the word "give-away".
  It is right that the country should have the opportunity to judge the shallowness of the Labour party's conversion from policies which always in the past led them to penal taxation and financial crisis. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) did not do much for his credibility with his response to the Budget speech. He had written as
  1066
  speech for another Budget—for a Budget of the kind of fiscal irresponsibility that we normally get from Labour Governments. In his rambling speech the right hon. Gentleman could not make any response to the 20p band. He did not seem to know his own policies.
  The Leader of the Opposition judged himself well in the famous interview that he gave Mr. Naughtie on the "World at One". The transcript of the interview says:
  "Opposition Leader asked what would you do? Opposition Leader says: 'To cut a long story short we don't know'."
  The right hon. Gentleman did not know what to say in response to the 20p income tax band. He had had seven days in which to think about it, and he has had seven years in which to frame his policies and to develop a tax policy. We know what had to happen. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East had to go on television seven hours later and tell the country what the Labour party's policy actually was.
  Now we know. We know what conviction lay behind the solemn pledge by the Leader of the Opposition on 16 May 1990. He said:
  "We have no design, no intention, for raising the taxation of the huge majority of ordinary people working for their living."
  Yet, at the first moment, the Opposition are determined to oppose the tax reductions proposed by the Government.
  Opposition Members have attempted to give us lectures on borrowing. They seem to forget that in Labour's previous five years in office borrowing averaged 6½ per cent. of gross domestic product a year. That is £40 billion each year. When the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was Chancellor of the Exchequer, borrowing reached its peak at 9 per cent. of GDP—almost £60 billion in today's money. The process stopped only when our financial affairs could be handed over to the International Monetary Fund.
  The Leader of the Opposition now seeks to present himself as a man who thinks that he can manage a market economy and manage capitalism better than the Conservative party can. That seems a little strange for a man who, only a few years ago, did not believe in markets or in the capitalist system. Just three years before he became Leader of the Opposition, he said about our free enterprise system—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like this. The Leader of the Opposition said:
  "The answer to the weakness, injustice and rottenness of capitalism is not more of the same. That is like trying to clean a wound with handfuls of filth."
  The Leader of the Opposition has changed his mind on the European Community, on nuclear defence and on nationalisation. He does not know which way he is facing. He does not know what he believes in any longer. He tells us that the Government are borrowing too much money, yet a few years ago he urged the Government to borrow more money.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), a lifelong borrower, dismissed the public sector borrowing requirement as "a meaningless totem". It is astonishing that the Labour party does not even know what its own policy is. A few weeks ago, it published a pocket policy guide. What is one of the key policies advocated in it? It is a lower rate of income tax—a reduced rate band. We know that the Leader of the Opposition does not write his own party's policy. From his answer in the Budget debate, it seems that he does not read it either because he does not know what his party's policy is.

  1067
  The key point is that the Labour party has shown that it does not believe in fighting inflation. Every tough and difficult policy decision that we have made to get inflation down has been opposed by the Labour party. Every time we have cut taxes, the move has been opposed by the Labour party. When we cut the basic rate of tax from 30p to 29p, the Labour party voted against it. When we cut it from 29p to 27p, the Labour party opposed it. They have opposed every reduction that we have made.
  This country has been faced with a clear choice. We have delivered a Budget that is good for recovery and good for the British people because it cuts taxes. The people have a clear choice, and in four weeks' time we shall know that the policies put forward by the Labour party have been rejected.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 351, Noes 208.

  Division No. 108]

  [9. 59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Cash, William

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Allason, Rupert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amess, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Amos, Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Atkins, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, David

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Batiste, Spencer

  Couchman, James

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cran, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bendall, Vivian

  Curry, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Benyon, W.

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Day, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Durant, Sir Anthony

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

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Eggar, Tim

  Bowis, John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Evennett, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Brazier, Julian

  Fallon, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Farr, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

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

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Burns, Simon

  Forman, Nigel

  Burt, Alistair

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butler, Chris

  Forth, Eric

  Butterfill, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Franks, Cecil

  Carrington, Matthew

  Freeman, Roger

  Carttiss, Michael

  French, Douglas

  1068

  Fry, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Lord, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  McCrea, Rev William

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gorst, John

  Maclean, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gregory, Conal

  Madel, David

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Ground, Patrick

  Mans, Keith

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maples, John

  Hague, William

  Marland, Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Marlow, Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mates, Michael

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

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Harris, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hayward, Robert

  Mills, Iain

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hill, James

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Norris, Steve

  Hunter, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Irvine, Michael

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Page, Richard

  Jack, Michael

  Paice, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Janman, Tim

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jessel, Toby

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Pawsey, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Key, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Kilfedder, James

  Portillo, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Price, Sir David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Knox, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Riddick, Graham

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  1069

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Rost, Peter

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thorne, Neil

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tracey, Richard

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trippier, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shelton, Sir William

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walden, George

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sims, Roger

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waller, Gary

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Ward, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Speed, Keith

  Warren, Kenneth

  Speller, Tony

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Squire, Robin

  Whitney, Ray

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Wood, Timothy

  Stokes, Sir John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Sumberg, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Summerson, Hugo

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Allen, Graham

  Canavan, Dennis

  Anderson, Donald

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Carr, Michael

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clelland, David

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Battle, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beith, A. J.

  Cousins, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Cox, Tom

  Bellotti, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cryer, Bob

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

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joseph

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Darling, Alistair

  Blair, Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blunkett, David

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Dixon, Don

  Boyes, Roland

  Dobson, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Doran, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Eastham, Ken

  Caborn, Richard

  Edwards, Huw

  Callaghan, Jim

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fatchett, Derek

  1070

  Faulds, Andrew

  Martlew, Eric

  Fearn, Ronald

  Meacher, Michael

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Meale, Alan

  Fisher, Mark

  Michael, Alun

  Flannery, Martin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foster, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fraser, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  George, Bruce

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mullin, Chris

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Murphy, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Brien, William

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Graham, Thomas

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Parry, Robert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Hain, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Hardy, Peter

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Prescott, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Radice, Giles

  Henderson, Doug

  Redmond, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Richardson, Jo

  Home Robertson, John

  Robertson, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Howells, Geraint

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hoyle, Doug

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hume, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Illsley, Eric

  Short, Clare

  Ingram, Adam

  Skinner, Dennis

  Janner, Greville

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Snape, Peter

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Leighton, Ron

  Strang, Gavin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Straw, Jack

  Lewis, Terry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Litherland, Robert

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Turner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wallace, James

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Walley, Joan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McAllion, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  McFall, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McKelvey, William

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McLeish, Henry

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Winnick, David

  McMaster, Gordon

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McWilliam, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Madden, Max

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Marek, Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  resolved,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further

  1071
  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 importation; or

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

  Mr. Speaker: I am now required under Standing Order No. 50(3) to put, without further debate, the Question on each of the remaining ways and means motions. My understanding is that hon. Members do not require a Division until we get to motion No. 23; in which case, with the leave of the House, I will put the motions before that together.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    2. SPIRITS
    Resolved,
    That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 10th March 1992, the rate of duty specified in section 5 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be increased from £18·96 per litre of alcohol in the spirits to £19·81 per litre of alcohol in the spirits.

    Description of wine or made-wine

    Rates of duty per hectolitre

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

    £

    12·60

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

    20·99

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

    29·39

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

    37·80

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

    46·19

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

    125·96

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

    208·00

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

    217·25

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

    250·59

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

    250·59

    plus £19·81 for every 1 per cent. or part of 1 per cent. in excess of 22 per cent.

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

    5. CIDER
    Resolved,
    That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 10th March 1992, the rate of duty specified in section 62(1) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be increased from £20·40 per hectolitre to £21·32 per hectolitre.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    3. BEER
    Resolved,
    That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 10th March 1992, the rate of duty specified in section 36 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 as that section has effect apart from section 7(1) of the Finance Act 1991 shall be increased from £1·06 per hectolitre for every degree by which the original gravity of beer exceeds 1000 degrees to £1·108 per hectolitre for every such degree.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    4. WINE AND MADE-WINE
    Resolved,
    That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 10th March 1992, the rates of duty under sections 54 and 55 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be as follows—

    6. TOBACCO PRODUCTS (RATES)
    Resolved,
    That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 10th March 1992, for the Table in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 there shall be substituted—

    1. Cigarettes

    An amount equal to 21 per cent. of the retail price plus £44·32 per thousand cigarettes.

    2. Cigars

    £67·89 per kilogram.

    3. Hand-rolling tobacco

    £71·63 per kilogram.

    4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco

    £29·98 per kilogram."

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

    8. HYDROCARBON OIL
    Resolved,
    That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 10th March 1992, the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 shall have effect with the following amendments—

    (1) In section 6(1) for "£0·2585" and "£0·2187" there shall be substituted "0·2779" and "0·2285" respectively.

    (2) In section 11(1) for "0·0091" and "0·0129" there shall be substituted "0·0095" and "£0·0135" respectively.

    (3) In section 13A(1) for "0·0344" there shall be substituted "0·0437".

    (4) In section 14(1) for "£0·0091" there shall be substituted "0·0095".

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

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

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

    (2) In Schedule 2, in the second column of the Table set out in Part II, for "100" there shall be substituted "110".

    (3) In Schedule 5, in the second column of the Table set out in Part II, for "100·00" there shall be substituted "110·00".

    (4) This Resolution shall apply in relation to licences taken out after 10th March 1992.

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

    10. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (RATES: TRICYCLES)
    Resolved,
    That—

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

    (2) In the Table set out in Part II of Schedule 1 for paragraph 4 there shall be substituted—

    "4. Tricycles of which the cylinder capacity of the engine does not exceed 150 cubic centimetres

    15·00

    5. Tricycles not included above

    50·00".

    (3) This Resolution shall apply in relation to licences taken out after 10th March 1992.

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

    13. GENERAL BETTING DUTY
    Resolved,
    That, in relation to bets made on or after 1st April 1992, for "8 per cent." in section 1(2) of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 there shall be substituted "7·75 per cent.".
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    17. VALUE ADDED TAX (PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about payments on account of value added tax.

    18. VALUE ADDED TAX (PENALTY FOR SERIOUS MISDECLARATION, ETC.)
    Resolved,
    That—
    1074

    (1) In section 14(1) of the Finance Act 1985, for "20 per cent." there shall be substituted "15 per cent.".

    (2) Subject to paragraph (3) below, this Resolution shall apply where a penalty is assessed after 10th March 1992 in relation to a prescribed accounting period beginning on or after 1st April 1990.

    (3) This Resolution shall not apply in the case of a supplementary assessment if the original assessment was made on or before 10th March 1992.

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

    19. VALUE ADDED TAX (DEFAULT SURCHARGE)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) In section 19(5) of the Finance Act 1985, for the words from "and" at the end of paragraph (b) to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted—

    "(c) in relation to the third such period, the specified percentage is 15 per cent.; and

    (d) in relation to each such period after the third, the specified percentage is 20 per cent."

    (2) This Resolution shall apply in relation to any liability to a surcharge arising on or after 1st April 1992.

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

    20. CAR TAX (RATES)
    Resolved,
    That, in relation to vehicles on which car tax becomes due after 10th March 1992 for "10 per cent." in both places where the words occur in section 1(2) of the Car Tax Act 1983 there shall be substituted "5 per cent.".
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    22. INCOME TAX (LOWER RATE)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) Section 1 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. 1988 shall be amended as follows.

    (2) In subsection (2) the following paragraph shall be inserted before paragraph (a)—

    "(aa) in respect of so much of an individual's total income as does not exceed £2,000, at such rate as Parliament may determine to be the lower rate for that year;".

    (3) In paragraph (a) of subsection (2) after "within" there shall be inserted "paragraph (aa) above or".

    (4) This Resolution shall apply for the year 1992–93 and subsequent years of assessment.

    (5) This Resolution shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 before 18th May 1992.

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

    23. INCOME TAX (CHARGE AND RATES FOR 1992–93)
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That—

    (1) Income tax shall be charged for the year 1992–93, and for that year—

    (a) the lower rate shall be 20 per cent.,

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

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

    1075

    (2) For the year 1992–93 the basic rate limit shall he £23,700, and for that year—

    (a) section 1(4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall not apply;

    (b) section 1(2)(b) of that Act shall apply as if the amount specified in it were £23,700.

    (3) This Resolution shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 before 18th May 1992.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House divided: Ayes 351, Noes 206.

    Division No. 1091

    10.15 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Alexander, Richard

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Colvin, Michael

    Allason, Rupert

    Conway, Derek

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Amess, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Amos, Alan

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Cormack, Patrick

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Couchman, James

    Ashby, David

    Gran, James

    Aspinwall. Jack

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Atkins, Robert

    Curry, David

    Atkinson, David

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

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Day, Stephen

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Devlin, Tim

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Batiste, Spencer

    Dicks, Terry

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bellingham, Henry

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bendall, Vivian

    Dover, Den

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Dunn, Bob

    Benyon, W.

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bevan. David Gilroy

    Dykes, Hugh

    Biffen. Rt Hon John

    Eggar, Tim

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Body, Sir Richard

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evennett, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Boswell, Tim

    Fallon, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter

    Farr, Sir John

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

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

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Bowis, John

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Forman, Nigel

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Brazier, Julian

    Forth, Eric

    Bright, Graham

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fox, Sir Marcus

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

    Franks, Cecil

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Freeman, Roger

    Buck, Sir Antony

    French, Douglas

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fry, Peter

    Burns, Simon

    Gale, Roger

    Burt, Alistair

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Butler, Chris

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Butterfill, John

    Gill, Christopher

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Carttiss, Michael

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Cartwright, John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Cash, William

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Gorst, John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Chope, Christopher

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Churchill, Mr

    Gregory, Conal

    Clark. Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    1076

    Ground, Patrick

    Mans, Keith

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Maples, John

    Hague, William

    Marland, Paul

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    Marlow, Tony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Mates, Michael

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

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Harris, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Mellor. Rt Hon David

    Hayes, Jerry

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Hayward, Robert

    Mills, lain

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hill, James

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

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

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dlord)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Norris, Steve

    Hunter, Andrew

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Irvine, Michael

    Owen. Rt Hon Dr David

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Page, Richard

    Jack, Michael

    Paice, James

    Jackson, Robert

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Janman, Tim

    Patnick, Irvine

    Jessel, Toby

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Johnson Smith. Sir Geoffrey

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Pattie. Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Pawsey, James

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Key, Robert

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Kilfedder, James

    Portillo, Michael

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Price, Sir David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Raffan, Keith

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Rathbone. Tim

    Knowles, Michael

    Redwood, John

    Knox, David

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Rhodes James, Sir Robert

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Riddick, Graham

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Ridley. Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Rost, Peter

    Lord, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    McCrea, Rev William

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    McCrindle. Sir Robert

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Maclean, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Shelton, Sir William

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Madel, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Shersby, Michael

    1077

    Sims, Roger

    Tredinnick, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Trippier, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Trotter, Neville

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Speed, Keith

    Viggers, Peter

    Speller, Tony

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Walden, George

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Squire, Robin

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Waller, Gary

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Steen, Anthony

    Ward, John

    Stern, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Watts, John

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Wells, Bowen

    Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Stokes, Sir John

    Whitney, Ray

    Sumberg, David

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Summerson, Hugo

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wilshire, David

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

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Wolfson, Mark

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

    Yeo, Tim

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Thorne, Neil

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Thurnham, Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Tracey, Richard

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Corbett, Robin

    Allen, Graham

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Donald

    Cousins, Jim

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Cox, Tom

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Crowther, Stan

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Cryer, Bob

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cummings, John

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Battle, John

    Darling, Alistair

    Beckett, Margaret

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Beith, A. J.

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

    Bell, Stuart

    Dixon, Don

    Bellotti, David

    Dobson, Frank

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Doran, Frank

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

    Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

    Benton, Joseph

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Eastham, Ken

    Blair, Tony

    Edwards, Huw

    Blunkett, David

    Enright, Derek

    Boateng, Paul

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Boyes, Roland

    Fatchett, Derek

    Bradley, Keith

    Faulds, Andrew

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fearn, Ronald

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Fisher, Mark

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Flannery, Martin

    Caborn, Richard

    Flynn, Paul

    Callaghan, Jim

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Foster, Derek

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Fraser, John

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Fyfe, Maria

    Canavan, Dennis

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    George, Bruce

    Carr, Michael

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Clelland, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Gordon, Mildred

    Cohen, Harry

    Gould, Bryan

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Graham, Thomas

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    1078

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hain, Peter

    Mullin, Chris

    Hardy, Peter

    Murphy, Paul

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    O'Brien, William

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    O'Hara, Edward

    Henderson, Doug

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hinchliffe, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Parry, Robert

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Patchett, Terry

    Home Robertson, John

    Pendry, Tom

    Hood, Jimmy

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Prescott, John

    Howells, Geraint

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hoyle, Doug

    Radice, Giles

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Redmond, Martin

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Hume, John

    Reid, Dr John

    Illsley, Eric

    Richardson, Jo

    Ingram, Adam

    Robertson, George

    Janner, Greville

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Rooker, Jeff

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ruddock, Joan

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Sheerman, Barry

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Short, Clare

    Leighton, Ron

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Lewis, Terry

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    Litherland, Robert

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

    Livingstone, Ken

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Snape, Peter

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Soley, Clive

    Loyden, Eddie

    Spearing, Nigel

    McAllion, John

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McFall, John

    Strang, Gavin

    McKelvey, William

    Straw, Jack

    McLeish, Henry

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Turner, Dennis

    McWilliam, John

    Wallace, James

    Madden, Max

    Walley, Joan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Marek, Dr John

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Martlew, Eric

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Meacher, Michael

    Winnick, David

    Meale, Alan

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Michael, Alun

    Worthington, Tony

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Morley, Elliot

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Mr. Allen McKay.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

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

    (1) Section 257C(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, so far as relating to section 257A(1) of that Act, shall not apply for the year 1992–93.

    (2) Section 257A(1) of that Act shall apply for the year 1992–93 as if the amount specified in it were £1,720.

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

    25. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (LIMIT FOR 1992–93)
    Resolved,
    That, for the year 1992–93, the qualifying maximum defined in section 367(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be £30,000.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    37. CHILD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE AND OTHER PERIODICAL PAYMENTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made with respect to periodical payments under the Child Support Act 1991 or section 106 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or under any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland.

    38. PAYING AND COLLECTING AGENTS ETC.
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the payment of income tax in respect of dividends or coupons by persons who are chargeable persons for the purposes of Part III of Schedule 3 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    39. OIL LANDED OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax, provision may be made about the valuation of oil which is, or could reasonably be expected to be, first landed in a country other than the United Kingdom.

    40. RELIEF FROM TAX (INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES)
    Resolved,
    That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) which may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.
    Ordered,
    That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Francis Maude and Mr. John Maples do prepare and bring it in.

    FINANCE BILL
    Mr. Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

  CHARITIES BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Charities Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Ordered,
  That, if the Charities Bill [Lords] be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that, as soon as proceedings on any Resolutions come to by the House on Charities Bill [Lords] [Money] and Charities Bill [Lords] [Ways and
  1080
  Means] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That further proceedings of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
  That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session—

  (a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time, to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Standing Committee; and

  (b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to that Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session;

  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is important to south Wales. It has had extensive consideration in the House and it has been considered for days in Committee, quite apart from its consideration earlier as a private Bill before it became a Government Bill. It means the creation of 5,000 new homes in south Wales and 25,000 new jobs. Will Hansard show—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We cannot debate the Bill now. It is not exempted business. There was an objection to it, which I have taken, and there can be no further discussion on the matter.
  Mr. Jones: My point of order was to ask whether Hansard will clearly show that the objection came from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who has sought to wreck this measure in an unreasonable and disgraceful way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We often go through this procedure at 2.30 pm on a Friday and the House well knows that an hon. Member is entitled to object and he does not have to declare his identity in so doing.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Friendly Societies Bill, now standing committed to a Standing Committee, be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

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

    FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 1986
    That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1992 (S.I. 1992, No. 273), dated 17th February 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
    Question agreed to.

    FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 1986
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved —[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    SUGAR AND ISOGLUCOSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8910/91, relating to the operation of the common organisation of the market in the sugar and isoglucose sectors; and supports the Government's intention to seek, in the forthcoming review of the Common Agricultural Policy sugar regime, to maintain the viability of both the cane and beet sugar sectors in the United Kingdom, to maintain the right of the ACP countries to export cane sugar to the Community as provided for in the Protocol to the Lomé Convention, and to the United Kingdom as expressed in the terms of the Resolution of this House of 11th November 1974, while making the regime more open to market forces and beneficial to consumers, and simultaneously recognising the need for the GATT negotiations to take proper account of the trade of developing countries.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
    Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Kashmir
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased to present a petition about an important area of conflict— Kashmir. It has been signed by nearly 2,000 people, mostly from my constituency but also from elsewhere in Bradford and west Yorkshire. It calls for United Nations intervention in an area of serious conflict. That is important. I have supported the United Nations for many years, particularly, unlike the Government, the United Nations non-proliferation treaty. I have great pleasure in presenting this important petition.
  The petition says:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  1082
  The Humble Petition of former Kashmiris and friends of Kashmir
  Sheweth
  That whereas the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions declaring that the final disposition of the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations; and whereas both Lord Mountbatten of Burma, first Viceroy, and Mr. Nehru, first Prime Minister of India, solemnly promised a referendum would be held; and whereas the Indian security forces now occupying Kashmir have perpetuated gross and persistent violations of the human rights of the people of Kashmir.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will condemn the systematic mass murders, torture, arson and rape by the Indian forces of occupation in Kashmir;
  promote international efforts to help refugees fleeing Kashmir and to relieve the hardship and suffering of the people who remain in the territory;
  demand that India permit Amnesty International and other independent human rights agencies to enter Kashmir, with a view to investigating and reporting on human rights violations, and
  calls for the withdrawal of India's armed forces and security forces from the state of Jammu and Kashmir and their replacement by an interim United Nations administration with a task of restoring law and order and as soon as practicable conducting the said plebiscite.
  And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  A10 (Cambridgeshire)
  10.34 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: On a rather less international but none the less supremely important subject, I beg to present a petition signed by more than 1,000 people, on behalf of the village of Harston in the county of Cambridgeshire, which suffers from intolerable levels of traffic on the A10 trunk road, causing nuisance to the residents from noise and pollution and —what is more important—serious danger. There has been loss of life and limb on that road. Therefore, I present the petition on behalf of those people.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will grant the provision of a bypass for the village of Harston.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Somalia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
10.35 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise some of the issues that concern the people of northern Somalia—that is, the area which has sought independence as the Republic of Somaliland, although, understandably, it has not been recognised as an independent state. That part of Somalia has suffered terribly in what has been described as the "hidden war" over the past 10 years, and now there is the threat of a hidden descent into disaster and despair for the people of that part of the world.
I do not seek to minimise the problems of southern Somalia, but the links with the United Kingdom, and with the Somali community in the United Kingdom, are largely with the north, and it is to this country that the Issaks and the people of the north look for help. I know that my concern is shared by members of the all-party group—people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), who has described the problems experienced in her constituency.
I first came across the Somali community when I was a community worker in the docks area of Cardiff, where there was tremendous respect for the service that Somalis had given over a century or more to the Merchant Navy both in war and in peacetime.
As I have said, the north of Somalia suffered terribly under the regime of Siad Barre. There was a hidden war which resulted in destruction and death. Hundreds of thousands of people were affected and fled into refugee camps. The war led to people joining their families in the parts of the United Kingdom in which Somalis have settled, and thus to a flood of refugees to this country. We all hoped that the overthrow of President Barre would bring about unity among the opposition groups, which would lead to a fresh start and an established Government in which the people of Somalia as a whole could place confidence. Instead, the problems have become even worse. There has been a split in the south, and the people in the north have been left out of the discussions. Those people need our help, as we needed theirs in wartime, and I hope that we shall not let them down.
On 10 December the Minister answered a question of mine by saying:
"There is no government in Somalia commanding national acceptance. Factional fighting continues, and is particularly heavy in Mogadishu. The north of Somalia, which is relatively peaceful and stable, has purported to declare independence. Local leaders have promised a referendum and elections in 1993."—[Official Report, 10 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 391.]
She also noted that the north's purported secession had not been recognised. Her description of the situation remains true, except that possibly things have become worse during the intervening period. I am glad to see that the Minister is showing that she agrees with me on that point.
I am worried about the way in which the United Nations is dealing with the situation. I received a letter from the office of Mr. Jonah which appeared to suggest that the groups at war in Mogadishu, in the south, were the two halves of a potential government. That is not so, because those are the two halves of the United Congress
1084
movement, which has no right or claim to be recognised as the Government of Somalia, either as two halves or even if it became united.
We all want peace to come to the south as quickly as possible, but there are two major fears about the situation that could then develop. I am sure that the Minister agrees that at the moment there is little likelihood of peace between the warring factions in the capital or in the surrounding area. However, were peace to come about in Mogadishu and the surrounding area, the first fear is that the Government of Ali Mahdi, or whoever leads any coalition in the south, would be internationally recognised as the legitimate Government when the leaders of the north and of other regions have not been part of the process and do not recognise that Administration.
The subsequent fear is that this could lead to an attempt by the south to dominate the north, as it did with some legitimacy but with great cruelty under ex-President Barre, leading to another horrific and bloody civil war. My understanding is that a number of nations, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have refused to recognise the Government led by Mr. Ali Mahdi. There has also been no recognition, as I mentioned earlier, of the Republic of Somaliland in the north. The problem, however, is that the United Nations reports, and some others, have referred to matters as though the bringing together of the two halves in the south would be the end of the story. It would not.
I do not think that the issues which I am raising are a matter of controversy between the parties in the House. Indeed, great interest and sympathy has been shown by the Minister for Overseas Development. On this side of the House, a great deal of interest has been shown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench tonight.
I am appealing not for a change of attitude but for the Government to inject a greater sense of urgency—perhaps I should say an even greater sense of urgency—into the way that the international community is responding to the situation in Somalia. I am asking the Minister to give an undertaking that, even during the election period, United Kingdom Government officials will take the lead for which our international partners, both in Europe and in the wider international community, look to us. I am asking her to give an undertaking that they will seek to persuade the international community, and the United Nations in particular, to take the responsibility that no leader in Somalia can take, that no sectional group in Somalia can take and that the people of Somalia as a whole cannot choose to exercise, because there is no mechanism by which they can choose an Administration that would give them the peace that they desire.
It is clear now that international action is the only way forward and that the alternative is a continuation of the misery, pain and death and a descent into even greater chaos. However, it must also be, as I have already stressed, the right type of intervention, which recognises the reality of the situation in Somalia.
The United Nations appears to place hope in the attempts of Mr. Ali Mahdi to form an Administration. I understand that he resigned some three times in November and December but was persuaded to continue, given encouragement from the United Nations and the

1085
international community; that there have been reconciliation meetings on some 13 occasions; and that there has been encouragement of the belief that a United Nations peacekeeping force would go to Somalia were some form of agreement to be reached. It seems, however, that a great deal of that is unrealistic.
At the moment, as I understand it, in the north-west —in the area of Somaliland—there is a Somali National Movement-led Administration which has achieved some relative peace and that further to the east and south the Democratic Front for the Salvation of Somalia is the dominant force and that as one goes further south the conflict between the forces of General Aideed and M r. Ali Mahdi has led to relative chaos and to the killing that we have seen in recent weeks on our television screens. Further to the south and west, the Somali Patriotic Movement in the Ogaden controls some areas and there is still a residual element that supports ex-President Barre. Such a fragmented situation gives no hope that the problems can be solved from within Somalia or that peace is likely to be achieved in the short term.
I should like to draw attention to much of the information that is available from many expert individuals and the non-governmental organisations, particularly a report prepared by Mr. John Drysdale, a copy of which I have sent to the Librarian of the House. Mr. Drysdale was in the colonial service in British Somaliland and was a former consul-general and foreign affairs adviser to the Somali Government. He invested a good deal of time and effort in the affairs of Somalia and has much knowledge of it. He has tried to help Somalia as a united state in the past.
It seems from all those to whom I have spoken in recent weeks that there is a growing consensus that the civil war in Mogadishu has effectively removed any form of central Government in Somalia and any organisation with which those currently in control in the north could reach agreement, whether it be agreement for the continuation of Somalia as a single entity or agreement leading to secession of part of it, as is the aspiration of those in the north.
The almost total disruption of food and medical aid and the absolute bankruptcy and lack of public services in the south are frightening. The situation in the former north-west regions of Somalia—the former British protectorate—and the indefinite delay in recognising the independence of that area lead to serious and continuing problems. Membership of the United Nations and international recognition are precluded. Therefore, institutional aid through the World bank and the International Monetary Fund is not forthcoming. Consequently, a central bank cannot be established, trade and Government revenue are seriously curtailed, a civil service and the forces of law and order cannot be paid and development expenditure for the huge reconstruction requirements are impossible. All the work that is needed on the country's infrastructure if people are to achieve even a minimum standard of living cannot be brought about.
The visit of the United Nations Joint Agency Assessment Commission to Somaliland between October and December last year was postponed four times because of the security situation in Mogadishu. Mogadishu is more than 1,000 miles away, but the investigative visit was still postponed. The tragedy is that, because they are unable to generate revenue and do something to help themselves in
1086
Somaliland, the Government are without an administration and the group that has miraculously held the embryonic state together for more than a year is now, not unexpectedly, showing signs of instability. Because there is no international recognition and support, there is, in effect, a weak Government who are open to disruptive political forces, both externally and internally. That is why they desperately need our help.
There are places where this Parliament recognises that there is a need for action within the boundaries of what has previously been a sovereign state. We have seen that in Yugoslavia. My predecessor in the constituency, now Lord Callaghan, referred to the need for the international community to deal with the prohibition of the interference by other states in the internal affairs of a member state. Surely that must be reviewed in a situation such as this when nothing can be done from within to achieve peace and satisfactory redevelopment. We heard only this morning that about 10 children a day are dying in refugee camps such as those near Jijiga and the international situation is extremely difficult.
As the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee says, there is a need for international action even when a sovereign state is being dismembered. I appeal to the Minister and to the House to recognise that those in the north of Somaliland will be in a hidden state of disaster unless we take a lead and persuade the international community to give them the help that they so desperately need.
10.49 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), my co-chairman of the parliamentary Somali group, for allowing me to chip in. Parliament is at its best on such occasions. Despite all the domestic storm and stress, we are capable of adopting a cross-party approach to consider, with the ministerial grain, the particular problems of the people of Somaliland and Somalia.
In recent years the Horn of Africa has been buffeted by Marxism, civil war, famine, disease and economic chaos. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is still chaos and anarchy in the south of Somalia. There is no semblance of law and order or government. It would be absurd for the international community to do more than hope, and what little it can, to bring the conflicting sides together. However, it should not recognise the south as an independent nation with a Government in any shape or form.
The north has the one commodity that the south lacks—hope. There is a degree of stability on which we must capitalise as quickly as possible. The regime in place is, in essence, a Government with whom we can deal and whom the people of the north can respect.
What are needed now from the international community are aid, trade and political good will. With that, the tiny seed of democracy and economic management in the north will begin to grow. The United Nations, the European Community and the United Kingdom have all played their part. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister and her team at the Overseas Development Administration for what they have sought to achieve in the north. We now need to release more of the aid that is destined for Somalia because that could do good work in the north.

1087
The United Kingdom has a special relationship with Somalia, which was built as a result of service in the Merchant Navy and in war time. From east London to Wandsworth and in many of our port towns, one can find Somali Communities—they have taken the same route as that taken by the Huguenots.
There are five stars in the Somali flag—the stars of Somalia, Somaliland, Djibouti, Ogaden and the Somalis of Kenya. One of those stars is our particular concern, the star of the old British Somaliland. People from that part of the country feel pride in that relationship; I hope that we share that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to do all that she can to ensure that the star continues to shine in that sad part of the world as we help the people of Somaliland to move towards some form of peace and progress.
10.52 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for raising the recent deeply disturbing events in Somalia. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). As he said, it is entirely right that we should be considering the tragedy in Somalia, which has become steadily more horrific. No one who has seen the recent television reports from Mogadishu could think that such concern, even with an impending election, is misplaced.
When the former President, Mohammed Siad Barre, fell from power just over a year ago, there was some hope, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, that Somalia might now enjoy stability, peace and economic development. Instead, the clan groups who had opposed Barre resorted to violence to resolve their own differences. The result was anarchy and an appalling humanitarian crisis.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw our attention to the complexity of the situation, but it is even more complex than he and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea described. There is no generally accepted Government and the country has fallen into the hands of feuding clans, each armed to the teeth. Attention is understandably focused mainly on Mogadishu, where the worst of the fighting has taken place. There, the forces of the interim President Ali Mahdi and the United Somali Congress chairman General Aideed confront each other. Each claims to represent the legitimate Government of Somalia, but in practice each represents only a specific sub-clan.
Mr. Michael: The right hon. Lady refers to Ali Mahdi as the interim president, but surely that has no legitimacy.
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows that Ali Mahdi's Government is something that he states, but which we put in inverted commas because we recognise states and not Governments, so the question does not arise. Over the past year, we have sought to maintain informal contact with the main factions in Somalia, but none of the contacts has any Government-to-Government dealings. The attempt last year to form a Government commanding national acceptance failed as a result of the clan and sub-clan rivalries. Our dealings with Somalis are
1088
therefore much more complicated and reflect the fact that one must be in contact with an enormous number of different groups.
The separate clan militias throughout Somalia are each taking control of particular small regions of the country. I shall deal in detail with the situation in the north a little later, but even the Isaaq who have the heartland of the northern part of Somalia are at odds in the west with the Gadabursi and in the east with the Wasangeli and the Dolbahante. There is clan and inter-clan fighting right across the north, and the situation is very complicated and getting worse.
As a result of the fighting in the central and southern parts of Somalia, it has become virtually impossible to deliver aid to the millions affected. Food distribution in Mogadishu is at a virtual standstill. Medical supplies for the non-governmental organisation medical teams in Mogadishu working alongside the Somalis have to be flown in daily.
The security situation is now so bad that aid workers, including the International Red Cross, have been forced, for their own protection, to employ armed guards to enable them to conduct even the most minimal of relief operations. I am sure that the House will join me in praising the continuing bravery and dedication of those aid workers. Against the greatest odds, they have continued to work inside Somalia, tending to the overwhelming number of wounded and malnourished victims. We offer special condolences to the families of the aid workers and the innocent Somalis killed in this mindless fighting.
What makes the situation so very serious in Mogadishu is that there is a complete breakdown of the traditional social disciplines of Somali society. The elders are no longer respected and even the so-called military leaders have only the most tenuous control over their troops.
In these tragic circumstances, we have to look very hard for any signs of hope, but there are some signs. On 23 January the United Nations Security Council, under the British Presidency, adopted resolution 733 on Somalia. This called on the United Nations Secretary-General to increase United Nations humanitarian assistance, and to co-operate with regional organisations in seeking the agreement of the Somali factions to a ceasefire and the beginning of the process of political reconciliation. The resolution also established an arms embargo.
The United Nations Secretary-General, in conjunction with the Organisation of African Unity, the League of Arab States and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, invited representatives of the Mogadishu warring factions to New York. At this meeting on 14 February, agreement was reached for a cessation of hostilities. The parties also agreed then that a ceasefire should be formally signed in Mogadishu.
The representative of the Secretary-General, Under-Secretary-General James Jonah, visited Mogadishu last week. He succeeded in negotiating a ceasefire agreement between the forces of Ali Mahdi and General Aideed. Regrettably, once again, the ceasefire signed on 3 March has suffered the same fate as similar agreements in the past —it has not held.
James Jonah hopes that he has persuaded the Mogadishu factions to agree to the dispatch of a technical team to work out the monitoring of the ceasefire, once it

1089
gets started. The next step will be for the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council. Then it will be for the Council to consider whatever recommendations the Secretary-General may make in this respect.
We shall continue to give our fullest support to the Secretary-General and his reprsentatives in their efforts to end the fighting. It is exactly because the needs of all the Somali people are so great that I spent some time yesterday speaking to James Jonah in New York. I was able to discuss with him some of the detail, to encourage urgent action to be taken and to assure him of our fullest support for his efforts to bring about and maintain peace and some sort of order in Somalia. We warmly welcome the participation of the Organisation of African Unity in United Nations efforts. The Africans must join in the search for a proper, lasting settlement in Somalia.
Some have suggested that United Nations troops might be used in Somalia to enforce a peace or to permit secure aid distribution. It may come to that, but there is no sign yet that the Somali factions would be prepared to accept such a move, were it to be contemplated. A ceasefire cannot be imposed by force from outside, and this is the dilemma that faces the international community. The plain fact is that no Government would be prepared to put the lives of their soldiers at risk in the absence of a genuine ceasefire not only agreed to but adhered to by all the factions involved.
We shall continue to do all that we can to provide financial support for those agencies seeking to bring humanitarian relief to those suffering from the effects of the civil war in the south. We have contributed to a wide variety of United Nations, International Committee to the Red Cross and NGO programmes which address both emergency and rehabilitation needs. Since January 1991, Britain has provided over £8 million in humanitarian assistance to Somalia, of which £2·29 million was made available recently to the Red Cross and Save the Children for food and medical supplies for Mogadishu and the south. The ICRC has been implementing a relief plan with the United Nations over the past few weeks, but it is clear that a major United Nations relief effort is required in all parts of Somalia if we are to avert an even more serious tragedy.
I turn now from Mogadishu to northern Somalia where the so-called Republic of Somaliland was declared in May 1991. I understand the views of both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. They have shown great tenacity in arguing for the interests of the people of this region, whence the majority of the British Somali community originate. We share their concerns that the interests of this region, which suffered terribly in the fight against Siad Barre, should not be overlooked by the inevitable preoccupation with the tragic events further south. Along with the rest of the international community, we have not recognised the secession of Somaliland, but this has not
1090
prevented us from maintaining regular official contacts with representatives of the Somali National Movement, which took power in the north last year.
Nor has the lack of formal diplomatic recognition prevented the British Government from continuing to provide humanitarian assistance to the north. The region faces appalling problems. We are in very close touch with a number of agencies working in the north, and in the past year we have committed £1·87 million in emergency relief to NGOs working there. We have funded projects such as the rehabilitation of the water system in Hargeisa and Burao through Oxfam, medical programmes run by Save the Children Fund, and a rehabilitation programme in Sanaag run by Action Aid. We were also pleased to contribute to a mine-clearing programme by the British firm, Rimfire, which will help rid the region of its estimated 1 to 1·5 million unexploded mines. Most recently, I approved a grant of £150,000 to the International Red Cross for veterinary assistance to the important livestock sector. We are ready to do more. We have encouraged the European Commission to provide what aid it can to the north.
We had been able to consider this degree of assistance because, unlike the south, for much of last year northern Somalia appeared to be stable. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Fighting has broken out between clan militia in several of the major towns. Aid agencies have recently had funds stolen, their staff abused and their warehouses looted. We are urging our partners in the United Nations and the EC to ensure that full attention is given to the need to stabilise conditions in the north. Otherwise, there is a real risk that the north will go the way of the south, in a downward spiral of clan fighting, food shortages and banditry. Until the fighters see some source of revenue other than looting, peace will be hard to come by. We are discussing with the United Nations what more might be done. I am not satisfied that the United Nations agencies have yet addressed seriously enough the problems of this region. I will continue, despite the election, to do all that I can to bring real action on the part of the United Nations to the people of Somalia.
As in the south, lasting peace and reconciliation can come only from the Somali people themselves. We cannot impose it from outside. That is why we shall not lose sight of the Somali situation as a whole, in the understandable concern with the horror of Mogadishu, and also the horrors elsewhere. We hope that Somali leaders themselves will also have learnt from recent events that the international community can provide the assistance which is so desperately needed only if they also commit themselves to a policy of peaceful resolution of their disputes. I hope that that message at least can go from this House to the people of Somalia tonight. We wish them peace, but it will be a difficult job to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary together with their date of appointment and the date by which they are required by law to retire.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is as follows:—

  Appointment Date

  Retirement Date

  Lord Keith of Kinkel

  10 January 1977

  7 February 1997

  Lord Templeman MBE

  30 September 1982

  3 March 1995

  Lord Griffiths MC

  23 May 1985

  26 September 1998

  Lord Ackner

  30 January 1986

  18 September 1995

  Lord Goff of Chieveley

  6 February 1986

  12 November 2001

  Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

  9 February 1988

  8 May 2000

  Lord Lowry

  5 August 1988

  30 January 1994

  Lord Browne-Wilkinson

  1 October 1991

  30 March 2005

  Lord Mustill

  10 January 1992

  10 May 2006

  Lord Slynn of Hadley

  11 March 1992

  17 February 2005

  Polygamous Marriages
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans the Government have to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission in their report on "Polygamous Marriages: Capacity to Contract" (Law Comm. No. 146, Scots Law No. 96).

  The Attorney-General
  Following the publication of this report in 1985 the Government consulted on its recommendations, the main purpose of which is to ensure that those domiciled in England and Wales or in Scot land should not lack the capacity to contract a marriage which is in fact monogamous merely because it is celebrated in polygamous form according to foreign law. Marriages that are actually polygamous would continue not to be recognised as valid in this country. In the light of the views expressed on consultation the Government have decided to accept these recommendations and will introduce legislation to implement them when a suitable opportunity occurs.

ENERGY

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had, and what undertakings he has given to the European Commission, in connection with state aid requirements, regarding the commercial rules for operating Sizewell B nuclear power station.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The notification of commercial arrangements relating to Nuclear Electric plc's operations 578
  up to 1998 made to the European Commission in March 1990 under state aid notification procedures included Sizewell B.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many visits were made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) in his capacity as Minister in 1990, 1991 and the current year, respectively; and what were the places and duration of each visit.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I shall ask my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) to write to the hon. Gentleman.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Brixton Prison
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the treatment of medical and psychiatric prisoners at Brixton prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is the Government's policy that mentally disturbed offenders should receive care and treatment from the health and social services. They should be diverted from the criminal justice system at the earliest possible opportunity.

  However following adverse criticism of the arrangements in Brixton prison, we felt it entirely appropriate to develop enhanced activities and general support for patients undergoing observation or treatment. We are now in the final stages of developing an acute psychiatric unit to provide a high standard of medical and nursing care for acutely disturbed inmates, for whom transfer to hospital is not possible.

  The necessary building works are nearing completion and the unit is expected to be ready by the end of March for the receipt of patients in April.

  "Custody, Care and Justice"
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons have been selected for the pilot schemes of staff compacts described in paragraph 4.12 of the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice".

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The commitment given in the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" to providing a statement of the facilities for staff, and the standards expected of them, is being addressed alongside the work on a new staff handbook, and standards for the treatment and care of prisoners. Work is progressing on the most appropriate format for the delivery of these objectives, but is not yet sufficiently advanced to implement any pilot programmes.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the review of the reception and induction arrangements for prisoners referred to in paragraph 7.17 of the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice".

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Guidance based on the review is to be issued to prison governors within the next few months.

  Bail
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons he expects to provide bail units, and how many to provide bail information schemes, before the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. John Patten
  All local prisons and remand centres have a bail unit or bail officer. Bail information schemes currently operate at 15 establishments. Two further establishments have schemes approved, but they will not be operational before the end of the financial year.

  Male Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many prisons male convicted prisoners are now allowed to wear their own clothes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" announced the Government's intention to extend the wearing of own clothess by male convicted prisoners. A pilot scheme began at HM prison Belmarsh in April 1991 and this is expected to be extended to two further establishments later this year. In addition, some establishments already allow male convicted prisoners to wear certain items of their own clothing.

  Criminal Justice Consultative Council
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the immediate programme of work agreed for the Criminal Justice Consultative Council following its initial meeting in January.

  Mr. John Patten
  The council's work programme will be considered by its members at its next meeting on 9 April, following a preliminary discussion at its first meeting.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Justice Consultative Council will hold its next meeting.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Criminal Justice Consultative Council will hold its second meeting on Thursday 9 April 1992.

  London Bridge Bomb
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those injured as a result of the London bridge explosion were injured by flying glass.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  A figure for those injured specifically by flying glass as a result of the London Bridge explosion of 28 February is not available, but of the 30 people who went to hospital as a result of the explosion, 12 were suffering from cuts, bruises or other associated pains.

  Retail Premises (Security)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters concerning its recommendations on appropriate security shutters for retail premises.
  580
  Mr. John Patten
  I have had no discussions with the Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters and I understand that the institute has made no such recommendations.

  Crime Statistics, Manchester
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest crime figures in the Greater Manchester police area.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest information is for 1991 and is published in table 3 of "Home Office Statistical Bulletin" 2/92, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Name Badges (Prisons)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce name badges for all staff on duty in prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Work is progressing on the commitment given in the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" to the wearing of name badges by all staff on duty in prisons. Procurement action will be initiated when the consultations with the trade unions about the detailed arrangements have been satisfactorily concluded.

  Cardphones (Prisons)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether cardphones are now available in all prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Cardphones for prisoners' use are available at all category C and D prisons, including equivalent female and young offender establishments.

  On publication of the Woolf report my right hon. Friend announced that cardphones would be installed in the rest of the prison estate. The installation programme is scheduled to be completed by the end of June 1992.

  Prisoners (Television)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons he proposes to conduct experiments under which prisoners may have televisions in their cells or rooms.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" announced that closely monitored trials would take place at a small number of establishments to test the use of televisions in cells.

  A trial of battery-operated televisions began at HM prison The Mount in December 1991. Trials of mains-powered sets will be held at Manchester and Stockton prisons when the necessary cabling work has been completed in the summer. In-cell television will be tested in other establishments if the need arises.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average sentence imposed in each of the last 10 years upon offenders convicted of(a) indecent assault on a female, (b) unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, (c) unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 and (d) incest;

  (2) how many offenders convicted of (a) indecent assault on a female, (b) unlawful sexual intercourse with

  581
  a girl under 16, (c) unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 and (d) incest were given sentences of (i) immediate imprisonment, (ii) suspended imprisonment, (iii) community service, (iv) probation, (v) a fine and (vi) discharge in each of the last ten years.

  Table A

  Number of offenders sentenced lo immediate custody and average length of sentence imposed for certain sexual offences by type of court 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 19901

  England and Wales

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown Court

  Offence

  Year

  Total immediate custody

  Average sentence length (months)

  Total immediate custody

  Average sentence length (months)

  Indecent assault on a female

  1980

  141

  4

  275

  16

  1985

  172

  4

  489

  18

  1987

  134

  4

  821

  22

  1988

  131

  3

  866

  21

  1989

  91

  4

  913

  23

  11990

  73

  4

  885

  23

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16

  1980

  22

  4

  64

  12

  1985

  33

  4

  70

  13

  1987

  25

  4

  88

  12

  1988

  13

  3

  94

  12

  1989

  8

  3

  73

  12

  11990

  13

  4

  72

  11

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13

  1980

  —

  —

  50

  31

  1985

  —

  4

  69

  25

  1987

  —

  —

  82

  36

  1988

  —

  4

  95

  33

  1989

  —

  —

  61

  38

  11990

  —

  3

  65

  40

  Incest

  1980

  2

  4

  95

  36

  1985

  —

  5

  95

  30

  1987

  —

  —

  156

  38

  1988

  —

  —

  159

  42

  1989

  —

  —

  134

  43

  11990

  —

  —

  117

  46

  1 Provisional

  Table B

  Number of offenders sentenced for certain sexual offences by type of court and result 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 19901

  England and Wales

  Offence and year

  Total sentence

  Immediate custody

  Fully-suspended

  Comm. Serving Order

  Probation order

  Fine

  Abs or conditional discharge

  Other

  Magistrates courts Indecent assault on a female

  1980

  1,937

  141

  149

  22

  407

  609

  326

  283

  1985

  1,396

  172

  113

  34

  365

  278

  240

  194

  1987

  1,176

  134

  93

  34

  337

  232

  181

  165

  1988

  1,220

  131

  105

  29

  323

  290

  188

  145

  1989

  1,245

  91

  103

  31

  335

  296

  222

  167

  19901

  1,138

  73

  67

  27

  303

  290

  228

  150

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  1980

  414

  22

  49

  18

  34

  188

  69

  14

  1985

  279

  33

  30

  19

  47

  72

  68

  10

  1987

  191

  25

  24

  19

  31

  59

  33

  —

  1988

  175

  13

  22

  14

  24

  49

  49

  4

  1989

  139

  8

  8

  8

  21

  58

  35

  1

  19901

  154

  13

  7

  9

  27

  50

  45

  3

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  1980

  10

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  8

  1985

  12

  1

  —

  5

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1987

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1988

  10

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  1989

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  3

  19901

  7

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Incest 1980

  7

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  2

  582
  Mr. John Patten
  The information for England and Wales for the years 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, which is provisional for the other years requested would involve disproportionate cost.
  583

  Offence and year

  Total sentence

  Immediate custody

  Fully suspended

  Comm. serving order

  Probation order

  Fine

  Abs or conditional discharge

  Other

  1985

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1987

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1988

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1989

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  19901

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Crown court Indecent assault on a female

  1980

  507

  275

  92

  8

  58

  35

  15

  24

  1985

  744

  489

  100

  8

  94

  14

  18

  21

  1987

  1,151

  821

  137

  12

  119

  27

  14

  21

  1988

  1,305

  866

  180

  18

  159

  27

  22

  33

  1989

  1,427

  913

  216

  16

  196

  27

  22

  37

  19901

  1,431

  885

  194

  34

  216

  39

  24

  39

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  1980

  147

  64

  33

  9

  10

  24

  7

  —

  1985

  118

  70

  13

  6

  12

  7

  8

  2

  1987

  156

  88

  29

  10

  14

  6

  7

  2

  1988

  164

  94

  30

  10

  11

  8

  8

  3

  1989

  123

  73

  22

  7

  6

  7

  7

  1

  19901

  150

  72

  36

  13

  11

  9

  7

  2

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  1980

  92

  50

  14

  —

  15

  7

  5

  1

  1985

  98

  69

  10

  7

  8

  1

  3

  —

  1987

  97

  82

  8

  —

  4

  1

  2

  —

  1988

  125

  95

  6

  4

  10

  2

  3

  5

  1989

  88

  61

  9

  1

  7

  3

  2

  5

  19901

  103

  65

  7

  5

  19

  1

  3

  3

  Incest

  1980

  138

  95

  20

  1

  15

  1

  3

  3

  1985

  126

  95

  21

  1

  8

  —

  —

  1

  1987

  190

  156

  18

  1

  12

  I

  —

  2

  1988

  195

  159

  16

  3

  15

  —

  2

  —

  1989

  162

  134

  6

  1

  17

  —

  3

  1

  19901

  149

  117

  11

  —

  18

  1

  —

  2

  1 Provisional.

  Drug Abuse
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of drug addicts in each regional health authority each year since 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of addicts notified by doctors to the Home Office are given for each regional health authority and the years 1987 to 1990 in table A7 of "Statistics of the Misuse of Drugs: Addicts Notified to the

  Persons found guilty of drugs offences by police force area and year1

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Police force

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  England

  Avon and Somerset

  319

  383

  388

  542

  396

  374

  358

  410

  350

  336

  560

  164

  Bedfordshire

  50

  77

  69

  75

  100

  79

  110

  96

  74

  74

  126

  137

  Cambridgeshire

  317

  300

  275

  169

  152

  108

  151

  164

  159

  132

  156

  234

  Cheshire

  110

  171

  144

  184

  206

  298

  223

  209

  411

  395

  511

  324

  Cleveland

  104

  118

  84

  58

  41

  57

  98

  78

  69

  90

  95

  93

  Cumbria

  130

  174

  246

  374

  288

  289

  335

  293

  290

  364

  376

  326

  Derbyshire

  92

  107

  130

  124

  81

  144

  167

  95

  148

  127

  129

  219

  Devon and Cornwall

  322

  432

  363

  464

  505

  474

  696

  545

  588

  599

  651

  689

  Dorset

  115

  161

  162

  224

  183

  222

  197

  129

  91

  64

  132

  165

  Durham

  51

  60

  49

  59

  89

  76

  62

  34

  63

  67

  80

  61

  Essex

  129

  240

  219

  259

  249

  323

  344

  162

  204

  255

  325

  400

  Gloucestershire

  157

  202

  183

  207

  213

  248

  194

  128

  143

  108

  167

  154

  Greater Manchester

  410

  519

  886

  769

  874

  919

  1,019

  880

  1,006

  964

  1,301

  1,356

  Hampshire

  397

  332

  432

  282

  336

  339

  315

  342

  250

  328

  241

  214

  Hertfordshire

  167

  197

  222

  224

  256

  295

  313

  213

  194

  205

  371

  336

  584
  Home Office, United Kingdom, 1990—Area Tables", a copy of which is in the Library. Figures for earlier years are not available by regional health authority.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug-related convictions there were in each police area in England and Wales since 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the table.
  585

  Police force

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Humberside

  109

  147

  180

  152

  200

  202

  260

  177

  194

  201

  207

  264

  Kent

  166

  235

  244

  223

  204

  259

  308

  251

  302

  202

  202

  96

  Lancashire

  271

  363

  351

  324

  354

  291

  425

  373

  344

  256

  317

  585

  Leicestershire

  253

  249

  225

  55

  164

  178

  211

  224

  178

  199

  183

  192

  Lincolnshire

  62

  72

  65

  58

  82

  42

  51

  46

  77

  77

  116

  186

  Merseyside

  247

  269

  237

  276

  434

  586

  1,059

  724

  725

  845

  1,078

  1,399

  Metropolitan Police (including City of London

  4,315

  5,608

  6,033

  7,485

  8,469

  7,925

  6,678

  5,341

  4,476

  5,810

  6,672

  6,329

  Norfolk

  195

  263

  156

  114

  197

  153

  176

  202

  162

  217

  272

  391

  Northamptonshire

  87

  117

  105

  68

  73

  66

  77

  89

  67

  52

  58

  105

  Northumbria

  179

  122

  203

  169

  134

  159

  221

  169

  183

  175

  223

  289

  North Yorkshire

  84

  86

  122

  135

  125

  165

  162

  145

  162

  67

  94

  109

  Nottinghamshire

  109

  150

  161

  233

  191

  154

  147

  158

  217

  165

  143

  145

  South Yorkshire

  175

  145

  180

  236

  144

  257

  298

  283

  336

  238

  324

  351

  Staffordshire

  59

  93

  65

  56

  66

  160

  220

  116

  114

  156

  180

  235

  Suffolk

  146

  242

  200

  188

  196

  155

  157

  160

  211

  195

  272

  244

  Surrey

  219

  284

  305

  254

  287

  351

  406

  306

  254

  236

  391

  361

  Sussex

  489

  516

  578

  521

  631

  519

  458

  364

  506

  431

  731

  860

  Thames Valley

  466

  479

  408

  514

  488

  514

  608

  536

  543

  643

  770

  911

  Warwickshire

  64

  83

  78

  127

  74

  88

  86

  82

  82

  120

  131

  171

  West Mercia

  166

  263

  187

  152

  230

  233

  156

  354

  224

  285

  266

  376

  West Midlands

  234

  288

  393

  452

  612

  702

  663

  508

  469

  771

  823

  1,148

  West Yorkshire

  327

  347

  362

  432

  607

  361

  395

  552

  573

  608

  596

  942

  Wiltshire

  121

  124

  166

  137

  149

  252

  147

  112

  83

  106

  120

  103

  Total England

  11,413

  14,018

  14,856

  16,375

  18,080

  18,017

  17,951

  15,050

  14,522

  16,163

  19,390

  20,664

  Wales

  Dyfed-Powys

  191

  200

  163

  157

  180

  222

  212

  154

  182

  157

  165

  186

  Gwent

  103

  124

  111

  152

  101

  132

  134

  125

  114

  131

  118

  144

  North Wales

  83

  196

  172

  260

  252

  205

  276

  187

  207

  265

  404

  375

  South Wales

  228

  278

  319

  418

  575

  736

  597

  419

  532

  586

  657

  578

  Total Wales

  605

  798

  765

  987

  1,108

  1,295

  1,219

  885

  1,035

  1,139

  1.314

  1,283

  1 Excludes offenders prosecuted for offences dealt with by HM Customs and Excise, British Transport Police, British Airports Authority and Port of London Authority (England) and all those cautioned or dealt with by compounding for drugs offences.

  Overseas Electors Scheme
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to date, broken down into all expenditure heads, of the implementation of the overseas electors scheme.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 9 March to a question by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist).

  Crime Statistics, Merseyside
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for criminal offences on Merseyside were made in each of the years 1978 to 1991 inclusive; how many crimes were reported on Merseyside in each of those years; and what percentage of the crimes reported the convictions constituted in each of those years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on convictions and cautions within police force areas is published annually in the Command Paper "Criminal statistics, England and Wales". Tables 3(a), 7(a) and 35(a) of the 1978 edition, tables 3(a), 7(a) and 34(a) of the 1979 edition and tables S3.2(A), S3.4(A) and S3.7(A) of the supplementary tables volume 3 from 1980 to 1989 refer. The 1990 Command Paper has yet to be published but provisional figures show 49,000 convictions and 9,800 cautions for all offences in the Merseyside police force area. This information covers offenders and the convictions data records the principal offence only—that is, does not take into account
  586
  additional findings of guilt or offences taken into consideration. Court proceedings data for 1991 are not yet available.

  Information on offences recorded by the police is also published annually in the Command Paper. Table 32 of the 1978 and 1979 editions, table 2.5 of the 1983 edition and table 2.4 of the 1989 edition refer. Figures for 1990 and 1991 are published in table 2 of "Home Office Statistical Bulletin" 2/92. Copies of all the publications referred to above are available in the Library.

  Because of the different collection basis, it is not possible to compare statistics on offences recorded by the police with those on court proceedings.

  Travellers
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the reasons why the officer commanding Southwark division Metropolitan police did not alert Kent county constabulary, Gravesend, that six traveller families were moving into the county of Kent; for what reasons the usual protocol was ignored, and on whose authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Commissioner accepts that Kent constabulary should have been told about the movement of these families and regrets that this did not happen. Police officers on Southwark division have been reminded' of the importance of inter-force co-operation in similar cases.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated level of payments under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to the London borough of Tower Hamlets and previously to ILEA in the current year and in each year since 1966.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The amount of section 11 grant provision payable direct to Tower Hamlets in respect of each financial year from 1967–68 to 1990–91 is as follows.

  The figures for each year up to 1989–90 relate to grant in service areas other than education. It is not possible to isolate precise figures for the grant payable to ILEA during this period in respect of education provision within Tower Hamlets. The figure for 1990–91 includes education provision transferred from ILEA. The figure for 1991–92 is not yet available.

  Financial Year

  £

  1967–68

  11,526

  1968–69

  10,618

  1969–70

  20,388

  1970–71

  19,010

  1971–72

  22,853

  1972–73

  26,651

  1973–74

  25,958

  1974–75

  20,473

  1975–76

  42,098

  1976–77

  39,860

  1977–78

  72,677

  1978–79

  78,830

  1979–80

  77,065

  1980–81

  633,466

  1981–82

  644,060

  1982–83

  841,531

  1983–84

  930,384

  1984–85

  116,519

  1985–86

  158,974

  1986–87

  234,680

  1987–88

  245,120

  1988–89

  199,843

  1989–90

  297,795

  1990–91

  4,732,150

  National Lottery
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that the headquarters of the proposed national lottery be established on Merseyside; if he will consult the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Football Pool Promoters Association in connection with the expertise they have available and the preservation of jobs of pools workers on Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government's White Paper published on 6 March invites views from all interested parties, including the pools companies, about the possible effect of a national lottery on their activities. Decisions about the headquarters of the national lottery cannot be taken at this stage, but the pools companies would, of course, be able to make a bid for a contract to operate the national lottery if they so wish. I should welcome comments on the proposals in the White Paper, which should be sent to my Department by 1 June.

  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in establishing a new body to supervise the work of the refugee unit of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the joint invitation of my right hon. Friend and the London representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, a planning group has been established, which will be chaired by Mrs. Usha Prashar.

  Mr. Geoffrey Bindman and Ms. Janet Lewis-Jones have also agreed to participate, and the group may co-opt other members.

  The group has been asked to consult voluntary organisations and others concerned with the welfare of refugees, and to devise a constitution for a new organisation, whose objective will be to provide legal counselling for asylum seekers and representation in appeals against adverse decisions by the immigration authorities. These proposals will take account of the need for the trustees of the new body to be able to meet their responsibilities under charity law and to satisfy my right hon. Friend and the UNHCR that there will be proper accountability for grants received. When agreement has been reached on the constitution of the new body, it is envisaged that the group should play a leading part in its establishment. In the meantime, the director of the refugee unit will report to the group, which will assume responsibility for general oversight of the unit until the new body is established.

  I am grateful to Mrs. Prashar and her colleagues for taking on this task.

  Fire Service College
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards establishing the Fire Service college as an executive agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am pleased to announce that the Fire Service college will be established as both a Home Office executive agency and a trading fund on 1 April. It will continue to be known as the Fire Service college under this new status. I shall be placing a copy of the college's framework document in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  The main aim of the Fire Service College will be to provide fire-related training and to promote fire safety awareness. It is recognised as being pre-eminent in its field and will therefore be starting from a sound basis in fulfilling this aim. I am confident that the enhanced freedoms and responsibilities which the framework document grants to the chief executive of the agency, together with the additional financial flexibilities of a trading fund, will enable the college to deliver further improvements in its services to customers by providing better value for money.

  The key targets which I have set the agency for its first year of operation are:

  i) to break even financially with a return on capital employed of 6 per cent.

  ii) to achieve a cost per student week of £787;

  iii) to achieve a throughput of 16,650, 3,202 and 2,182 student weeks, or equivalent consultancy income, in

  589
  respect of the United Kingdom fire service, the commercial and industrial sector and the international sector respectively;

  iv) 85 per cent. of students to achieve a 70 per cent. pass rate in assessments;

  The chief executive, Mr. Brian Fuller CBE, will be directly accountable to me for the performance of the Fire Service College. An advisory board comprising representatives of the Home Office, the Scottish Office and fire authorities, together with two independent members, will help me to assess the college's performance.

  Magistrates Courts Rules
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the changes to the magistrates courts rules recommended by the working group on pre-trial issues are being implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has today made the Magistrates' Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Rules 1992 which give effect to the rule changes recommended by the working group. Of particular note are the new rules governing the service of summonses, which allow the courts to use more effective and economical procedures where appropriate.

  Decisions1 2 made in December 1991 on applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality

  Granted Asylum

  Granted Exceptional leave

  Refused Asylum and Exceptional leave

  Refused on third country grounds3

  Refused under paragraph 101 of Immigration rules4

  Total decisions

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Colombia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Czechoslovakia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Romania

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Turkey

  10

  21

  16

  12

  —

  59

  USSR

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Yugoslavia

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Others

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  12

  23

  18

  12

  3

  68

  Middle East

  Iran

  6

  19

  1

  —

  —

  26

  Iraq

  9

  20

  1

  5

  —

  35

  Lebanon

  —

  5

  3

  1

  —

  9

  Others

  2

  10

  4

  7

  —

  23

  Total

  17

  54

  9

  13

  —

  93

  Africa

  Angola

  —

  2

  8

  5

  241

  256

  Benin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burkina Faso

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Cameroon

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  Central African Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chad

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Congo

  —

  —

  1

  —

  23

  24

  Ethiopia

  1

  14

  —

  2

  1

  18

  Gabon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  19

  Ghana

  1

  —

  6

  2

  4

  13

  Ivory Coast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Kenya

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Liberia

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Nigeria

  1

  —

  3

  2

  —

  6

  Somalia

  —

  68

  —

  7

  —

  75

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sudan

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Togo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Uganda

  —

  10

  6

  —

  14

  30

  Zaire

  1

  —

  6

  19

  317

  343

  590
  We have also taken this opportunity to bring the magistrates courts rules into line with the provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 in respect of the tools and implements of trade which bailiffs may seize where a court authorises distress.

  Asylum Applications
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on decisions made since December 1991 on applications for asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 1 December 1991 new arrangements were introduced to record, manually, decisions on asylum applications. Under these arrangements decisions are counted at the time they are made in the asylum and special cases divison. This provides a more up-to-date count of decisions than the information previously available, which is subject to delays in recording on the computer system.

  Figures for December 1991 and January and February 1992, produced under these new arrangements are given in the tables.
  591

  Granted Asylum

  Granted Exceptional leave

  Refused Asylum and Exceptional leave

  Refused on third country grounds3

  Refused under paragraph 101 of Immigration rules4

  Total decisions

  Others

  —

  1

  —

  —

  139

  140

  Total

  5

  95

  33

  42

  768

  943

  Asia

  Bangladesh

  —

  3

  6

  —

  —

  9

  China

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  5

  India

  —

  45

  38

  11

  6

  100

  Pakistan

  —

  27

  31

  —

  7

  65

  Sri Lanka

  —

  38

  —

  1

  —

  39

  Others

  4

  35

  —

  —

  —

  39

  Total

  4

  152

  76

  12

  13

  257

  Grand Total

  38

  324

  136

  79

  784

  1,361

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same time period.

  3 Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  4 For failure to provide evidence within a reasonable period to support the claim. The majority of these refusals were on grounds of failure to respond to two invitations to interview.

  Decisions1 2 made in January 1992 on applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality

  Granted Asylum

  Granted Exceptional leave

  Refused Asylum and exceptional leave

  Refused on third country grounds3

  Refused under paragraph 101 of Immigration rules4

  Total decisions

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Colombia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Czechoslovakia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Romania

  —

  7

  1

  —

  —

  8

  Turkey

  8

  27

  9

  9

  10

  63

  USSR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Others

  1

  1

  1

  9

  —

  12

  Total

  9

  35

  12

  18

  10

  84

  Middle East

  Iran

  3

  18

  1

  —

  —

  22

  Iraq

  9

  18

  —

  —

  —

  27

  Lebanon

  —

  6

  2

  4

  —

  12

  Others

  3

  9

  4

  5

  1

  22

  Total

  15

  51

  7

  9

  1

  83

  Africa

  Angola

  —

  —

  16

  —

  299

  315

  Benin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  47

  Burkina Faso

  —

  —

  1

  —

  20

  21

  Cameroon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  90

  90

  Central African Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Chad

  —

  —

  1

  —

  21

  22

  Congo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  24

  Ethiopia

  3

  16

  1

  3

  10

  33

  Gabon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  62

  62

  Ghana

  —

  2

  19

  —

  37

  58

  Ivory Coast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  147

  147

  Kenya

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liberia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  5

  2

  5

  12

  Somalia

  1

  189

  —

  4

  21

  215

  South Africa

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Sudan

  10

  3

  —

  —

  5

  18

  Togo

  —

  —

  —

  1

  42

  43

  Uganda

  2

  3

  4

  —

  45

  54

  Zaire

  —

  1

  4

  11

  252

  268

  Others

  —

  —

  6

  —

  16

  22

  Total

  16

  214

  58

  21

  1,150

  1,459

  592 593

  Granted Asylum

  Granted Exceptional leave

  Refusd Asylum and exceptional leave

  Refused on third country grounds3

  Refused under paragraph 101 of Immigration rules4

  Total decisions

  Asia

  Bangladesh

  —

  3

  9

  —

  7

  19

  China

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  India

  —

  62

  40

  8

  17

  127

  Pakistan

  1

  46

  30

  2

  25

  104

  Sri Lanka

  1

  76

  —

  1

  1

  79

  Others

  1

  42

  1

  1

  —

  45

  Total

  3

  229

  80

  12

  50

  374

  Grand Total

  43

  529

  157

  60

  1,211

  2,000

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same time period.

  3 Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  4 For failure to provide evidence within a reasonable period to support the claim. The majority of these refusals were on grounds of failure to respond to two invitations to interview.

  Decisions1 2 made in February 1992 on applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality

  Granted Asylum

  Granted Exceptional leave

  Refused Asylum and exceptional leave

  Refused on third country grounds3

  Refused under paragraph 101 of Immigration rules4

  Total decisions

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Colombia

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Czechoslovakia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Romania

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  5

  Turkey

  15

  24

  10

  4

  18

  71

  USSR

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  6

  Others

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Total

  15

  24

  14

  12

  25

  90

  Middle East

  Iran

  4

  17

  3

  —

  —

  24

  Iraq

  9

  17

  2

  1

  3

  32

  Lebanon

  —

  15

  1

  1

  2

  19

  Others

  3

  5

  4

  2

  3

  17

  Total

  16

  54

  10

  4

  8

  92

  Africa

  Angola

  —

  —

  1

  —

  203

  204

  Benin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  47

  Burkina Faso

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  27

  Cameroon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  82

  82

  Central African Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  7

  Chad

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  22

  Congo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  20

  Ethiopia

  —

  4

  1

  3

  16

  24

  Gabon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Ghana

  1

  3

  20

  1

  44

  69

  Ivory Coast

  —

  —

  1

  —

  106

  107

  Kenya

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Liberia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  2

  —

  5

  7

  Somalia

  6

  122

  —

  5

  17

  150

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Sudan

  8

  —

  —

  7

  18

  Togo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  40

  Uganda

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Zaire

  1

  —

  —

  10

  333

  344

  Others

  —

  —

  1

  —

  22

  23

  Total

  16

  133

  27

  19

  1,006

  1,201

  Asia

  Bangladesh

  1

  2

  8

  —

  18

  29

  China

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  India

  —

  59

  99

  7

  23

  188

  594 595

  Granted Asylum

  Granted Exceptional leave

  Refused Asylum and exceptional leave

  Refused on third country grounds3

  Refused under paragraph 101 of Immigration rules4

  Total decisions

  Pakistan

  —

  63

  53

  1

  31

  148

  Sri Lanka

  4

  61

  —

  1

  6

  72

  Others

  4

  20

  1

  —

  2

  27

  Total

  9

  205

  161

  9

  80

  464

  Grand Total

  56

  416

  212

  44

  1,119

  1,847

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same time period.

  3 Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  4 For failure to provide evidence within a reasonable period to support the claim. The majority of these refusals were on grounds of failure to respond to two invitations to interview.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the business community on the impact which the current level of interest rates are having on its performance.

  Mr. Maples
  I have received a number of such representations.

  Public Debt
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Britain's public debt as a proportion of national income; and what are the figures for other EC countries.

  Mr. Mellor
  The ratio of general Government gross debt to gross domestic product is lower in the United Kingdom than any other country in the European Community, except Luxembourg.

  Inflation
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment of the prospects for retail price inflation.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of United Kingdom inflation in 1992.

  Mr. Maples
  The Budget forecast is for RPI inflation to be down to 334 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1992 and 314 per cent. by mid-1993.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of(a) United Kingdom inflation and (b) European Community average inflation in the third quarter of 1992.

  Mr. Maples
  In the Financial Statement and Budget Report my right hon. Friend forecast United Kingdom inflation of 334 per cent. in the final quarter of 1992. We have made no forecast of EC inflation but in January 1992 it was 4.7 per cent.

  Taxation
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his proposals for income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The reductions in income tax I announced in the Budget on Tuesday have been widely welcomed.
  596
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the overall tax burden for a married couple, both working on 100 per cent. of male average earnings in 1978–79; and what it was in 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  Over this period, the couple's real take-home pay would have risen by 31 per cent. Their overall tax burden is estimated to have risen from 3612; to 3812 per cent.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the basic rate of income tax.

  Mr. Maude
  I have received a large number of representations on the basic rate of income tax reflecting a variety of views.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many wage earners would benefit from a 1p cut in income tax.

  Mr. Maude
  Following the introduction of a 20p lower rate of tax which will now be the marginal rate of tax for almost 4 million individuals, a 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax would benefit about 21 million individuals in 1992–93.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the change in revenue to the Exchequer from taxation over the remainder of the current financial year as a result of the proposals announced in his Budget.

  Mr. Maude
  The Budget measures will have a negligible effect on receipts in 1991–92.

  Savings
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further proposals he has regarding the taxation of savings.

  Mr. Mellor
  On Tuesday, we doubled the PEP limits for qualifying unit and investment trusts. We intend to continue reducing taxes on savings and giving incentives on a wider range of investments.

  Football Stadiums
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to fund the Football Stadia Advisory Design Council.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the take-home pay of a married man with two children on average earnings increased(a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) between 1979 and 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  A man on average male earnings with a wife and two children has enjoyed a 35 per cent. real increase in take home pay since 1978–79. The increase between 1973–74 and 1978–79 was a mere 1 per cent.

  Business Investment
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product at current prices business investment in current prices represented in 1979 and in the fourth quarter of 1991.

  Mr. Mellor
  The figures requested are 14.3 per cent. and 12 per cent. In volume terms, the share of business investment in GDP rose from 12¾ per cent. in 1979 to 14¼ per cent. in 1991.

  Leisure Courses
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he issues on the definition of leisure courses on which VAT is chargeable.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs and Excise have issued guidance on the VAT liability of supplies of education, and courses in sporting or recreational activities, in VAT leaflet 701/30–education. Additional guidelines for local authorities and higher education institutions have also been made available.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the gross domestic product has increased in real terms since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Gross domestic product at constant 1985 factor cost increased by 23 per cent. between 1979 and 1991.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to introduce fiscal measures to prohibit the sale and export of ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Maude
  No. We have urged other countries to ratify the London amendment to the Montreal protocol. We are committed to phasing out the production and consumption of ozone depleting substances by the end of 1995 and are urging the Community to adopt this target.

  VAT Control Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many value added tax control staff will lose their jobs up to 1 January 1993.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Each year the reassessment of VAT visiting priorities results in the redeployment of staff engaged in VAT control work, but it is Customs' intention that no one will lose their job as a result.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases were brought by the Inland Revenue involving evasion of house purchase stamp duty in each year since 1983; and in how many cases convictions were secured.

  Mr. Maude
  No such cases have been brought by the Inland Revenue.

  Widowers' Benefits
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women have been disallowed tax relief in respect of the facility for women teachers to cover pre-6 April 1988 service for widowers' benefits.

  Mr. Maude
  The information requested is not available. Teachers, both men and women, may contribute up to 15 per cent. of their earnings to the teachers' superannuation scheme with the benefit of tax reliefs.

  Value Added Tax
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount of uncollected VAT in each constituency in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs do not maintain statistics for individual constituencies or countries within the United Kingdom. Information on average daily arrears of value added tax on the basis of financial years, can be found in "Volume 12: Classes XVIII to XIX" of the 1990–91 appropriate accounts, pages vii and xiii respectively. A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  EC Budget
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the value for money received from the European Community budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have written to Commissioner Schmidhuber to underline the importance which the United Kingdom attaches to the responsibilities of the Commission for the guidance principles of Community expenditure: economy and cost-effectiveness. These principles were endorsed at Maastricht.

  The recent Court of Auditors' report on the 1990 Community budget-Official Journal C324, volume 34 –shows that there is still a great deal of progress to be made in order to ensure that the taxpayer receives value for money even from current levels of spending. Sound financial management is of continuing importance; but assumes a particular relevance now in view of the Commission's recent proposals for Community expenditure over the five years after 1992. The need for progress bears directly upon the three major areas of Community spending in which the Commission's proposals envisage significant growth: the structural funds, external aid, and research and development. However, as the Court of Auditors emphasises, the principles of sound financial management are applicable generally to the Community's expenditure.

  The Maastricht treaty has consequences for the quality of Community expenditure, by placing responsibility for

  599
  sound financial management firmly upon the Commission. Finance Ministers will discuss the Court of Auditors' report next Monday; and we shall be looking for clear evidence that the Commission is acting upon the criticisms of the court.

  I have placed copies of my letter to Commissioner Schmidhuber in the Library of the House, together with copies of the similar letters which I have written to colleagues on the Economic and Finance Council and to the chairman of the European Parliament's committee on budgetary control.

  BCCI
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the fourth report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of the current Session on "Banking Supervision and BCCI" (HC 177).

  Mr. Maples
  The Government will consider the Committee's comments and recommendations carefully. The Government will, however, await Lord Justice Bingham's report on BCCI before reaching any conclusions on the Committee's recommendations.

  In response to the Committee's report, the Bank of England issued a statement yesterday, a copy of which I am placing in the Library.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Lip Reading
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to ensure that lip reading classes are available as a right to all who need them.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not for the Government to prescribe which form of communication should be employed in schools where there are pupils with hearing impairments. Such decisions are best made locally by the governing bodies of individual schools.

  Special Needs
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what importance he places on the personal and social development of children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Eggar
  Schools have an important part to play in the personal and social development of all their pupils. Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires that the curriculum of every maintained school should"promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of its pupils and of society"
  and prepare pupils for the
  "opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".

  That applies equally to pupils with special educational needs, although there is provision for their curriculum to be considered on an individual basis where necessary. This might include more personal and social education where that is in their best interests and in keeping with the requirement that they receive a broad and balanced curriculum.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements are made for 600
  the procedures for, and personal teaching of, statemented pupils attending grant-maintained schools; on what basis their allocated personal teachers are supplied and paid; and what are the statutory responsibilities of local education authorities for such pupils.

  Mr. Eggar
  Local education authorities have a statutory duty to arrange the special educational provision specified in the statements they issue for all children in their area. Arrangements will vary to meet an individual pupil's statement. School governors, including GM school governors, have parallel statutory duties to provide for their registered pupils with statements.

  Degrees (Validation)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the institutions previously accredited by the Council for National Academic Awards and the students registered with the CNAA for degrees will be transferred without interruption to other validating bodies by the date of closure of the CNAA without any increase in fees payable by institutions or students and under the same conditions.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As indicated in my answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 250, we remain confident that new validation arrangements for institutions without degree awarding powers will be in place for the academic year 1992–93, with no further fee charged to students for whom the full registration fee has already been paid to the CNAA in a previous year. The validation fee to be paid by new students will be determined, following consultations set out in the Department's letter of 15 January 1992 to higher education institutions.

  London Regional Office
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the budget and forecast actual expenditure for 1991–92 and 1992–93 of his Department's London regional office.

  Mr. Atkins
  With the exception of HM inspectorate's local offices, the Department does not have a regional structure. The Department's headquarters functions are undertaken jointly in its London and Darlington offices. In 1991–92 the Department's administration budget excluding that for HMI local offices, is £102 million and the forecast outturn £100 million. The planned budget for 1992–93 is £104 million on the same basis.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science since 1979, what has been the annual expenditure on(a) the professional industrial commercial updating programme—PICKUP—and (b) REPLAN, expressed (i) in cash terms, (ii) in constant 1991 prices and (iii) as a figure which indicates the amount of EC funding included in each programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual expenditure on the Department's PICKUP and REPLAN programmes in England since they began in 1982 and 1984 respectively is given in the table. Information on EC funding to individual further and higher education institutions which may have been used to support their PICKUP or REPLAN type activities is not held centrally by the Department.
  601

  PICKUP programme

  REPLAN programme

  Cash £ million

  1991–92 prices £ million

  Cash £ million

  1991–92 prices £ million

  1982–83

  0.3

  0–5

  —

  —

  1983–84

  1.0

  1.6

  —

  —

  1984–85

  2.3

  3.5

  0.4

  0.6

  1985–86

  5.6

  8.1

  2.4

  3.5

  1986–87

  6.7

  9.4

  4.0

  5.6

  1987–88

  5.9

  7.8

  4.5

  6.0

  1988–89

  5.3

  6.6

  3.2

  4.0

  1989–90

  6.1

  7.1

  1.8

  2.1

  1990–91

  5.5

  5.9

  1.5

  1.6

  11991–92

  6.8

  6.8

  0.6

  0.6

  1 Estimates.

  Notes to table:

  1. The PICKUP figures include the salary costs of PICKUP regional offices.

  2. They exclude funding by the Universities Funding Council (and its predecessor, the UGC) and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (and its predecessor, the NAB) to meet the start-up costs of developing vocational continuing education: figures are not available on a basis that allows for a comparison over time or which is consistent with figures for the directly DES funded programme. It is estimated that the UFC will provide some £10 million to support the development of PICKUP provision in England in academic year 1991–92; and the PCFC will provide some £5 million in financial year 1991–92.

  3. The figures include both the local education authority and the

  Name

  Kingshurst CTC Solihull

  Emmanuel College Tyneside

  Dixons CTC Bradford

  Leigh CTC Dartford

  Britschool CCTA Croydon

  Djanogly CTC Nottingham

  Macmillan College Teeside

  Site

  Kingshurst School site

  St. John-Fisher School site

  Newby Square, Bradford

  Downs School site

  Site of Selhurst Tertiary Centre

  Sherwood Rise, Nottingham

  St. Michael RC School, Middlesbrough

  LEA

  Solihull

  Gateshead

  Bradford

  Kent

  Croydon

  Nottinghamshire

  Cleveland

  Opening dates

  1988

  1990

  1990

  1990

  1991

  1989

  1989

  Planned number of pupils

  1,100

  900

  980

  1,250

  720

  1,000

  1,100

  Total capital cost £ million

  9.71

  8.61

  9.16

  8.95

  10.00

  9.75

  8.45

  Exchequer contribution £ million

  7.60

  6.89

  7.33

  7.16

  8.00

  8.20

  6.74

  Sponsors' contribution

  (i) committed1 £ million

  2.11

  1.72

  1.83

  1.79

  2.00

  1.56

  1.71

  (ii) confirmed £ million

  2.89

  1.60

  2.86

  1.52

  2.25

  1.89

  1.51

  Principal sponsors

  Hanson Trust

  Peter Vardy

  Dixons pic, Mr. Hakim Wong

  Sir Geoffrey Leigh

  The British Record Industry Trust

  Mr. Harry Djanogly

  BAT Industries plc

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  None

  Building contract Laings

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  School closure involved

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  Has a ballot of parents been held and with what result

  No

  No

  No

  1No

  No

  No

  No

  1 Committed sponsorship contributions represent agreed percentage contributions to CTC capital cash limits as secured in formal funding agreements with CTCs.

  2 Public consultations were held by Kent on its proposals to close the Downs School. One statutory objection containing 62 signatures was made to the section 12 proposal subsequently published.

  Name

  Harris CTC Norwood

  Bacon's College Bermondsey

  Haberdashers' CTC New Cross

  Brook CTC Corby

  Landau Forte College Derby

  Thomas Telford School Telford

  ADT College Wandsworth

  Kingswood CTC Bristol

  Site

  Sylvan School site Croydon

  Bacon's School site Southwark

  Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham School site

  Great Oakley Corby

  Wood Street Derby

  Old Park Telford

  Mayfield School

  Kingswood Bristol

  LEA

  Croydon

  Southwark

  Lewisham

  Northants

  Derbyshire

  Shropshire

  Wandsworth

  Avon

  Opening dates

  1990

  1991

  1991

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1991

  1993

  Planned number of pupils

  1,100

  1,100

  1,100

  900

  900

  1,000

  1,000

  900

  Total capital cost £ million

  8.66

  15.47

  9.15

  10.19

  10.20

  10.75

  11.32

  To be determined

  602
  DES shares of expenditure on PICKUP and REPLAN supported by Education Support Grants, In-service Teacher Training Grants, LEA Training grants (LEATGS) and Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST).

  Croydon College of Art and Technology
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his prior approval was required of Croydon college of art and technology's establishment of a further education employers' forum; and what sums of money have been spent on this venture.

  Mr. Eggar
  Neither the establishment of an employer's forum nor expenditure in respect of it would require the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend. The costs are a matter for those involved.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the table given in his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn of 9 May 1991,Official Report, columns 562–64, giving the latest available information in respect of each city technology college or proposed and planned city technology college.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table covers announced CTCs:
  603

  Name

  Harris CTC Norwood

  Bacon's College Bermondsey

  Haberdashers' CTC New Cross

  Brook CTC Corby

  Landau Forte College Derby

  Thomas Telford School Telford

  ADT College Wandsworth

  Kingswood CTC Bristol

  Site

  Sylvan School site Croydon

  Bacon's School site Southwark

  Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham School site

  Great Oakley Corby

  Wood Street Derby

  Old Park Telford

  Mayfield School

  Kingswood Bristol

  LEA

  Croydon

  Southwark

  Lewisham

  Northants

  Derbyshire

  Shropshire

  Wandsworth

  Avon

  Exchequer contribution £ million

  6.93

  13.87

  5.70

  8.15

  8.16

  8.40

  9.06

  Not more than 80 per cent. of cost

  Sponsors' contribution

  (i) committed1 £ million

  1.73

  11.60

  3.45

  2.04

  2.04

  2.35

  2.26

  At least 20 per cent, of cost

  (ii) confirmed £ million

  1.71

  31.00

  44.45

  2.04

  2.05

  2.35

  2.26

  At least 20 per cent. of cost

  Principal sponsors

  Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust

  Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust and Southwark Diocesan Board of Education

  Haberdashers' Company as Trustees of Robert Aske Charity

  Mr. Hugh de Capell Brooke

  The Landau Foundation Forte plc

  The Mercers Tarmac plc

  ADT plc

  Wolfson Foundation and Cable and Wireless plc

  Contracts awarded to sponsors

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  School closure involved

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Has a ballot of parents been held and with what result

  Yes Majority Against

  No

  Yes Majority in Favour

  No

  5No

  5No

  5No

  5No

  1 Committed sponsorship contributions represent agreed percentage contributions to CTC capital cash limits as secured in formal funding agreements with CTCs.

  2 The sponsors commitment is stated net of the proceeds of sale of the site of the former school: the Exchequer contribution will be reduced by the amount of the proceeds of sale.

  3 The confirmed contribution is net of the proceeds of sale of the former school site and of contributions to community provision and the chapel.

  4 This figure includes the donation of the present site, which has been valued at £3.445 million.

  5 In each case, LEA, local schools and other interests consulted on proposals to establish CTC.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what restrictions exist on the use of Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council funds for the creation of companies to deal with further education industrial relations.

  Mr. Eggar
  The activities eligible for funding by the PCFC are set out in section 132 (5) of the Education Reform Act 1988.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Incomes
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the level of income of those people employed in the agriculture sector in the United Kingdom and each other state of the European Community in each of the years since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Data on incomes for people employed in agriculture in each member state of the Community are not readily available. Some information on the hourly earnings of regular whole time agricultural workers is contained in the Eurostat publication "Earnings in Agriculture".
  604
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the level of income for those people employed in the agriculture sector in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for the United Kingdom as a whole, for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The average weekly earnings for regular whole-time male agricultural workers aged 20 and over is given in the table.

  Agricultural workers average weekly earnings for regular whole time men (aged 20 years and over)

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  1979

  —72.04—

  72.02

  57.46

  71.90

  1980

  —86.48—

  85.09

  69.15

  85.95

  1981

  97.21

  93.02

  93.40

  74.41

  96.29

  1982

  106.99

  97.72

  100.32

  80.10

  105.44

  1983

  118.37

  106.65

  112.25

  88.41

  116.57

  1984

  124.59

  112.31

  116.9

  92.62

  122.59

  1985

  136.50

  124.16

  126.18

  99.74

  134.10

  1986

  143.50

  123.07

  133.43

  106.90

  140.80

  1987

  150.95

  131.89

  137.86

  110.26

  148.00

  1988

  158.19

  139.01

  146.42

  117.94

  155.10

  1989

  170.81

  147.83

  156.99

  126.85

  167.40

  1990

  190.23

  161.59

  174.39

  134.72

  186.10

  11991

  —206.23—

  191.21

  151.13

  202.20

  1 Forecast.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the latest average mortality rate among wild birds which are imported into the United Kingdom; and whether he has set a target rate for mortalities for wild caught birds(a) in transit and (b) in quarantine.

  Mr. Gummer
  The latest statistics on mortality in imported captive birds, relating to imports in 1990, were published on 27 February and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. Average mortality, in transport and quarantine combined, was 12.3 per cent. compared with 12.7 per cent. in 1989 and 13.7 per cent. in 1988.

  Our objective is to reduce mortalities to the lowest possible level. As explained in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 27 February, the Government are taking vigorous action to address this issue in international negotiations.

  Contribution of agriculture to gross domestic product at factor cost by member state (percentages)

  Year

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  West Germany

  France

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Belgium

  Luxembourg

  United Kingdom

  Spain

  Portugal

  1979

  13.3

  4.7

  15.3

  2.1

  4.8

  7.5

  3.8

  2.4

  2.8

  2.2

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1980

  11.0

  4.8

  16.3

  1.9

  4.0

  7.0

  3.6

  2.3

  2.6

  2.1

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1981

  11.0

  5.1

  16.8

  1.9

  3.9

  6.4

  4.3

  2.5

  2.7

  2.2

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1982

  11.2

  5.5

  17.9

  2.2

  4.3

  6.3

  4.5

  2.6

  3.5

  2.3

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1983

  11.5

  4.7

  16.3

  1.8

  4.0

  6.6

  4.4

  2.8

  3.0

  2.0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1984

  11.8

  5.5

  16.8

  2.0

  4.0

  6.1

  4.5

  2.7

  2.7

  2.2

  5.7

  n.a.

  1985

  10.2

  5.0

  16.6

  1.8

  3.7

  5.0

  4.2

  2.5

  2.6

  1.8

  6.1

  n.a.

  1986

  9.7

  5.1

  14.4

  2.0

  3.9

  5.2

  4.7

  2.6

  2.7

  1.8

  5.6

  n.a.

  1987

  10.3

  4.0

  15.6

  1.5

  3.5

  4.5

  4.1

  2.2

  2.4

  1.6

  5.2

  6.4

  1988

  10.9

  3.8

  16.4

  1.6

  3.7

  4.1

  4.2

  2.2

  2.3

  1.4

  5.1

  5.2

  1989

  10.5

  4.2

  16.5

  1.7

  3.3

  4.0

  4.6

  2.4

  2.4

  1.5

  4.7

  5.5

  Source: Commission of the European Communities—'The Agricultural Situation in the Community' Reports 1982–1991.

  n.a.—Not readily available on a consistent basis.

  The contribution of agriculture to United Kingdom GDP by country at factor cost (£ million and percentages).

  Agricultural Gross Product (a)

  UK GDP average estimate

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1979

  173,181

  3,800.1

  3,023.3

  409.5

  209.6

  157.7

  Percentage

  2.2

  1.7

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1980

  201,017

  4,227.9

  3,379.8

  427.6

  253.6

  166.9

  Percentage

  2.1

  1.7

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1981

  218,755

  4,773.8

  3,769.9

  500.3

  288.4

  215.2

  Percentage

  2.2

  1.7

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1982

  238,231

  5,415.5

  4,263.4

  584.1

  317.1

  250.9

  Percentage

  2.3

  1.8

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1983

  261,083

  5,170.8

  4,065.5

  549.7

  292.4

  263.2

  Percentage

  2.0

  1.6

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1984

  280,052

  6,155.5

  4,857.5

  656.3

  328.8

  312.9

  Percentage

  2.2

  1.7

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1985

  306,716

  5,446.8

  4,293.0

  544.6

  330.5

  278.7

  Percentage

  1.8

  1.4

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1986

  326,182

  5,848.0

  4,615.9

  622.9

  341.6

  267.6

  Percentage

  1.8

  1.4

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1987

  358,297

  5,911.6

  4,543.8

  687.9

  358.1

  321.8

  Percentage

  1.6

  1.3

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1988

  397,292

  5,716.6

  4,339.6

  648.4

  372.0

  356.6

  GNP Statistics
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will give details of the contribution agriculture has made to the gross national product of each of the member states of the European Community, expressed in cash and percentage terms, for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will give details of the contribution agriculture in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland made to the total United Kingdom gross national product, expressed in pounds sterling and in percentage terms, for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is contained in the tables, which show the contribution of agriculture to gross domestic product at factor cost. The national currency values which underlie the percentages shown in the first table are available in the Eurostat publications "Economic Accounts for Agriculture and Forestry", which are available in the Library of the House.

  As the tables show, agricultural gross value added has declined as a proportion of total gross domestic product over the period in the great majority of members states.
  607

  Agricultural Gross Product (a)

  UK GDP average estimate

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Percentage

  1.4

  1.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1989

  436,180

  6,609.0

  5,052.6

  760.5

  386.2

  409.7

  Percentage

  1.5

  12

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  1990

  477,599

  6,877.2

  5,354.9

  771.9

  386.0

  364.4

  Percentage

  1.4

  1.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  19911

  n.a

  6,667.4

  5,215.7

  712.8

  381.0

  357.9

  Percentage

  n.a

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1 Forecast.

  (a) The agricultural gross product figures are inclusive of landlords' expenses and the produce of gardens and allotments.

DEFENCE

  Bunkers, Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of bunkers in Iraq built to designs supplied by Her Majesty's Government's international military services organisation to the Iraqi Government; and how many of these bunkers have survived the allied bombing offensive.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No operational bunkers were supplied or designed by IMS for Iraq. IMS supervised the construction of a reinforced testing and servicing facility between 1981 and 1987. We have no record of the precise location of this facility and so cannot say whether it survived the coalition bombing offensive.

  Merchant Shipping
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) of 14 February,Official Report, column 677, when he expects to make a statement on the review of the strategic and defence role of British merchant shipping.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping on 20 November 1991,Official Report, column 156.

  Army Reservists
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 336, when and for what reason the annual reporting exercise for Army reservists was suspended; when it will be resumed; what was the total expenditure on payment to Army reservists attending the annual reporting exercise in the last year for which figures are available; what assessment he has made of the effects of the suspension on the quick and effective mobilisation of reservists when required; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The annual reporting exercise for Army reservists was suspended in January. A new strategy for individual reservists is being developed as a result of the restructuring of the Army and in the light of the consultative open government document "The Future of Britain's Reserve Forces" which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence published on 5 March. As part of this work we are looking afresh at arrangements for annual reporting. Payment of grant to Army reservists 608
  reporting during 1990–91 amounted to £4,700,000. The short-term suspension of annual reporting is considered acceptable given the changes in the threat, concept and readiness requirements.

  South Korea
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has been involved in discussions with British Aerospace and South Korea, to allow South Korea to build Hawk fighter/trainer aircraft, or any other aircraft, under licence in South Korea.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Metallurgy
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 290, when the expert concerned made notes of his telephone conversation; and whether copies of these notes were made.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The notes were made in June 1988; so far as can be ascertained, no copies were taken at the time.

  Air-to-Air Missiles
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 3 March,Official Report, column 161, when he estimates he will achieve a satsifactory agreement with British Aerospace regarding ASRAAM; how much money will be spent on the contract in each year for the next five years; and in which year he expects to take delivery of the first ASRAAM.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Subject to the agreement of satisfactory terms, we expect to place the contract by the end of this month. The first ASRAAM is scheduled for delivery in 1998. It is not our practice to publish details of our future expenditure plans on a year-to-year basis.

  Naval Vessels (Replacement)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 February,Official Report, column 1142, how much money will be spent in each of the next five years on the replacement programmes for HMS Fearless and Intrepid; and in which year these new vessels will come into service.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not our practice to publish details of our future expenditure plans on a year-to-year basis. The planned in-service date for these vessels is 1999 for the first ship and 2001 for the second.

  Procurement Programmes
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is prepared to change his policy relating to the publication of details of the future levels of expenditure per year for individual procurement programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Redundancies
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army personnel who have applied for redundancy have indicated that it was their intention to find rented accommodation in(a) the private sector and (b) the public sector.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Of the 4,240 Army personnel who had indicated that they would be willing to be considered for selection for redundancy, and filled in a questionnaire on their future housing intentions, 289 indicated they might, amongst other possibilities such as purchase, look to housing associations and the private sector to rent; 770 indicated they would seek local authority housing. Work has now commenced to establish the housing intentions of those 3,338 Army personnel who were notified of their selection for redundancy on 26 February.

  Anti-radar Missiles
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 19 February,Official Report, columns 331–32, in which year he will order a further batch of air-launched anti-radar missiles; how much money will be spent in each of the next five years on that order; and what information relating to this order he has supplied to the management of Marconi Defence Systems, Lucas Aerospace, Irving and Thorn EMI.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Subject to the agreement of satisfactory terms, we expect to order the further batch of air-launched anti-radar missiles this year. It is not our practice to publish details of our future expenditure plans on a year-by-year basis, nor of our contacts with individual companies about prospective defence contracts.

  Lynx Helicopter
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 19 February,Official Report, columns 331–32, when he will be placing a contract to convert the Royal Navy's Lynx mark three helicopter to mark eight standard; how much this will cost; how much money will be spent in each of the next three years on this conversion; and when it will be completed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Subject to the agreement of acceptable contractual terms, we expect to sign a contract with Westland for conversion of the first seven Lynx mark three airframes to mark eight standard by the end of this month. The work is planned to be completed within three and a half years. The overall cost will be in the order of £20 million. It is not our practice to publish details of our future expenditure plans on a year-by-year basis.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 19 February Official Report, columns 331–32, when he intends to order a further six Sea King helicopters; and how much money will be spent in each of the next four years on this order.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Subject to agreement of acceptable contractual terms, we expect to sign an initial contract with Westland in April and the main contract before the end of the year. It is not our practice to publish details of our future expenditure plans on a year-by-year basis.

  Recruitment
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his letter of 3 March relating to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 285, if he will now change his policy relating to the release of information on the recruiting levels of individual units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Amphibious Forces
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 February,Official Report, column 1142, when he expects to begin the overhaul and re-equipment programme for the three landing ships logistic to begin; and how much will be spent on it in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Design studies are already under way. We expect work to begin in the summer of 1993. It is not our practice to publish details of our future expenditure plans on a year-by-year basis.

  Private Housing
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 293, when he began assembling information on the private housing arrangements of Army personnel who have applied for redundancy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  December 1991.

  Housing Task Force
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 290, which representatives of local authority associations he hopes to meet.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Precise representation from the local authority associations is yet to be determined.

  Satellites
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 19 February,Official Report, columns 331–32, how many new satellites will be ordered; in which years they will be ordered; and how much money will be spent on their procurement in each year up to 1997.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We expect to place a firm-price, incentivised order for the production, launch and in-orbit
  611
  testing of two Skynet 4 stage 2 satellites in autumn 1993. This order will be subject to the outcome of project definition, the contract for which was placed with British Aerospace plc. earlier this month. We expect the total cost of this programme to be in the order of £300 million at 1991 prices. It is not our practice to publish details of our future expenditure plans on a year-by-year basis.

PRIME MINISTER

  Income Tax
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received in the past six months calling for cuts in the standard rate of income tax.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations on a range of taxation issues.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the number and purpose of each of his and his predecessor's visits to Liverpool in each of the years 1979 to 1991 inclusive.

  The Prime Minister
  I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Liverpool among them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made four official visits to Liverpool.

  Mirror Group Pension Funds
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 31, to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, if he has now made a decision on whether to meet a deputation from the committee representing the staffs of Mirror Group Newspapers about the recovery of pension assets from the banks which are holding them; and if he will make a statment.

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be writing to Mr. David Thompson, chairman of the committee representing the staff of Mirror Group Newspapers, very shortly.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 12 March.

  The Prime Minister
  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 be having further meetings later today.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will list the Government's achievements in the northern region since 1987; and whether he will list by Government Department the principal aid given to the northern region since 1987.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 16 December at columns 22–25.

  Defence Establishments (Information)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that Ministers in Departments other than the Ministry of Defence do not release information about the proposed closure of or job losses in defence establishments prior to the work force being informed of those plans by officials of the Ministry of Defence.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: It remains the policy of the Ministry of Defence that such information should be first provided to the work forces at defence establishments by management.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Pre-fitted Plugs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will identify any obstacles to requiring pre-fitted plugs on electrical appliances to meet the requests of disabled people including those with wasting muscle and other difficulties in manipulating appliances.

  Mr. Leigh
  The proposed regulations will retain the approval of safety requirement of the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987. It is likely that manufacturers will ordinarily choose to fit the standard design 13 amp plug because this is the type that is commonly used in the majority of households. However, provided that the plug to be fitted has the necessary approval the proposed regulations will not prevent manufacturers from fitting plugs to their appliances that are adapted for use by the disabled.

  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.

  Expo '92
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements he is making for United Kingdom representation at the Seville Expo '92; what sponsorship arises directly, or indirectly, from public funds; and if he will list the bodies and approximate expenditure in respect of each.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 23 January,Official Report, column 293. The public expenditure was provided by £7 million from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, £7 million from the Employment Department and the balance from my Department.

  Regional Assistance, Merseyside
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total amount of financial regional assistance granted to(a) manufacturing industry and (b) services on Merseyside in each of the years 1978 to 1991 inclusive.

  Mr. Leigh
  Financial regional assistance paid to companies on Merseyside is as follows:
  613

  Manufacturing industry

  Services

  1978

  24.8

  0.5

  1979

  12.2

  0.5

  1980

  6.1

  0.5

  1981

  5.3

  0.5

  1982

  5.2

  0.5

  1983

  4.5

  0.5

  1984

  6.2

  0.5

  1985

  7.7

  0.3

  1986

  11.1

  1.8

  1987

  15.5

  2.1

  1988

  30.0

  2.7

  1989

  21.7

  3.4

  1990

  18.9

  1.9

  1991

  16.0

  1.9

  Manufacturing industry has been defined as division 2—excluding classes 21 and 23—3 and 4 of the standard industrial classification revised 1980.

  Figures include expenditure on regional selective assistance; the revised regional development grants scheme which started in November 1984 and closed to new applications in March 1988 and the regional enterprise grants scheme which started in April 1988.

  Grant was also paid to companies on Merseyside under the original regional development grants scheme which closed in November 1984. Information about that scheme was never recorded on a computerised data base and therefore unless the information has already been published it is available only at disproportionate cost. Published information on the scheme included a regional analysis which showed inter alia the amount of grant paid to companies in the north-west of England. For comparison purposes grant paid to those companies with projects in the north-west from 1977–78 was:

  Year

  £ million

  1977–78

  49.8

  1978–79

  64.3

  1979–80

  58.7

  1980–81

  105.7

  1981–82

  143.4

  1982–83

  97.3

  1983–84

  83.0

  1984–85

  79.9

  1985–86

  56.5

  1986–87

  82.9

  1987–88

  22.6

  1988–89

  4.9

  1989–90

  1.7

  1990–91

  1.2

  Services are defined as divisions 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the standard industrial classification revised 1980.

  Figures include expenditure on regional selective assistance; office and service industries scheme which closed to new applications in November 1984; the revised regional development grants scheme and regional enterprise grants.

  Manufacturing Costs
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage increase in manufacturing costs in each of the years 1978 to 1991 inclusive.
  614
  Mr. Leigh
  Changes in wages and salaries per unit of output in manufacturing, and in the costs of materials and fuel purchased by manufacturing industry, are shown in the table.

  Changes from previous year

  Manufacturing wages and salaries per unit of output Per cent.

  Materials and fuel purchased by man-ufacturing industry Per cent.

  1978

  13.4

  3.5

  1979

  15.3

  13.1

  1980

  22.3

  8.5

  1981

  9.2

  9.2

  1982

  4.3

  7.3

  1983

  0.4

  6.9

  1984

  3.1

  8.2

  1985

  5.8

  1.1

  1986

  4.0

  -7.6

  1987

  1.8

  3.1

  1988

  2.5

  3.3

  1989

  4.6

  5.7

  1990

  8.8

  -0.2

  1991

  8.2

  -1.2

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department was represented at the conference on degreasing substances that deplete the ozone layer, held on 15 October 1991 in Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  No, but a representative of the Department of the Environment, with whom my Department works closely on ozone depleting substances, did attend.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the United Kingdom consumption and production figures for hydrochlora-fluorocarbons for each year from 1986 to 1991.

  Mr. Leigh
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the regulatory measures that exist to prohibit the advertising, sale and export of ozone depleting substances; and whether he has any plans to strengthen or introduce such measures.

  Mr. Leigh
  There are no regulatory measures to prohibit the advertising of ozone depleting substances. The production, consumption and export to non-parties of these substances is regulated by the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer and, in the European Community, by EC regulation 594/91.

  The Montreal protocol is due to be reviewed in November 1992 and it is likely that dates for phase out of these substances will be brought forward.

  Aircraft Building, South Korea
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department has been involved in discussions with British Aerospace and South Korea, to allow South Korea to build Hawk fighter/trainer aircraft, or any other aircraft, under licence in South Korea.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department has not been involved in discussions with British Aerospace and South Korea on the building of any aircraft under licence in South Korea.

  Expenditure, London
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the budget and forecast actual expenditure for 1991–92 and 1992–93 of(a) his Department's London region office and (b) the London city action team.

  Mr. Leigh
  (a) For the south-east regional office of the Department of Trade and Industry, which is the London region office, the estimated expenditure for the running costs for 1991–92 is £3.1 million compared with a budget of £3.3 million. For 1992–93 the budgeted expenditure for running costs is £3.6 million.

  (b) The running costs of the London city action team together with the special budget for projects are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government will take in the light of the European Commission's announcement that it is initiating new proceedings against the United Kingdom to secure the repayment of £44.4 million of aid in connection with the sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace.

  Mr. Lilley
  The European Commission has formally notified the United Kingdom that it is initiating the procedure in article 93(2) of the treaty in respect of the repayment of £44.4 million of state aid provided as part of the sale of the Rover Group. This follows the recent judgement of the European Court of Justice annulling an earlier Commission decision of 17 July 1990 requiring the Government to recover this sum from British Aerospace and Rover. I can confirm that the Government will abide by and implement a new Commission decision resulting from the new procedure, in accordance with our Community obligations.

WALES

  Heartbeat Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 34, if he will give the names of the evaluation advisory group from within the United Kingdom with reference to Heartbeat Wales; and if he will publish their terms of reference.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Due to the complexities of analysing a community-based heart disease prevention programme, Heartbeat Wales, when established in 1985 sought advice on the development of the evaluation strategy for the programme from a wide range of people including Professor Geoffrey Rose, Professor Andrew Henderson, Professor Michael Marmot, Dr. Tom Meade, Professor Michael Oliver, Dr. Edward Coles and Dr. George Davey-Smith. Since then, the evaluation strategy has been subject to scientific peer review by Professor David Murray and Professor Bosse Haglund. Advice has also been sought from the principal researchers of other community-based heart disease prevention programmes, such as Professors Henry Blackburn, John Farquhar and Craig Lefebvre.
  616
  Data from the programme are currently being independently analysed at the school of public health, university of Sydney and the school of psychology, university of Wales college, Cardiff. Papers from the programme are reviewed prior to publication by international experts such as Professor Leif Aaro and Cheryl Perry and Drs. Les Irwig and Bob Spassof, as well as by normal academic publishing procedures which includes peer review.

  In 1987, the Heartbeat Wales programme was incorporated into the work of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales which also has a remit to develop initiatives in other areas such as cancer risk reduction and healthy sexuality. Within this broader remit, the authority identified a group of researchers known as the evaluation advisory group to support its research work. The remit of this group is
  "to act as a resource for the Authority, providing scientific and technical advice concerning its research and evaluation strategies and individual studies".

  Advice and support is sought from individual experts as appropriate to need. These experts include Professor Ray Hodgson, Dr. Beverley Littlepage, Mr. Robert Anderson, Dr. Gerald Hastings, Professor Geoffrey Rose, Professor Don Nutbeam, Dr. Ceri Phillips, Dr. Chris Skinner, Mr. Trefor Williams, Beaufort Research Ltd and Research and Marketing Ltd. Many other experts have been consulted informally, including the World Health Organisation which has recently designated the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, together with the university of Wales college of medicine institute for health promotion, as a joint collaborating centre, the only one of its kind in the United Kingdom and Europe.

  United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contribution is being made by his Department to the United Kingdom policy proposals to be put forward to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is directly involved in the consideration of United Kingdom policy proposals to be put forward at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June. Welsh Office officials are also being consulted on, and are making an appropriate contribution to, the Government's preparations for the conference.

  Welsh Language Examinations
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the number of students who passed Welsh language at (a) O-level or GCSE and (b) A-level in 1989,1990 and 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of students who achieved grade A to G at GCSE or grades A to Eat A-level in the Welsh language in 1989, 1990 and 1991 are shown in the table1

  1989

  1990

  1991

  GCSE

  8,673

  8,337

  8,740

  A-level

  541

  638

  733

  1 Centres in Wales.

  Source: Welsh Joint Education Committee

  Planning Inspectorate Agency
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in establishing a joint planning inspectorate agency for England and Wales under the "next steps" initiative.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am pleased to say that the planning inspectorate will be launched as an executive agency in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office on 1 April 1992. The agency will have a distinct Welsh team to deal with planning inspectorate work in Wales.

  A framework document setting out the organisational, financial and management structure of the agency will be published on 1 April. The Welsh Office will pay for the service provided by the agency in Wales.

  Key objectives for the agency will be to preserve the impartiality and quality of the inspectors' work while seeking to improve efficiency. A range of performance targets which will measure the efficiency and value-for-money of the service in Wales will be set out in the business plan for 1992–93.

  The agency's key performance targets in Wales will be:

  Timeliness
  Eighty per cent. of planning appeals by written representation to be decided within 19 weeks and to provide an inspector for local plan inquiries on request within six months of the end of the objection period;

  Volume
  To determine 1,340 planning and enforcement appeals subject to intake not declining;
  In addition the activities of the inspectorate in Wales will contribute to the achievement of the following joint England and Wales targets:

  Financial
  Unit costs (average) of these appeals not to exceed £706 per case;

  Efficiency
  Generate a 2 per cent. efficiency improvement in the use of gross running costs compared with 1991–92;

  Quality
  High Court appeals and/or other justified complaints allowed against Inspectors' decisions not to exceed 1 per cent. of intake;

  Information and guidance
  To complete a customer survey by 31 December 1992.
  Separate timeliness and volume targets for the agency's work in England are being announced today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning.

  Land Drainage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 534, what consultations he has had with the Cardiff Bay development corporation on feasibility studies into the remedial land drainage measures required in residential areas affected by the proposed Cardiff Bay barrage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I do not expect my personal involvement in the technical issue of remedial drainage measures to extend beyond my acceptance in principle of the concept. The development corporation is pursuing this matter with its consultants and will keep my officials informed of developments.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Cardiff Bay 618
  development corporation concerning the feasibility study being undertaken into de-watering wells as a remedial measure against groundwater rise in the areas affected by the proposed Cardiff Bay barrage; when he expects to receive a copy of the initial study report; when he expects the terms of reference for the full-scale study to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My officials have discussed the terms of reference for the feasibility study with officers of the development corporation. I understand that initial computer modelling has been carried out, which will inform the further feasibility work now in hand. The report of the feasibility study is expected next month. Whether further work will be carried out depends on consideration of that report.

  Hackney Carriage Licences
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on(a) the number of hackney carriage licences issued by each district council, (b) the ratio per head of population in each and (c) the charge made by each district for the licence and associated annual charges.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Wentloog Wading Birds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales, the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds regarding the search for an alternative site to the proposed Wentloog wading birds feeding lagoon.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My officials have held meetings with officers of the Countryside Council for Wales, Cardiff Bay development corporation and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to discuss mitigation measures for the birds which will be displaced from Cardiff bay by the construction of the barrage. These discussions are continuing.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his estimate of the total number of discounts for(a) single person households and (b) other eligible groups he expects to be available under his council tax proposals.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It will be for billing authorities to decide which households qualify for discounts under the council tax. The Welsh intercensal survey estimated that in 1986 there were about 256,000 single-adult households in Wales. The other information requested by the hon. Gentleman could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the numbers of single people with incomes of over £40,000 per annum who will qualify for a 25 per cent. discount under his council tax proposals.
  619
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I have made no estimate of the number of single people with income over £40,000 per annum who will qualify for a 25 per cent. discount under the council tax.

  Ambulance Authorities
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each year since 1987 and for each ambulance authority the number of complaints lodged.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally.

  Waiting List Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent financial provision he has made for the expenditure of waiting list initiative money on long waiting-list elective surgery cases at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar near Cardiff; what arrangements he has made with the South Glamorgan health authority; and what the comparable follow-on arrangements will be for the same category of cases after 1 April.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The total level of funding made available in 1991–92 for the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar is £654,777. This will enable a total of 250 operations to be performed. Under the waiting times initiative a further 40 operations have been funded at a cost of £64,000. The treatment centres will continue to be centrally funded in 1992–93 and district health authorities will shortly be informed of the arrangements.

  Signposts
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to erect signposts, indicating the way to the Pembrokeshire national park, on the western end of the M4, in line with similar signposting for English National Parks.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Pembrokeshire Coast national park covers several geographical areas. This presents problems as to where drivers should be directed after leaving the M4.

  Watershed Training Centre
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 536, what proposals he has for the allocation of expenditure on the Cardiff Bay development corporation watershed training centre in 1992–93; when he expects further details of his 1992–93 spending proposals to be agreed with the training and enterprise councils; and when he expects to lay such details before the House.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has no plans for direct expenditure on the proposed Watershed project. Details of the training and enterprise councils 1992–93 spending proposals are in the final states of preparation and my officials anticipate allocating funds shortly. Details of provision for training programmes for 1992–93 have been presented to Parliament in the Welsh Office departmental report, Cm 1916.

  Children's ENT Hospital, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority regarding the alteration of the date of closure of the children's ear, nose and throat hospital, Cowbridge road west, Ely, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None.

  Emergency Calls (Wales)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give, for 1987 and 1991, and for each ambulance service in Wales, the percentage of emergency calls responded to within(a) seven to eight minutes and (b) 14 to20 minutes.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The available information is shown in the table:

  1987–881 per cent. response time within

  1990–91 per cent. response time within

  0–8 minutes

  0–20 minutes

  0–8 minutes

  0–20 minutes

  Clwyd

  62

  99

  59

  96

  East Dyfed

  54

  91

  54

  92

  Gwent

  61

  98

  50

  100

  Gwynedd

  54

  95

  54

  94

  Mid Glamorgan

  48

  98

  47

  82

  Pembrokeshire

  33

  68

  37

  92

  Powys

  46

  86

  44

  82

  South Glamorgan

  66

  99

  56

  95

  West Glamorgan

  55

  94

  64

  97

  Wales

  83

  99

  83

  97

  1 Data not available prior to 1987–88.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the membership of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The following have accepted invitations to become members of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Professor Sir John Cadogan CBE FRS

  Mr. Alan Cox CBE

  Professor Sir Sam Edwards FRS

  Mr. Michael Griffith CBE

  Professor Richard Griffiths

  Sir Philip Jones CB

  Dr. Alfred Morris

  Dr. Brynley Roberts

  Dr. Ann Robinson

  I expect that the appointments will be for three years from the date on which the council is established.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Malawi
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways Her Majesty's Government's policy of linking aid and good government has been applied to Malawi.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answers to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr.
  621
  Kirkwood), on 14 February 1992, at column 649; and on 2 March 1992, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), at column 2.

  As my right hon. and noble Friend, the Earl of Caithness said in another place on 20 November 1991, we have already cut our programme aid to Malawi from £10 million to £5 million because of lack of progress on human rights and good government. The Malawi Government are aware that we will place increasing emphasis on adherence to these principles in determining future aid levels.

  Angola
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom aid and assistance for the Angolan peace process.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following a troika visit by EC Development Ministers to Angola in February, the European Commission is preparing an assistance plan for consideration by Community representatives later this month. We shall be contributing our normal share of the cost of Community aid to be provided under the plan. Bilaterally, we have provided food and other assistance for soldiers awaiting demobilisation; we are assisting, through British non-governmental organisations, with resettlement and agricultural rehabilitation; and we expect to provide financial and technical assistance for the planned election process. Under military assistance arrangements, Britain is also helping with the formation of a new integrated army.

  Food Aid
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been contributed by the United Kingdom towards the European Community's programme of food aid credit and food aid grants; how much the EC programme is in total; how much has so far been spent; and what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the European Commission to prevent delays in allocating money to British companies willing to assist the former Soviet Union.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Community programme for the former Soviet Union comprises:

  (a) Technical assistance of 400 million ecu (£280 million) in 1991 which has been fully committed, and 450 million ecu (£315 million) in 1992 which is so far unallocated.

  (b) Food grants of 450 million ecu (£315 million), which is mostly distributed.

  (c) Loans and credits totalling 1.75 billion ecu (£1.225 billion), the first tranche of which is about to be distributed.

  The United Kingdom's share of the aid and grants is some 18 per cent. The loans have made no charge on the EC budget. The United Kingdom has repeatedly pressed for both humanitarian food aid and technical assistance for the former Soviet Union to be released rapidly once a clear need has been established, and for companies in the United Kingdom to play a full role in these programmes.

  Aid and Trade Provisions
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, column 553, what further measures he proposes to take to promote the use of United Kingdom companies under the aid and trade provisions.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The aid and trade provision is currently the subject of an interdepartmental policy review.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Eritrea
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Eritrea and the extent to which it is practicable for child refugees from that territory to be reunited with their families in safety.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Eritrea has enjoyed a very large measure of peace and stability since the collapse of the Mengistu regime in May 1991. The economy continues to suffer from drought and the consequences of the civil war, but I am not aware of any general factors which now need prevent Eritrean children refugees wishing to return, from being reunited with their families in safety. Cases of Eritrean children who have sought asylum in the United Kingdom will continue to be assessed on their individual merits.

  Angola
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Angola and the extent to which it is practicable for child refugees from that country to be reunited with their families in safety.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Peace offers the potential for recovery in Angola and should be cemented by free and fair elections in September this year. But though the fighting has stopped there remains a serious law and order problem, the criminal activity plus the danger from unexploded mines still hamper the return home of people displaced by the war. The return of such people, especially children separated from their families, plus troop demobilisation are the highest priorities for international aid. We very much admire the excellent work of non-governmental organisations, such as Save the Children Fund which has a successful and expanding programme of child tracing in Angola. The European Community has just committed a substantial sum for assistance in these areas.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Ethiopia and the extent to which it is practicable for child refugees from that country to be reunited with their families in safety.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since the end of the civil war and the collapse of the Mengistu regime in May 1991, Ethiopia has enjoyed relative peace and stability. There is still some insecurity in the east of the country, but I am not aware of any special factors which need prevent Ethiopian child
  623
  refugees wishing to return, from being reunited with their families in safety. Cases of the Ethiopian children who have sought asylum in the United Kingdom will continue to be assessed on their individual merits.

  Uganda
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Uganda and the extent to which it is practicable for child refugees from that country to be reunited with their families in safety.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since President Museveni came to power in 1986, the security and economic situation has improved considerably in Uganda. Peace and stability prevail in most regions of the country, although there are still isolated pockets of rebel activity in parts of the north and north-east.

  Cases of Ugandan children who have sought asylum in the United Kingdom will continue to be assessed on their individual merits, but I am not aware of any general factors which need prevent Ugandan child refugees from returning to that country to be reunited with their families in safety.

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the articles in the draft treaty on European union which affect the prerogatives of the Crown of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The prerogatives of the Crown will remain unaffected by the treaty on European union.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the earliest and latest dates respectively when he expects the treaty on European union to be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office; and what arrangements he has made for members of the public to obtain, or to peruse, copies before those dates.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The treaty on European union will be published as a Command Paper as soon as it is possible to do so, and in any case before any legislation is put before the House. We expect it to be ready by the end of April. Members of the public will be able to obtain copies through Her Majesty's Stationery Office. In the meantime, copies have been made available to Parliament and may be obtained by members of the public on request.

  Guyana
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions are being taken to ensure that free and fair elections are held in Guyana; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Guyanese Government have introduced electoral reforms and invited a team of international observers. We take every opportunity to impress upon Guyanese Ministers the importance that Her Majesty's Government attach to the holding of free and fair elections in Guyana as soon as possible.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that the United Nations sponsored referendum on the future of the western Sahara takes place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We remain concerned that a UN supervised referendum should be held soon and are encouraging the secretary-general in his efforts towards that goal. We have also made our views clear to the parties to the dispute.

  Albania
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the holdings in the United Kingdom of gold owned by the current or former Albanian Governments so far as the affect United Kingdom-Albanian relations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is gold bullion and coin in the account at the Bank of England of the tripartite commission for the restitution of monetary gold. Some of this gold has been earmarked for eventual delivery to Albania.

  E1 Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role is being played by representatives of Her Majesty's Government in the monitoring of the El Salvador ceasefire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Our ambassador in San Salvador is closely following developments in the peace process there, and is in regular contact with the chief of mission of ONUSAL, the body established by the United Nations to monitor all the elements of the peace agreement including the ceasefire.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position in respect of the quota arrangements for the import of wine from the six republics which formerly constituted Yugoslavia; if he will seek a review of these arrangements within the European Community in order to ensure an even-handed approach as between these republics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  As part of the European Community's positive measures programme for those republics considered to be co-operating with the peace process, the European Community has restored to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro the quota arrangements which previously applied to Yugoslavia as a whole. The republics share a quota of 545,000 hectolitres. The extension of these privileges to Serbia or a review of these arrangements depends on Serbia's attitude to the peace process.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners (Budgets)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated over or undershoot in cash and percentage terms of general practitioner indicative prescription budgets nationally and in each FHSA area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Copies of the Prescription Pricing Authority's breakdown of the total basic price of drugs and appliances prescribed by general practitioners in England and in each family health services authority showing monthly spend to January 1992; cumulative spend; projected annual outturn and percentage projected over/underspend, have been placed in the Library.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has been taking to monitor the pattern of referrals by general practitioners to consult ophthalmologists since the introduction of eye test charges.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Patients are referred for out-patient consultation, usually in a consultant clinic. The majority of referrals are made by GPs, although the referrals may be made by others, including self-referral by the patient. The information collected centrally on referrals is given in the table.

  Consultant ophthalmology clinics National health service hospitals England

  Year

  Number of referrals seen

  Did not attend

  Total

  1987–88

  588,973

  76,286

  665,259

  1988–89

  574,532

  82,822

  657,354

  1989–90

  579,693

  83,948

  663,641

  1990–91

  599,520

  82,626

  682,146

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the long-term effects of charges for eye tests.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Questions on sight tests have appeared in the general household survey in 1987 and in each year since 1990. In addition, figures on referrals to the hospital eye service are collected on a regular basis. These show that referrals rose by 3.6 per cent. in 1988–89, fell slightly by 1 per cent. in 1989–90 and rose again by 3.3 per cent. in 1990–91.

  Blood Cholesterol Testing
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to respond to the report of the standing medical advisory committee on blood cholesterol testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on blood cholesterol testing raised many complex issues and we decided that it should go out for public consultation. A large number of comments were received. The subject of cholesterol levels is also part of the wider issue of limiting the levels of coronary heart disease. This was one of the areas of health highlighted in the "Health of the Nation" Green Paper issued last June, on 626
  which more than 2,000 responses were received and are now being studied. A high proportion of these included comments on coronary heart disease in general and the relevance of cholesterol. In the light of these two consultation exercises, and continuing medical debate relating to cholesterol, the Government will publish their conclusions as soon as possible.

  Opticians (Referrals)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of patients who were referred to doctors by opticians for each year since 1981.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood Health Authority
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 1991,Official Report, column 591, whether he can now give the total expenditure by the Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authority in the year 1990–91; and what estimate he has made of total expenditure in the year 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Total expenditure attributable to the area covered by Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authority amounted to £148.2 million, cash, in 1990–91. This figure represents a cash increase of 9.8 per cent. on 1989–90.

  The information for 1990–91 is derived from annual accounts on the same basis. Expenditure information from the 1991–92 accounts should be available in the autumn.

  Non-cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate, for non-cosmetic surgery undertaken at Sheffield hospitals from outside the Sheffield health authority boundary within the Trent region(a) how many operations have been performed, (b) how many operations are planned, (c) the average waiting time for such operations and (d) how much money has been spent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. J. Neill, chairman of Sheffield health authority, for details.

  Skin Cancers and Cataracts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the current cost of treating a patient with(a) non-melanoma skin cancer and (b) an eye cataract.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Based on hospital in-patient average lengths of stay, the estimated costs are:

  Cost per case (1990–91 prices) £

  Non-melanoma skin cancer

  1,200

  Cataract

  1,200

  Health Staff, Wiltshire
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors, dentists and nurses there were in Wiltshire in 1979; and how many there were in 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information required is not collected by county boundaries. The earliest and latest available information in respect of Wiltshire family health services authority is given in the tables.

  General Medical Practitioners

  (Unrestricted Principals)

  1 October 1979—224

  1 October 1990—288

  Dentists

  (includes Principal Assistants and Vocational Trainees)

  1 September 1979—117

  1 September 1991—158

  Practice Nurses

  1 October 1988—48.61

  1 October 1990—101.91

  1 Whole time equivalents

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter of 18 February from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby on the subject of Norwich Union health care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 9 March.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the number of people currently awaiting for organ transplants in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and in each of the health regions in England; and if he will state the number of successful transplants carried out in those regions during 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the place of residence of patients awaiting transplants is not collated centrally. The table gives, by United Kingdom territory and English region, the numbers of people registered for transplantation according to the location of the unit with which they are registered and the numbers of transplants performed according to the location of the unit.

  People waiting [As at 28 February 1992 by location of unit where registered]

  Organs transplanted1 [During 1991 by location of transplant unit]

  Scotland

  473

  130

  Northern ireland

  76

  47

  Wales

  113

  65

  England—Regions

  Northern

  317

  199

  Yorkshire

  244

  126

  Trent

  366

  121

  East Anglian

  238

  223

  North West Thames

  586

  238

  North East Thames

  537

  176

  South East + South West Thames

  407

  387

  628

  People waiting [As at 28 February 1992 by location of unit where registered]

  Organs transplanted1 [During 1991 by location of transplant unit]

  Wessex

  111

  83

  Oxford

  100

  83

  South Western

  230

  90

  West Midlands

  415

  274

  Mersey

  135

  70

  North Western

  415

  140

  TOTALS

  4,763

  2,452

  Based on information supplied by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

  1 Provisional figures for transplants from cadaveric donors.

  Whittington Hospital, Islington
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has received for a trust hospital at the Whittington in Islington; when he expects to consider them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has approved the Whittington hospital's expression of interest in becoming an NHS trust, operational from 1 April 1993. A draft application is expected by the end of March and, in line with other applicants, the Whittington hospital will submit its final application by the end of April. All applications for NHS trust status are subject to a statutory public consultation period.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the annual consumption of CFCs used for essential medical purposes; if he will detail these individually; and if he will make a statement about how many of these uses could be replaced by non-ozone destroying products.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The figures of anual CFC consumption for essential medical purposes are not held centrally, but are believed to be a small proportion of total CFC consumption.

  The three main volatile anaesthetic agents for major surgery are CFCs, for which no acceptable alternatives are available. However alternatives are increasingly used for some day surgery procedures. The other essential medical use of CFCs is as propellants for certain pharmaceutical aerosols where measured dosage is an essential requirement. Pharmaceutical use of CFC propellants only accounts for ½ per cent. of all CFC aerosol use. The Department is supporting industry's efforts to find suitable alternatives which do not have adverse effects on drug stability, clinical efficacy, measured dose control and have acceptable overall development costs relative to use.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for the years 1987 to the latest available year and for each ambulance authority in England, the number of complaints lodged with each authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will tabulate the number of incidents and fatalities for each type of meningitis(a) per district health authority and (b) per regional health authority, for each of the last 10 years, or the most convenient period.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: The information is not available in the form requested. Cases of infectious diseases are notified by the doctor in attendance to the proper officer for each local authority area. Notifications of meningitis are therefore not generally available at the district health authority level. However, the number of cases notified for each type of

  Notifications of meningitis by Regional Health Authority 1981

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Northern

  25

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  12

  13

  50

  Yorkshire

  43

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  32

  107

  182

  Trent

  27

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  35

  58

  120

  East Anglian

  14

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  7

  7

  28

  North West Thames

  33

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  28

  22

  83

  North East Thames

  35

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  48

  21

  104

  South East Thames

  34

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  74

  39

  147

  South West Thames

  18

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  65

  17

  100

  Wessex

  38

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  18

  11

  67

  Oxford

  16

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  20

  5

  41

  South Western

  26

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  20

  5

  51

  West Midlands

  37

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  33

  35

  105

  Mersey

  24

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  55

  12

  91

  North Western

  53

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  60

  27

  140

  Wales

  41

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  28

  15

  84

  Notification of meningitis by Regional Health Authority 1982

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Northern

  20

  3

  9

  17

  0

  11

  60

  Yorkshire

  39

  6

  19

  72

  13

  24

  173

  Trent

  26

  8

  15

  11

  27

  17

  104

  East Anglian

  14

  4

  5

  14

  4

  3

  44

  North West Thames

  22

  4

  8

  13

  10

  14

  71

  North East Thames

  35

  8

  11

  13

  11

  12

  90

  South East Thames

  49

  12

  19

  26

  11

  9

  126

  South West Thames

  11

  5

  11

  17

  3

  5

  52

  Wessex

  25

  3

  10

  4

  6

  4

  52

  Oxford

  16

  2

  5

  8

  2

  1

  34

  South Western

  22

  4

  6

  7

  2

  8

  49

  West Midlands

  30

  8

  16

  31

  9

  7

  101

  Mersey

  30

  4

  13

  36

  10

  10

  103

  North Western

  48

  10

  18

  42

  6

  14

  138

  Wales

  23

  6

  12

  10

  17

  6

  74

  Notification of meningitis by Regional Health Authority 1983

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Northern

  11

  7

  11

  12

  7

  5

  53

  Yorkshire

  37

  4

  27

  91

  17

  20

  186

  Trent

  41

  4

  15

  5

  9

  17

  91

  East Anglian

  11

  4

  4

  6

  1

  2

  28

  North West Thames

  28

  3

  8

  17

  16

  11

  83

  North East Thames

  26

  8

  7

  12

  3

  7

  63

  South East Thames

  26

  8

  13

  3

  1

  7

  58

  South West Thames

  19

  5

  12

  12

  5

  3

  56

  Wessex

  29

  3

  10

  4

  3

  7

  56

  Oxford

  13

  4

  4

  12

  1

  5

  39

  South Western

  50

  4

  10

  4

  5

  6

  79

  West Midlands

  27

  5

  17

  28

  12

  8

  97

  630
  meningitis at regional health authority level for the years 1981 to 1990, is shown in the tables. The data for 1991 are not yet available.

  The information in respect of fatalities could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Irregular and unexplained upsurges of meningitis, particularly of meningococcal infection, occur in the United Kingdom. The location of outbreaks cannot be predicted, although it is known that most cases occur in the winter months.

  A vaccine—"Hib"—against invasive haemophilus disease, one of the major causes of bacterial meningitis, is to be added to the United Kingdom infant immunisation schedule from next October. This should help to reduce considerably the overall total reports of deaths and illness from meningitis.
  631

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Mersey

  46

  7

  8

  34

  10

  5

  110

  North Western

  32

  4

  18

  63

  7

  32

  156

  Wales

  32

  4

  19

  5

  9

  2

  71

  Notifications of meningitis by Regional Health Authority 1984

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Menginitis influenzal

  Menginitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Northern

  17

  9

  4

  6

  3

  5

  44

  Yorkshire

  19

  6

  21

  75

  23

  23

  167

  Trent

  33

  3

  21

  12

  21

  13

  103

  East Anglian

  16

  1

  11

  0

  7

  3

  38

  North West Thames

  33

  6

  10

  13

  2

  7

  71

  North East Thames

  35

  9

  12

  16

  10

  5

  87

  South East Thames

  31

  7

  18

  14

  14

  16

  100

  South West Thames

  20

  1

  8

  12

  0

  6

  47

  Wessex

  17

  2

  12

  8

  4

  3

  46

  Oxford

  13

  2

  12

  16

  5

  12

  60

  South Western

  20

  2

  12

  11

  9

  14

  68

  West Midlands

  37

  5

  21

  17

  14

  4

  98

  Mersey

  43

  7

  19

  21

  11

  14

  115

  North Western

  33

  11

  23

  13

  11

  17

  108

  Wales

  34

  7

  13

  10

  7

  7

  78

  Notifications of meningitis by Regional Health Authority 1985

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Northern

  20

  6

  6

  5

  9

  10

  56

  Yorkshire

  40

  9

  16

  60

  34

  26

  185

  Trent

  44

  8

  23

  20

  23

  17

  135

  East Anglian

  20

  3

  13

  13

  6

  6

  61

  North West Thames

  43

  5

  9

  13

  5

  7

  82

  North East Thames

  38

  5

  7

  26

  9

  8

  93

  South East Thames

  41

  3

  12

  15

  6

  13

  90

  South West Thames

  30

  6

  15

  15

  3

  8

  77

  Wessex

  32

  6

  13

  9

  5

  5

  70

  Oxford

  21

  2

  22

  24

  3

  11

  83

  South Western

  35

  5

  9

  16

  31

  9

  105

  West Midlands

  49

  5

  10

  30

  14

  17

  125

  Mersey

  41

  5

  12

  33

  10

  10

  111

  North Western

  56

  7

  28

  31

  22

  30

  174

  Wales

  39

  7

  11

  13

  6

  8

  84

  Notification of meningitis by Regional Health Authority 1986

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Northern

  59

  8

  14

  26

  6

  14

  127

  Yorkshire

  95

  15

  19

  113

  46

  28

  316

  Trent

  69

  13

  22

  17

  26

  23

  170

  East Anglian

  15

  5

  9

  13

  4

  3

  49

  North West Thames

  43

  6

  19

  20

  6

  15

  109

  North East Thames

  47

  10

  11

  15

  8

  8

  99

  South East Thames

  56

  4

  16

  23

  11

  13

  123

  South West Thames

  40

  5

  13

  31

  8

  6

  103

  Wessex

  42

  4

  19

  32

  3

  9

  109

  Oxford

  18

  5

  17

  17

  9

  9

  75

  South Western

  67

  6

  12

  26

  16

  11

  138

  West Midlands

  93

  29

  25

  32

  16

  42

  237

  Mersey

  66

  8

  22

  31

  15

  17

  159

  North Western

  93

  16

  22

  33

  23

  24

  211

  Wales

  67

  9

  28

  21

  12

  10

  147

  632 633

  Notification of meningitis by Regional Health Authority 1987

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Northern

  71

  6

  19

  30

  9

  18

  153

  Yorkshire

  104

  16

  21

  75

  26

  29

  281

  Trent

  72

  15

  13

  44

  25

  17

  186

  East Anglian

  20

  2

  12

  12

  4

  7

  57

  North West Thames

  62

  10

  19

  23

  12

  13

  139

  North East Thames

  55

  8

  13

  43

  14

  24

  157

  South East Thames

  89

  12

  36

  40

  22

  28

  227

  South West Thames

  47

  5

  27

  42

  6

  13

  140

  Wessex

  62

  9

  21

  11

  15

  7

  125

  Oxford

  51

  7

  38

  17

  12

  13

  138

  South Western

  58

  9

  9

  24

  15

  9

  134

  West Midlands

  104

  13

  35

  75

  27

  24

  278

  Mersey

  95

  11

  18

  23

  10

  9

  166

  North Western

  119

  7

  34

  25

  14

  24

  223

  Wales

  71

  6

  29

  9

  13

  10

  138

  Notification of meningitis by Regional Health Authority 1988

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Northern

  72

  12

  28

  20

  21

  13

  166

  Yorkshire

  103

  11

  40

  59

  49

  27

  289

  Trent

  111

  30

  27

  90

  24

  26

  308

  East Anglian

  31

  4

  11

  7

  6

  8

  67

  North West Thames

  82

  15

  32

  29

  8

  8

  174

  North East Thames

  71

  11

  22

  25

  6

  20

  155

  South East Thames

  109

  14

  31

  46

  18

  24

  242

  South West Thames

  55

  12

  25

  29

  7

  14

  142

  Wessex

  44

  11

  24

  14

  8

  3

  104

  Oxford

  44

  13

  34

  21

  12

  11

  135

  South Western

  87

  15

  28

  34

  33

  11

  208

  West Midlands

  160

  18

  32

  37

  27

  33

  307

  Mersey

  104

  15

  22

  24

  14

  15

  194

  North Western

  129

  19

  46

  34

  28

  27

  283

  Wales

  102

  9

  34

  21

  34

  13

  213

  Notifications of meningitis by Regional Health Authority 1989

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Northern

  59

  14

  29

  15

  13

  17

  147

  Yorkshire

  67

  13

  20

  56

  48

  31

  235

  Trent

  105

  11

  44

  54

  20

  26

  260

  East Anglian

  18

  2

  17

  7

  4

  13

  61

  North West Thames

  81

  9

  27

  19

  13

  10

  159

  North East Thames

  65

  8

  21

  10

  18

  22

  144

  South East Thames

  105

  17

  38

  22

  11

  29

  222

  South West Thames

  38

  5

  21

  19

  12

  14

  109

  Wessex

  43

  12

  33

  19

  11

  14

  132

  Oxford

  57

  7

  27

  20

  7

  14

  132

  South Western

  79

  11

  45

  40

  32

  13

  220

  West Midlands

  130

  25

  57

  48

  21

  30

  311

  Mersey

  75

  9

  18

  24

  8

  15

  149

  North Western

  119

  19

  32

  36

  25

  22

  253

  Wales

  91

  12

  41

  8

  27

  8

  187

  Notification of meningitis by Regional Health Authority 1990

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Northern

  76

  10

  23

  13

  9

  15

  146

  Yorkshire

  100

  9

  29

  77

  19

  20

  254

  Trent

  104

  17

  42

  34

  12

  13

  222

  East Anglian

  34

  5

  15

  5

  6

  11

  76

  North West Thames

  67

  11

  23

  28

  12

  8

  139

  North East Thames

  66

  13

  35

  12

  19

  23

  168

  South East Thames

  71

  16

  32

  18

  12

  19

  168

  South West Thames

  46

  7

  18

  16

  10

  8

  105

  634 635

  Regional Health Authority

  Meningitis meningococcal

  Meningitis pneumococcal

  Meningitis influenzal

  Meningitis viral

  Meningitis other specified

  Meningitis unspecified

  Meningitis all forms

  Wessex

  49

  5

  24

  8

  10

  11

  107

  Oxford

  42

  7

  30

  20

  6

  10

  115

  South Western

  85

  8

  20

  35

  17

  23

  188

  West Midlands

  116

  17

  49

  28

  20

  32

  262

  Mersey

  78

  7

  22

  28

  13

  14

  162

  North Western

  133

  11

  36

  21

  22

  34

  257

  Wales

  71

  13

  33

  20

  40

  26

  203

  Health Service, York
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time equivalent national health service(a) ancillary staff, (b) professional and technical staff and (c) administrative and clerical staff were employed by York health authority, and previously in York health district, in 1974 and each year since then.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: The available data are in the following table:

  NHS directly employed staff by specific staff groups in post at 30 September each year

  York district health authority—whole time equivalents

  Ancillary staff1

  Professional and technical2

  Administrative and clerical3

  1982

  980

  300

  420

  1983

  930

  300

  510

  1984

  870

  330

  530

  1985

  780

  340

  460

  1986

  660

  360

  470

  1987

  610

  360

  490

  1988

  560

  370

  500

  1989

  400

  370

  520

  1990

  380

  390

  550

  Number of residential care places in local authority staffed homes and private and voluntary homes in the North Yorkshire local authority and the York health district area 1981–1991

  Places in North Yorkshire

  Places in the York health district area

  As at 31 March

  Local authority staffed homes

  Private homes

  Voluntary homes

  Local authority staffed homes

  Private homes

  Voluntary homes

  1981

  2,148

  867

  838

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1982

  2,185

  1,005

  808

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1983

  2,180

  1,198

  822

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1984

  2,212

  1,528

  862

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1985

  2,218

  2,088

  781

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1986

  2,181

  2,474

  813

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1987

  2,197

  3,147

  846

  813

  511

  174

  1988

  2,163

  3,555

  865

  785

  640

  184

  1989

  2,130

  3,717

  925

  778

  709

  199

  1990

  2,079

  3,757

  880

  755

  806

  198

  1991

  2,023

  3,843

  938

  742

  843

  235

  Bone Marrow Transplants
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether those waiting for bone marrow transplants are included within waiting lists of patients for national health service treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: Yes. If there is no suitable related donor available, an unrelated donor has to be found before a patient can be treated, and this can delay treatment.
  636

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) Annual Census of NHS Non-medical Manpower.

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalent.

  2 Includes Professions Allied to Medicine, and Scientific and Professional.

  3 Includes General Managers.

  Information is not available prior to 1982.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) registered private residential home beds and (b) part III home beds there were in (i) North Yorkshire and (ii) the York health authority area, and previously in York health district, in 1979 and each year since then.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  The available information on the number of residential care places in registered private and voluntary homes, and local authority staffed homes in the North Yorkshire local authority and the York health authority area are set out in the table.

  Northern Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many operations were carried out by the Northern regional health authority in 1979, 1987 and the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 March 1992]: Operating theatre cases and sessions data have been collected annually since 1987–88 although the figures are not necessarily equivalent to the number of surgical operations carried out. Theatres are sometimes used for medical procedures requiring a sterile environment; some minor operations are performed outside a theatre.
  637

  Operating theatre activity figures

  Cases treated in surgical acute specialties, Northern Regional Health Authority

  Year

  Cases

  In-patients

  Day cases

  1979

  —

  1137,014

  129,718

  1987–88

  235,444

  1175,281

  2—

  1988–89

  243,403

  3174,101

  351,996

  1990–91

  250,864

  3183,851

  358,688

  1 Hospital discharges.

  2 The quality of 1987–88 figures for day cases was adversely affected by the introduction of new collection systems in the National Health Service.

  3 Finished consultant episodes.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Job Losses (East Antrim)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to reverse continuing job losses in East Antrim and to create alternative employment in manufacturing industry for those who have lost their jobs as a result of factory closures.

  Mr. Needham
  The east Antrim area benefits from the wide range of measures currently undertaken by the Government to promote economic and industrial development throughout Northern Ireland. Following the closures of GEC Alsthom in Lame, the Industrial Development Board is continuing to search for a viable project which could utilise the site of the former GEC operation.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people have been engaged in employer-based YTP courses in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of trainees fluctuates during the year but the average number was as follows:

  Financial year

  Average Occupancy

  1987–88

  1,495

  1988–89

  1,949

  1989–90

  2,864

  1990–91

  3,170

  11991–92

  3,473

  1 April to January.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people have been engaged in YTP courses in community-based workshops in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of trainees fluctuates during the year but the average number engaged in the YT programmes in community-based workshops was:

  Average occupancy

  1987–88

  3,291

  1988–89

  3,039

  1989–90

  3,229

  1990–91

  3,746

  11991–92

  4,427

  638

  1 April to January.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers have been employed by each of the education and library boards in YTP provision in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers are as follows:

  Academic Year

  Education and Library Board

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Belfast

  144

  147

  150

  156

  116

  North-Eastern

  97

  100

  100

  100

  61

  South-Eastern

  94

  101

  101

  101

  77

  Western

  75

  79

  79

  80

  52

  Southern

  76

  79

  78

  78

  50

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people are presently engaged on youth training courses in Northern Ireland; and how many have been engaged in such courses in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of young people participating in the youth training programme at 31 January 1992 was 14,702. The numbers engaged in such courses in each of the last five years were as follows:

  Average occupancy

  1987–88

  8,778

  1988–89

  8,881

  1989–90

  9,818

  1990–91

  12,914

  11991–92

  15,688

  1 April-January.

  In addition, the average numbers in employment with training under the former YTP workscheme during each of the last five years were:

  Average occupancy

  1987–88

  2,841

  1988–89

  4,447

  1989–90

  2,411

  1990–91

  911

  11991–92

  4

  1 April-January.

  Social Security
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total spend on social security in 1979–80, 1983–84, 1987–88 and 1991–92 in current and real terms; and what percentage that is of total Government spending.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Social Security expenditure—£ million

  Year

  Expenditure in current terms

  Expenditure in real terms

  Expenditure as percentage of total public spending

  1979–80

  589.7

  1,371.0

  23.7

  1983–84

  1,084.1

  1,733.0

  28.8

  1987–88

  1,491.8

  1,976.4

  30.9

  1991–92

  2,099.0

  2,099.0

  32.6

  639
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, for each year since 1978–79 the total number of households claiming for social security benefit, excluding the national insurance retirement pension and child benefit.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not available.

  Year

  Total benefit expenditure £ million

  Total administration costs £ million

  Administration costs as percentage of total benefit expenditure

  £ million

  £ million

  1980–81

  674

  46

  6.8

  1981–82

  815

  56

  6.9

  1982–83

  938

  61

  6.5

  1983–84

  1,033

  64

  6.2

  1984–85

  1,128

  69

  6.1

  1985–86

  1,248

  74

  5.9

  1986–87

  1,354.5

  81

  6.0

  1987–88

  1,403.6

  89

  6.3

  1988–89

  1,465.6

  87.5

  6.0

  1989–90

  1,557.1

  95.6

  6.1

  1990–91

  1,704.9

  106.5

  6.3

  1991–92

  1,977.8

  115.6

  5.8

  The figures for 1991–92 are estimates only.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of(a) claimants and (b) partners and dependent children on supplementary benefit or income support in each year from 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Number of Claimants

  Number of Dependent Partners

  Number of Dependent Children

  Total Number of Dependent

  1979

  115,400

  26,300

  64,800

  91,100

  1980

  129,000

  32,400

  80,300

  112,700

  1981

  150,000

  38,100

  93,600

  131,700

  1982

  164,900

  44,900

  109,900

  154,800

  1983

  174,500

  48,800

  117,000

  165,800

  1984

  180,800

  49,100

  116,300

  165,400

  11985

  184,200

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  184,400

  52,800

  135,300

  188,100

  1987

  190,800

  51,800

  134,000

  185,800

  1988

  184,100

  44,900

  111,900

  156,800

  1989

  183,400

  42,400

  121,900

  164,300

  1990

  179,000

  38,500

  118,600

  157,100

  1 The number of claimants based on 100 per cent. count of caseload at November 1985. Statistical information on dependants is not available for the 1985 year.

  Source: annual statistical exercise—five per cent. sample of caseload.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest estimate of the average percentage rise in the number of claimants receiving the main social security benefits, or expected to claim, in the years 1978–79 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Caseload

  Percentage yearly rise

  1978–79

  982,000

  —

  1979–80

  974,000

  -0.8

  1980–81

  1,011,900

  +3.9

  1981–82

  1,054,200

  +4.2

  640
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the total administration costs as a percentage of benefit expenditure for social security for each year from 1978–79 to the latest year available.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows. Administration costs for the years 1978–79 and 1979–80 are not available. The figures for administration cost include the costs of services provided by other Departments.

  Year

  Caseload

  Percentage yearly rise

  1982–83

  1,019,300

  -3.3

  1983–84

  1,290,200

  +1.0

  1984–85

  1,311,200

  +1.6

  1985–86

  1,316,000

  +0.4

  1986–87

  1,323,300

  +0.6

  1987–88

  1,342,200

  +1.4

  1988–89

  1,305,500

  -2.7

  1989–90

  1,299,600

  -0.5

  1990–91

  1,308,700

  +0.7

  1991–92

  1,431,300

  +5.4

  1992–93

  1,509,600

  +5.5

  The average percentage yearly rise is + 1.5 per cent.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested, which is available only for the years 1983–84 onwards, is as follows:

  Expenditure on Social Security excluding the unemployed

  Year

  Current prices £000s

  1991–92 prices £000s

  Percentage increase or decrease

  1983–84

  835.2

  1,335.1

  1984–85

  945.3

  1,439.1

  +7.9

  1985–86

  1,027.2

  1,482.1

  +3.0

  1986–87

  1,108.2

  1,548.1

  +4.5

  1987–88

  1,198.2

  1,587.4

  +2.5

  1988–89

  1,255.7

  1,552.1

  -2.2

  1989–90

  1,393.4

  1,617.4

  +4.2

  1990–91

  1,536.4

  1,643.9

  +1.6

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount spent on
  641
  social security, in current prices and at 1991–92 prices, for each year since 1978–79; and what was the percentage real-terms increase or decrease in each year.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Social Security Expenditure

  Year

  Current prices £000s

  1991–92 prices £000s

  Percentage increase/decrease

  1978–79

  497.0

  1,3482

  1979–80

  589.7

  1,371.0

  1.7

  1980–81

  716.9

  1,408.6

  2.8

  1981–82

  865.0

  1,549.9

  10.0

  1982–83

  994.

  1,663.4

  7.3

  1983–84

  1,084.1

  1,733.0

  4.2

  1984–85

  1,191.0

  1,813.2

  4.6

  1985–86

  1,298.7

  1,873.8

  3.3

  1986–87

  1,411.5

  1,971.7

  5.0

  1987–88

  1,491.8

  1,976.4

  0.2

  1988–89

  1,555.0

  1,922.1

  -2.8

  1989–90

  1,659.7

  1,926.6

  0.2

  1990–91

  1,814.1

  1,941.1

  0.8

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give, for the years 1979–80 and the latest year available, in cash terms and at 1991–92 prices, the social security spending on(a) elderly people, (b) sick and disabled people, (c) families, (d) unemployed people and (e) orphans and widows indicating the number of claimants in each category, and dependants in the household, and the percentage change in spending in real terms.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information available is as follows:

  Social security spending in cash terms and at 1991–92 prices—£000

  Cash prices

  Year

  Elderly

  Sick and disabled

  Families

  Unemployed

  Widows and orphans

  1979–80

  219,475

  115,892

  128,492

  71,320

  22,136

  1990–91

  578,000

  374,000

  338,000

  251,000

  31,000

  1991–92 prices and percentage change in spending in real terms

  Year

  Elderly

  Sick and disabled

  Families

  Unemployed

  Widows and orphans

  1979–80

  595,386

  314,389

  335,009

  193,475

  60,050

  1990–91

  618,460

  400,180

  361,660

  268,570

  33,170

  Change

  +3.9

  +27.3

  +8.0

  +38.8

  -44.8

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) families and (b) individuals accepted as homeless by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive became homeless as a result of mortgage repossessions; and what percentage of the total in each category and in total these figures represent.

  Mr. Needham
  I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that in the period April to December 1991, 122 families, including couples with no children, were accepted as homeless or threatened with homelessness because of mortgage difficulties. This represents 6 per cent. of all families accepted and four per cent. of all applicants accepted. In the same period eight single applicants were accepted as homeless or threatened 642
  with homelessness because of mortgage difficulties. This represents 1 per cent. of all single applicants accepted and 0.2 per cent. of all applicants accepted.

  Noise
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when circular 10/73 "Planning and Noise" will be adopted in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has drawn the advice contained in circular 10/73 to the attention of divisional planning officers in Northern Ireland and has issued guidance of its own to them on the question of noise as a planning consideration.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to implement in Northern Ireland, the Noise Insulation Regulations which apply in Great Britain.

  Mr. Needham
  It is planned to introduce noise nsulation regulations relating to road schemes in Northern Ireland towards the end of this year.

  Medical Cards
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of persons in Northern Ireland who still hold a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland general health services board and do not hold the more recent type of medical card issued.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not possible to estimate accurately the number of people who still hold a medical card issued by the former Northern Ireland general health services board.

  Airports Authority
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the present term of appointment of the chairman of the Northern Ireland airports authority ends; and when he will announce the name of the chairman for the next period of office.

  Mr. Needham
  The present term of appointment of the chairman of Northern Ireland Airports Limited expires on 30 June 1992. The name of a chairman for the next period of office will be announced at a suitable time before that date.

  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the status of the Maryfield secretariat of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference during the present periods of inter-party talks in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  In my statement of 26 March 1991 I made it clear on behalf of the two Governments that, during the period when the Anglo-Irish conference would not be meeting, the secretariat at Maryfield would not be required to discharge its normal role of servicing such meetings, as provided for in article 3 of the agreement. Since the new talks are to be conducted on the basis of the terms of my 26 March 1991 statement, the same arrangement will apply again.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number and location of sites of special scientific interest in the County of Durham.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am advised by English Nature that there are currently 76 sites of special scientific interest in Durham. I am writing to the hon. Member with the details.

  Shops (Security)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last consulted(a) the Civic Trust and (b) English Heritage on the best way to halt the spread of security shuttering in retail outlets.

  Mr. Yeo
  There have been no consultations with the Civic Trust or English Heritage on security measures to protect shops and no approaches from these bodies on this matter.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 March Official Report, column 443 to this question on the establishment of a working group on security in city shopping centres.

  Public Buildings (Security)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with architects and relevant experts on improving the design of public buildings following the recent terrorist attacks.

  Mr. Yeo
  Measures to improve the design of public buildings so as to reduce the risks of injury from terrorist attacks are kept under review by my Department in consultation with others. Architects and relevant experts are consulted as part of this ongoing review.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the fitting of laminated glass in public buildings to reduce injuries caused by flying glass in terrorist bombings.

  Mr. Yeo
  The use of laminated glass in public buildings is kept under review and general advice on this and other protective measures is issued from time to time. Individual advice is also available.

  Coventry: Debt figures—at current prices

  Year

  Outstanding debt

  Debt service charge

  Debt repayment

  Population

  Debt per capita

  1DS per capita

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  000s

  £

  £

  1990–91

  342.181

  25.764

  12.915

  231

  1,481

  112

  1989–90

  427.832

  21.972

  63.123

  231

  1,852

  95

  1988–89

  487.659

  21.882

  7.080

  231

  2,111

  95

  1987–88

  383.880

  18.633

  7.262

  232

  1,655

  80

  1986–87

  294.779

  16.804

  n/a

  234

  1,260

  72

  1985–86

  266.919

  13.349

  n/a

  234

  1,141

  57

  1984–85

  243.990

  11.855

  n/a

  235

  1,038

  50

  1983–84

  234.504

  10.250

  n/a

  235

  998

  44

  Terrorist Attacks
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken since January 1984 to eradicate the danger of flying glass injury as a result of terrorist attacks.

  Mr. Yeo
  Protection against the danger of flying glass injury is kept under review, together with assessments of the efficacy of the protective measures available. General guidance is issued from time to time. Individual advice is also provided.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional cash resources he proposes to make available to those authorities successful in the second wave of city challenge applications; what percentage of those resources will be new cash; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  A total of £150 million per year, for up to five years from 1993–94, has been allocated to fund the 20 winning authorities' action plans in round two of city challenge. This is additional to the £82.5 million allocated to fund the 11 round one 'Pacemaker' city challenge action plans. Round one resources are being top-sliced from DOE funding regimes which currently spend in inner cities. It is expected that similar arrangements will apply for round two.

  Debt Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give, for the City of Coventry, for each year since 1979, if available, or for the most convenient years(a) outstanding debt, (b) debt service charge, (c) debt repayment, (d) adult population, (e) debt per adult and (f) debt service charge per adult, in current and 1992 prices.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is given in the table. The figures for the outstanding loan debt are as at the end of each financial year, debt repayments are as made during the course of each financial year, population figures are mid-year estimates. Figures for earlier years are not available. Figures for outstanding debt at 31 March 1991 have been returned on an external debt basis, and are not comparable with previous years.
  645

  Coventry: Debt figures—at current prices

  Year

  Outstanding debt £ million

  Debt service charge £ million

  Debt repayment £ million

  Population 000s

  Debt per capita £

  1DS per capita £

  1990–91

  366.134

  27.567

  13.819

  231

  1,585

  119

  1989–90

  496.621

  25.505

  73.272

  231

  2,150

  110

  1988–89

  602.778

  27.048

  8.751

  231

  2,609

  117

  1987–88

  508.576

  24.686

  9.621

  232

  2,192

  106

  1986–87

  411.767

  23.473

  n/a

  234

  1,760

  100

  1985–86

  385.113

  19 260

  n/a

  234

  1,646

  82

  1984–85

  371.454

  18.048

  n/a

  235

  1,581

  77

  1983–84

  374 876

  16.386

  n/a

  235

  1,595

  70

  1 Debt Service Charge.

  Coal Clough Farm
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to decide whether to call in the proposed wind farm development of Coal Clough farm, Cliviger; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make a decision soon. When the decision is made, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the proposed wind farm at Coal Clough farm, Cliviger; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend has received five representations direct from amenity groups and individuals against the latest proposal. Also, Burnley borough council has sent him copies of representations that it received following the public notice.

  Private Rented Sector
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of housing was accounted for by the private rented sector for(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Yeo
  Estimates of total stock by tenure are shown in table 9.3 of "Housing and Construction Statistics: Great Britain: 1980–1990". A copy is in the Library.

  Humber Estuary
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will designate the Humber estuary as a special protection area.

  Mr. Baldry
  Consultations with Government Departments and land owners are continuing on those parts of the Humber estuary which have been proposed as a special protection area. A decision on designation will be made as soon as these are satisfactorily completed. The announcement yesterday of the designation of the Exe estuary, Lindisfarne and Old Hall marshes illustrates the Government's firm commitment to the designation of further special protection areas.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the nature of the last three communications received by him from the European Commission on the subject of special protection areas under the wild birds directive.
  646
  Mr. Baldry
  The European Commission is in regular contact with officials over special protection areas under the EC birds directive. Such communications are confidential between Government and the Commission.

  Travelling Showpeople
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requirements his Department places on local authorities to assist travelling showpeople regarding winter quarters; how many local authorities provide sites; how many sites are known to be in dispute regarding planning permission; and what proposals he has to assist in the securing of suitable land for sites.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department's circular 22/91— "Travelling Showpeople"—gives advice to local planning authorities about planning consideration relating to travelling showpeople. Information about sites is not held centrally.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what advice he gives to consumers on purchasing ozone-friendly fridges;

  (2) what advice he makes available to consumers who wish to avoid purchasing products that contain, or have been manufactured, by using ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on 10 March 1992,Official Report, columns 450–51.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to use his powers under part I, section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prohibit the production and release of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend does not intend to do so—the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances is controlled by EC regulation 594/91, which is directly applicable in United Kingdom law.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amount in tonnes of chlorofluorocarbons recycled in the United Kingdom in each year from 1985 to 1991 inclusive.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Wlin Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish annually the United Kingdom consumption and production of ozone-depleting chemicals.
  647
  Mr. Trippier
  Figures for United Kingdom production of ozone-depleting substances are supplied to the Government on a confidential basis. Consumption figures are collected on a European Community basis and not broken down between member states. However, a 1990 Department of Trade and Industry study indicated that United Kingdom consumption fell by 50 per cent. between 1986 and 1989, a rate faster than that claimed by any other developed country.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining his policy on the production and emission of hydrochlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government have proposed a phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons early next century, together with controls on the level of consumption and on applications in which these substances can be used. These proposals will be considered by the EC Environment Council on 23 March.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all essential uses of ozone-depleting chemicals that would be exempt from currently proposed EC legislation.

  Mr. Trippier
  Decisions on any essential use exemptions from the regulations controlling ozone-depleting substances will be made closer to the final phase-out dates. These will be taken at the European Community level, and no member state will be able to make unilateral decisions.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the numbers of single people with incomes of over £50,000 per annum who will qualify for a 25 per cent. discount under his council tax proposals.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no estimate of the numbers of single people with incomes of over £50,000 per annum who will qualify for a 25 per cent. discount when the council tax is introduced.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the size of the council tax bill on a property located in Westminster worth £1,000,000 in April 1991 with(a) two or more adults and (b) one adult.

  Mr. Portillo
  Illustrative council tax bills based on 1991–92 budgets were published and placed in the Library on 23 April 1991. I have made no subsequent estimates.

  Air Pollution
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department will publish the results of the recent national nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube air pollution survey.

  Mr. Trippier
  I hope these will be available by the end of next month.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been his response to the complaint by Commissioner Ripa di Meana in the European Parliament of 27 November 1991 regarding the adequacy of the United Kingdom air pollution monitoring network.
  648
  Mr. Trippier
  Signor Ripa di Meana's remarks related to the United Kingdom network for monitoring nitrogen dioxide for purposes of European Community directive 85/203/EEC. They were made in answer to a question in the European Parliament and were not addressed to the Government. The basis on which monitoring sites were selected for this purpose has been explained to the Commission in previous correspondence.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times, and where, the EC directive limits for nitrogen dioxide have been breached since 1980.

  Mr. Trippier
  The EC directive on nitrogen dioxide has been breached once at the west London monitoring site in 1989, in exceptional circumstances which were not truly representative of local air quality.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the planned enhanced urban network will meet the regulations of the EC directive 85/203/EEC for monitoring nitrogen dioxide.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the Government's view the existing arrangements for monitoring nitrogen dioxide already comply with the requirements of the directive. The enhancement of the urban monitoring network will however usefully supplement the data currently available on concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and a range of other air pollutants.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available a list of the responses to the recent consultation paper on the Government's proposals for an environment agency.

  Mr. Trippier
  A list of the responses received has been placed in the Library of the House. Copies of individual responses may be obtained through the Library of the Department. In addition, responses were submitted by six individuals and bodies on a confidential basis.

  Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring into force the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  A commencement order has now been made, and regulations laid before the House, which enable the provisions of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 to be brought into force on 1 June 1992.

  The Act paved the way for important new planning controls over the storage and use of hazardous substances. It requires consent to be obtained from local authorities for the presence of these materials in prescribed quantities. This will give authorities the opportunity to consider whether the storage or use of a significant quantity of a hazardous material is acceptable in a particular location. The regulations define the substances and amounts to be controlled and contain detailed procedures for obtaining consent and for enforcement. These regulations will be followed by an explanatory circular for local authorities and a guidance booklet for industry.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in establishing the planning inspectorate executive agency under the "next steps" initiative.

  Sir George Young
  The planning inspectorate will be launched as an executive agency on 1 April 1992. A framework document setting out the organisational, financial and management structure of the agency will be published at that time.

  The key objectives for the agency will be to preserve the impartiality and quality of the inspector's work while seeking to improve efficiency. A board of visitors will be established to ensure that quality standards are maintained. In addition, I have set the following key targets for the agency's work in England for 1992–93:
  Timeliness: Eighty per cent. of planning appeals by written representation to be decided within 22 weeks and to provide an inspector for local plan inquiries on request within 26 weeks of the end of the objection period;
  Financial: Unit costs (average) of these appeals not to exceed £706 per case;
  Efficiency: Generate a 2 per cent. efficiency improvement in the use of gross running costs compared with 1991–92;
  Quality: High Court appeals and/or other justified complaints allowed against Inspectors' decisions not to exceed 1 per cent. of intake;
  Volume: To determine 24,600 planning and enforcement appeals subject to intake not declining;
  Information and Guidance: To complete a customer survey by 31 December 1992.

  These and other performance targets for the agency will be included in its business plan for 1992–93 which will be published shortly.

  Separate targets for the agency's work in Wales are being announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to take his capping decisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  On 26 November 1991 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, announced his proposed capping criteria for 1992–93. On 23 January 1992 he reaffirmed that he was minded to adopt those criteria, and they remain his firm intentions for criteria for 1992–93.

  However, under the statute my right hon. Friend cannot take his decisions on the criteria to select authorities for capping, and the level of proposed caps for any authority designated, until he has considered authorities' budgets. Information on authorities' budgets must be submitted to the Secretary of State by 8 March in the case of precepting authorities and 18 March in the case of charging authorities.

  My right hon. Friend intends to take his capping decisions as soon as is practicable and appropriate after the receipt of budget information. However, such decisions are of a kind which by convention Ministers do not take during an election campaign. My right hon. Friend therefore does not intend to consider these matters until the earliest practical opportunity after the election.

  When he comes to take his decisions my right hon. Friend will have regard to all appropriate considerations
  650
  including the budgets which authorities have set and his provisional criteria. In the light of information on the budgets he will decide on the principles for capping which he should adopt, on which his present intention is set out in the provisional criteria. On the basis of those principles he will designate authorities for capping. For each designated authority he will decide on a proposed cap. The proposed cap which he will set for any designated authority will represent my right hon. Friend's view of the appropriate and achievable level for that authority's budget in the light of all its circumstances.

  At that point each authority may accept either its proposed cap, and proceed with re-billing if that is necessary, or challenge the proposed cap seeking that the Secretary of State should vary his proposal as to the amount of the cap. Authorities have 28 days from designation in which to challenge their cap.

  Outdoor Advertisements
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue the planning policy guidance on outdoor advertisement control, of which a consultative draft was circulated in July 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are today publishing planning policy guidance note 19 about outdoor advertisement control in England and Wales. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of derelict land grant made available by his Department in each of the last five years; and how many acres have been brought into use as a result for(a) housing, (b) industry, (c) recreation and (d) public buildings.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: The information requested is as follows. Statistics are not held on land brought back into use for public buildings.

  1. Derelict Land Grant paid 1986–87 to 1990–91.

  £ million

  1986–87

  68.359

  1987–88

  75.295

  1988–89

  67.126

  1989–90

  90.804

  1990–91

  71.300

  2. Land reclaimed for housing, industry and sport and recreation 1986–87 to 1990–91 (acres)

  Residential

  Industry

  Recreation/Public Open Space

  1986–87

  131

  595

  1,161

  1987–88

  124

  615

  1,635

  1988–89

  185

  1,077

  1,228

  1989–90

  104

  842

  1,252

  1990–91

  22

  316

  1,005

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People (Employment Quotas)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table of the percentage of(a) private sector employers and (b) public sector

  651
  employers satisfying their quota obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, in each of the last five years; and if he will also give the most recent available figures.

  Mr. Jackson
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. However, tables showing the number and percentage of registered disabled people employed by a wide range of individual public sector employers are published in the Employment Gazette,

  Percentage of registered disabled people employed

  1986 per cent.

  1987 per cent.

  1988 per cent.

  1989 per cent.

  1990 per cent.

  Private sector (approximate figures)

  1

  1

  1

  0.9

  0.9

  Public sector (based on gazette figures)

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of youth training leavers in the London borough of Newham were unemployed immediately after leaving in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the unit price for youth training places in each training and enterprise council and local enterprise company.

  Mr. Jackson
  Unit prices per training week delivered and per national vocational qualification achieved in YT are agreed in contracts between the Departmental and individual TECs and are commercially confidential. Matters relating to LECs are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of employment training leavers in the London borough of Newham in each of the last five years were unemployed within three months of leaving; and what percentage obtained qualifications.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available in the precise form requested.

  Employment training started in September 1988 and national follow-up of leavers started in July 1989. Results are given for the East London TEC area which includes the London borough of Newham. Those show that for the period July 1989 to June 1990, 57 per cent. of leavers were unemployed three months after leaving and 14 per cent. of all leavers gained a qualification or a credit towards one. For the period April 1990 to March 1991, 67 per cent. were unemployed three months after leaving and 23 per cent. of all leavers gained a qualification or a credit towards one.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of youth training leavers obtained qualifications in the London borough of Newham in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Reliable information is not available in the form requested. The results available are for the East London area office which included the London borough of Newham. Information is available for the periods April 1986 to March 1990 and shows that the percentage of YT leavers gaining qualifications was as follows:652
  copies of which are in the Library. The most recent complete published set of figures, is in the February 1991 gazette and relates to June 1990, A partial set of figures, relating to June 1991, is in the February 1992 gazette.

  The percentage of registered disabled people employed, on average by employers whose individual figures are in the gazette, together with estimated comparisons for the private sector, for the years 1986 to 1990, are in the table later comparable information is not yet available.

  April 1989-March 1990 38 per cent.

  April 1988-March 1989 39 per cent.

  April 1987-March 1988 25 per cent.

  April 1986-March 1987 11 per cent.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently in work: what were the figures 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The work force in employment in the United Kingdom stood at 24,835,000 in September 1976, at 24,198,000 in September 1981 and at 25,807,000 in September 1991. The number of people in work is now 442,000 higher than in June 1979.

  Earnings
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much average male earnings have increased in real terms since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on average male earnings in April of 1979 and of each year up to 1991 is published in table 1 of part A of the new earnings survey report for the year concerned.

  Information on the retail prices index, all items, to convert 1979 figures to 1991 prices is published in table 6.4 of the latest Employment Gazette for April 1991, and in table 26 of the annual supplement to "Economic Trends" for April of earlier years.

  Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the new financial incentives for TECs in relation to people with learning difficulties; and whether the same unit price has been given by the Training, Enterprise and Education Directorate to TECs for the achievement of wordpower and numberpower as for any level of national vocational qualification.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 December 1991,Official Report, column 26.

  TECs contract individually for an agreed rate of output-related payment. TECs will receive multiples of the agreed rate for trainees achieving national vocational qualifications. In the case of wordpower at foundation,

  653
  half the agreed rate of output-related payment is payable. An identical unit price is payable for achievement of foundation level numberpower. Where it is agreed that a trainee requires both wordpower and numberpower then the TEC will receive two payments of half the agreed rate of output-related payment. In addition, TECs will receive further output-related payment for any trainees who progress to achieve national vocational qualifications.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from TECs about the training of people with learning difficulties, with particular reference to special needs training being provided outwith the remit of TECs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have received no such representations.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide details of Government financial support to each training and enterprise council during 1990–91 and 1991–92; identifying separately resources made available after the beginning of the financial year and funding for each of(a) adult training, (b) youth training, (c) enterprise, (d) local initiatives and (e) management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: The total figure allocated by the Government to training and enterprise councils in 1990–91 was £1,571.91 million and in 1991–92 £1,838.66 million.

  The breakdown of these figures requested in the question is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure, London
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the budget and forecast actual expenditure for 1991–92 and 1992–93 of(a) his Department's London regional office and (b) the nine training and enterprise councils operating in London.

  Mr. Jackson
  The total budgetary allocation for the Department's Training Enterprise and Education Directorate's London region in 1991–92 was £167.263 million.

  The budgets for the nine London TECs are shown in the table:

  £ million

  AZTEC

  10.742

  CENTEC

  11.951

  CILNTEC

  8.124

  LETEC

  27.618

  NLTEC

  9.690

  NWLTEC

  5.625

  SOLOTEC

  18.555

  STTEC

  20.510

  WLTEC

  8.945

  Footnote:

  The regional total figure includes expenditure by residual TEED area offices for those areas where TECs began operations during the financial year 1991–92, experience on technical vocational and education initiative, and regional office running costs.

  Forecasts of outturn expenditure are produced for internal management purposes only. Budgets for 1992–93 are still subject to negotiation.

SCOTLAND

  Fur Factory Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many arctic fox factory farms are currently operating in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No official statistics are kept.

  Upper Solway
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will designate the upper Solway as a special protection area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The designation of the upper Solway flats and marshes as a special protection area under EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds is under consideration.

  House Repossessions
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the annual figures for house repossessions in Scotland since 1985 by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available in the form requested. The Council of Mortgage Lenders publishes statistics in its regular newsletters on various aspects of mortgage lending but this is on a GB basis and no corresponding information is available for Scotland only.

  However, the Scottish Office Environment Department has recently received figures specially collated by the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers from the Scottish branches of the four main banks in Scotland—Bank of Scotland, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale Bank and TSB Bank Scotland. The figures as at 31 December 1991 were 0.77 per cent. of mortgages over six months in arrears and 0.13 per cent. of houses repossessed in the six months to 31 December. This compares with UK figures produced by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which excludes the four Scottish banks, of 2.8 per cent. and 0.40 per cent. respectively.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how much of the money recently allocated for a decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry will be spent in Scotland in the financial year 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The arrangement announced by my right hon. Friend on 27 February will now be the subject of consultation with the industry.

  Crofters
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Crofters Union; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Although my right hon. Friend has not met representatives of the Scottish Crofters Union, my noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture arid Fisheries in Scotland and his predecessor have had meetings with them on a number of occasions to discuss
  655
  various topics of interest to crofters. The most recent meeting with the director of the Scottish Crofters Union and the hon. Member for the Western Isles Mr. Macdonald took place on 21 November 1991 when assistance for crofter housing was discussed.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of representations he has received from(a) the Scottish National Farmers Union and (b) others in relation to the MacSharry proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Various representations from the Scottish NFU and others have been received. We have stated clearly our opposition to the discriminatory features of the Commission's proposals, and our aim to achieve a reform which encourages a more market-oriented CAP; which applies fairly across all the agricultural sectors; which maintains financial discipline; and which builds in environmental objectives for the countryside. Discussions on CAP reform are continuing in the Agriculture Council.

  SSSIs (Advisory Committee)
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now announce the membership of the Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have appointed Professor F. T. Last, FRSE as chairman of the committee along with the following members:

  Dr. J. Morton Boyd, CBE, DSc, FRSE

  Professor J. M. M. Cunningham, FRSE

  Professor David Ingram

  Professor John A. Raven, FRSE, FRS

  Professor William Ritchie, FRSE

  Dr. Charles D. Waterston, FRSE

  The establishment of this committee fulfils an important requirement of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. The committee will have a significant to play role in ensuring, by its advice to Scottish Natural Heritage, that the highest scientific standards are applied in the selection and consideration of sites of special scientific interest.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much he estimates will be raised from standard community charges on empty properties and second homes in Scotland in 1992–93.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1992]: Such estimates are calculated from returns made by local authorities. These have not yet been received for 1992–93.

  Foresterhill Hospital
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what authority the Foresterhill hospital NHS trust may issue press releases under the name of Mr. Reid, public relations officer of Grampian health board, purporting to be on behalf of the trust, prior to 1 April.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: Article 7 of the Foresterhill Hospitals National Health Service Trust (Establishment) Order 1991.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: The Scottish Office has 95 data information systems holding personal data and all are registered under the Data Protection Act 1984. The Department complies with the data protection principles in relation to this information which is required to carry out effectively the business of the Department.

  None of these data information systems is linked to the police national computer nor directly to any other computer systems, with the exception of a link to the Government payroll centre at Chessington for staff payroll purposes.

  Building Security
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what total central and local government assistance has been given to Govan Initiative for its secure communities project; and if he will break that figure down to show the expenditure on business premises and housing respectively.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1992]: Total support through the urban programme for the secure communities project has been set at £910,000, 75 per cent. of which is met by the Scottish Office and 25 per cent. by Strathclyde regional council and Glasgow district council.

  No breakdown of this figure on the basis requested is available, but I understand that, to date, £172,000 and £117,000 have been spent on housing and business premises, respectively.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is able to offer Govan Initiative additional financial assistance towards creating secure entry systems in high-rise flats.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1992]: Funding of secure entry systems in high flat housing is included in the secure communities project, which is funded under the urban programme. No application was received, in the current round of urban programme bids, for additional funding assistance, towards secure entry systems.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many residential properties owned by his Department are(a) empty, (b) for sale on the open market, (c) intended for sale on the open market and (d) for sale to housing associations in terms of numbers and percentage of stock.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 March 1992]: The information requested is as follows:
  657

  Number

  per cent.

  (a) 268

  12.85

  (b) 55

  2.64

  (c) 110

  5.27

  (d) 6

  0.29

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local enterprise company and in total, the composition of boards, broken down by(a) gender, (b) ethnicity, (c) industrial sector and (d) non-private sector representation broken down by (i) local authority (except education), (ii) local authority education, (iii) other education, (iv) trades unions, (v) voluntary sector, (vi) health employer organisations, (vii) ethnic minority organisations and (viii) others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: At least two thirds of the board members of local enterprise companies are required to be drawn from the private sector. Subject to that requirement, individual appointments are for the local enterprise companies themselves. Board membership is listed in the published summaries of the companies' business plans.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the budgets of each local enterprise company broken down by(a) adult training, (b) youth training, (c) economic development, (d) environment, (e) local initiatives and (f) management.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: The responsibility for making allocations to local enterprise companies lies with Scottish Enterprise. I understand that the amounts available to local enterprise companies for their adult and youth training blocks in 1992–93 were notified to them last month; and that they were informed of the allocations for 1992–93 for the remainder of their activities earlier this week.

  The total budgets of local enterprise companies will also depend on the availability of funds from sources other than Scottish Enterprise, including the European Community.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Merchant Navy Funds
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to the accounts and assets of(a) the Merchant Navy ratings pension fund and (b) the Merchant Navy war memorial fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the accounts and assets of the organisations concerned rests with the respective trustees who have a fiduciary duty to act at all times in the interests of all the beneficiaries under the trusts.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer of 2 April 1990,Official Report, columns 490–91, regarding expenditure by his Department, to include 1991–92.
  658
  Miss Widdecombe
  Department of Social Security spending, in cash and real terms and as a percentage of central Government spending, is given in the table.

  Year

  Expenditure (cash) £ million

  Expenditure (1991–92 prices) £ million

  Central Government spending(cash) £ million

  Percentage of Central Government spending per cent

  1979–80

  19,416

  45,143

  77,600

  25.0

  1983–84

  35,159

  56,205

  120,400

  29.2

  1987–88

  48,771

  64,613

  142,610

  34.2

  1989–90

  52,182

  60,572

  162,764

  32.1

  1991–92

  65,116

  65,116

  205,000

  31.8

  Notes:

  1. 1991–92 figures are estimated outturn.

  2. Figures for 1979–80 and 1983–84 are based on the old planning total; those for 1987–88 onwards are based on the new planning total.

  3. The percentage of central Government spending for 1991–92 is reduced largely as a result of the transfer of rent rebate expenditure in England and Wales to the Department of the Environment and Welsh Office programmes.

  Benefit Rules
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many existing claimants of income support in(a) the Monmouth constituency, (b) Cwmbran Department of Social Security office, (c) Gwent and (d) Wales will be afforded transitional protection when the 16-hour rule is introduced;

  (2) how many of the income support claimants who will get transitional protection are ineligible for family credit because they have no dependent children;

  (3) what is his estimate of the reduction in registered unemployment in the Monmouth constituency which will result from the introduction of the 16-hour rule.

  Mr. Jack
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that information showing the number of claimants entitled to protection in particular geographical areas is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Neither is it possible to say what impact the hours change may have on registered unemployment in any specific area.

  We estimate that, nationally, around 45,000 families with children and 15,000 people without children are working between 16 and 24 hours a week and receiving income support. All of them will be entitled under special protection rules to continue receiving income support from April when the 16 hours rule is introduced. Of the families with children, about 30,000 are expected to be better off on family credit and so may choose to claim that benefit instead of income support.

  Widows
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the assistance and benefit available to widows.

  Mr. Jack
  Widow's payment, widowed mother's allowance and widow's pension are available, according to circumstances, to widows aged under 60 years of age whose late husbands had met the appropriate national insurance contributions conditions. Widows aged 60 or over are in most circumstances entitled to a contributory retirement pension based upon the late husband's national
  659
  insurance contribution record. Both widowed mother's allowance and basic retirement pension can attract a dependency increase for children.

  My hon. Friend may like to know that the estimated expenditure on these benefits in 1991–92 is £983 million.

  Under the war pensions scheme administered by the Department, war widows pensions are available, in the main, to widows of men whose deaths were due to or substantially hastened by service in the armed forces, whether in war or peacetime; additions are also payable for dependent children. These pensions are paid at preferential rates.

  Further information can be found in DSS Leaflets NP45, MPL 152 and MPL 154; I will send copies to my hon. Friend.

  In addition other social security benefits are available to widows who make a claim and satisfy the necessary conditions for the award of the benefit and these include child benefit and income-related benefits.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will rework the table shown as figure 20—"Marginal net income deduction rates"—in his Department's published plan for 1992–93 in the light of the present proposals for council tax benefit tapers; and if he will publish the results in a similar fashion.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The numbers with marginal net income deduction rates calculated for benefit units in receipt of income-related benefits, where at least one partner works 24 hours a week and where council tax benefit replaces community charge benefit are as follows:

  Percentage

  1991–92 Thousands

  100 and above

  0

  90 and above

  55

  80 and above

  220

  70 and above

  390

  60 and above

  395

  50 and above

  395

  Note: Estimates are cumulative and rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Source: Projections based on the 1987 and 1988 Family Expenditure Surveys, and are not directly comparable to Figure 20 in the Departmental Report, which is based on Family Expenditure Surveys for 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what conditions need to be fulfilled by participants in the employment training scheme to be able to claim in-work benefits including family credit; if he will explain what conditions the scheme has had to satisfy so that participants are able to make successful claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Participants in the employment training scheme can claim housing benefit if they are liable for rent and community charge benefit if they are liable for the full personal community charge in the same way as any other person. To claim family credit the claimant, or his partner, must be in remunerative work of at least 24 hours a week 16 hours a week from 7 April and responsible for at least one child. For family credit purposes the employment training scheme counts as remunerative work only if the participant has employee status. Under the terms of their 660
  contracts with the Employment Department, training and enterprise councils are responsible for ensuring that trainees are informed of their status while undergoing training.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of youngsters between 16 years and 18 years of age whose parents claim child benefit for them in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The following information has been compiled from table G1.06, formerly table 30.36, of "Social Security Statistics". The table gives the estimated numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds for whom child benefit was in payment at 31 December in each year. This includes those in full-time non-advanced education and those who have left such education but for whom child benefit is still payable.

  Thousands

  1981

  1,012

  1982

  1,005

  1983

  967

  1984

  939

  1985

  924

  1986

  913

  1987

  925

  1988

  956

  1989

  952

  1990

  961

  1991

  1n.y.a.

  1 Not yet available.

  Students Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter or remove the access to income support and housing benefit of students who take a year out from their studies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Students who temporarily suspend their studies should normally look to the education system for support. Those in vulnerable groups may qualify for income support and housing benefit. We have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there is a full social fund section service in every benefit office in every benefit agency district.

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

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support are aged(a) 18, (b) 19, (c) 20, (d) 21, (e) 22, (f) 23 and (g) 24 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.
  661

  Age

  Number of recipients Thousands

  18

  81

  19

  109

  20

  101

  21

  103

  22

  92

  23

  102

  24

  100

  Source: annual statistical inquiry May 1990

  Note:All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support who are responsible for mortgage etc. interest are aged(a) 18–19, (b) 20, (c) 21, (d) 22, (e) 23 and (f) 24 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Age group

  Number of recipients in thousands

  18–19

  0

  20

  1

  21

  1

  22

  2

  23

  4

  24

  4

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Number of claimants 0 denotes fewer than 499.

  Source: Income support statistics annual inquiry May 1990.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secetary of State for Social Security what proportion of claimants in(a) residential homes and (b) nursing homes have had their fees met in full by income support, discounting the personal expenses allowances, in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 10 March 1992]: The information requested is in the table.

  Fees met in full

  Year

  RCH Per cent.

  NH Per cent.

  1986–87

  79

  70

  1987–88

  52

  68

  1988–89

  65

  51

  1989–90

  61

  53

  1990–91

  61

  67

  Notes:

  1. Figures to nearest whole per cent.

  2. Figures for 1987–88 are based over three quarters.

  3. All other figures are based over four quarters.

  4. Source Quarterly Statistical Enquiries February 1986 November 1991.

  OPCS Disability Survey
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total gross cost of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey on disability in Great Britain at cash prices and at 1991–92 prices, respectively.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The total gross cost was £2.47 million at cash prices and £3.62 million at 1991–92 prices.

  Tax and Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for a lone mother with two children aged four and six years under the benefit system based on upratings already announced for April 1992, and in each of the following circumstances(a) not working, after one year on benefits, (b) earning £20 a week from part-time working and (c) working full-time and earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110 and (vii) £120 per week.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The information requested is set out in the table. This takes into account the upratings announced for April 1992 in respect of family credit, child benefit, housing benefit, community charge benefit and income support, but all other data and assumptions are as for the published October 1991 tax benefit model tables.

  All tables of this kind are illustrative only and do not, except by chance, reflect the actual circumstances of the population at large. In particular, the hypothetical rents used do not reflect the wide range of housing costs individuals may pay. But the tables do indicate that, as a result of successive improvements in the tax and social security systems, it is now almost impossible for someone to be worse off as a result of an increase in gross pay.

  Lone parent with two children aged 4 and 6

  £

  (a) not working, after one year on benefit

  Income support

  67.57

  Child benefit

  23.30

  Rent rebate

  26.03

  Community charge benefit

  3.76

  Total net income

  120.66

  Income after rent and community charge

  89.93

  (b) earning £20 per week from part-time earnings

  Income support

  62.57

  Child benefit

  23.30

  Rent rebate

  26.03

  Community charge benefit

  3.76

  Earnings

  20.00

  Total net income

  135.66

  Net income after rent and community charge

  104.93

  Notes:

  1. Child benefit includes one parent benefit.

  2. Net income after rent and community charge includes the notional value of free school meals and welfare foods.
  663

  Lone parent with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Tax threshold=£96.44

  Basic Tax rate=25 per cent.

  Total net income on Income Support=£120.66

  Net income after Rent and Community Charge on Income Support = £89

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Gross earnings

  60.00

  70.00

  80.00

  90.00

  100.00

  110.00

  120.00

  Tax

  .00

  .00

  .00

  .00

  .89

  3.39

  5.89

  N.I.

  1.76

  2.66

  3.56

  4.46

  5.36

  6.26

  7.16

  Take home pay

  58.24

  67.34

  76.44

  85.54

  93.75

  100.35

  106.95

  Family credit

  61.80

  61.28

  54.91

  48.54

  42.79

  38.18

  33.55

  Child benefit

  23.30

  23.30

  23.30

  23.30

  23.30

  23.30

  23.30

  Rent rebate

  8.55

  2.97

  1.20

  .00

  .00

  .00

  .00

  Community Charge benefit

  .00

  .00

  .00

  .00

  .00

  .00

  .00

  Total net income

  151.89

  154.89

  155.85

  157.38

  159.84

  161.83

  163.80

  Rent

  26.03

  26.03

  26.03

  26.03

  26.03

  26.03

  26.03

  Community Charge

  4.70

  4.70

  4.70

  4.70

  4.70

  4.70

  4.70

  Net income after Rent and Community Charge

  121.16

  124.16

  125.12

  126.65

  129.11

  131.10

  133.07

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables, similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for each of a single wage married couple(a) with two children aged four and six years and (b) with three children aged three, eight and 11 years earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110, (vii) £120, (viii) £130, (ix) £140, (x) £150, (xi) £160 and (xii) £170 under the benefit system taking account of the upratings already announced for April 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The information requested is set out in the table. This takes

  Married couple with two children aged 4 and 6

  Gross earnings (£S)

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Community charge

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  60.00

  0.00

  1.76

  58.24

  61.80

  17.45

  26.03

  11.41

  9.40

  4.15

  153.05

  117.62

  70.00

  0.00

  2.66

  67.34

  61.28

  17.45

  26.03

  5.83

  9.40

  2.86

  154.76

  119.33

  80.00

  0.00

  3.56

  76.44

  54.91

  17.45

  26.03

  4.06

  9.40

  2.45

  155.31

  119.88

  90.00

  0.00

  4.46

  85.54

  48.54

  17.45

  26.03

  2.28

  9.40

  2.04

  155.85

  120.42

  100.00

  0.89

  5.36

  93.75

  42.79

  17.45

  26.03

  0.68

  9.40

  1.67

  156.34

  120.91

  110.00

  3.39

  6.26

  100.35

  38.18

  17.45

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  1.37

  157.35

  121.92

  120.00

  5.89

  7.16

  106.95

  33.55

  17.45

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  1.08

  159.03

  123.60

  130.00

  8.39

  8.06

  113.55

  28.93

  17.45

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.78

  160.71

  125.28

  140.00

  10.89

  8.96

  120.15

  24.31

  17.45

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.48

  162.39

  126.96

  150.00

  13.39

  9.86

  126.75

  19.69

  17.45

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.19

  164.08

  128.65

  160.00

  15.89

  10.76

  133.35

  15.08

  17.45

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.00

  165.88

  130.45

  170.00

  18.39

  11.66

  139.95

  10.46

  17.45

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.00

  167.86

  132.43

  Married couple with three children aged 3, 8 and 11

  Gross earnings(£'s)

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home Pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Community charge

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  60.00

  0.00

  1.76

  58.24

  79.05

  25.25

  26.03

  9.04

  9.40

  3.60

  175.18

  139.75

  70.00

  0.00

  2.66

  67.34

  78.53

  25.25

  26.03

  3.46

  9.40

  2.31

  176.89

  141.46

  80.00

  0.00

  3.56

  76.44

  72.16

  25.25

  26.03

  1.69

  9.40

  1.90

  177.44

  142.01

  90.00

  0.00

  4.46

  85.54

  65.79

  25.25

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  1.49

  178.07

  142.64

  100.00

  0.89

  5.36

  93.75

  60.04

  25.25

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  1.12

  180.16

  144.73

  110.00

  3.39

  6.26

  100.35

  55.43

  25.25

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.83

  181.86

  146.43

  120.00

  5.89

  7.16

  106.95

  50.80

  25.25

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.53

  183.53

  148.10

  130.00

  8.39

  8.06

  113.55

  46.19

  25.25

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.23

  185.22

  149.79

  140.00

  10.89

  8.96

  120.15

  41.56

  25.25

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.00

  186.96

  151.53

  150.00

  13.39

  9.86

  126.75

  36.95

  25.25

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.00

  188.95

  153.52

  160.00

  15.89

  10.76

  133.35

  32.33

  25.25

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.00

  190.93

  155.50

  170.00

  18.39

  11.66

  139.95

  27.71

  25.25

  26.03

  0.00

  9.40

  0.00

  192.91

  157.48

  664
  into account the upratings announced for April 1992 in respect of family credit, child benefit, housing benefit, community charge benefit and income support, but all other data and assumptions are as for the published October 1991 tax benefit model tables.

  All tables of this kind are illustrative only and do not, except by chance, reflect the actual circumstances of the population at large. In particular, the hypothetical rents used do not reflect the wide range of housing costs individuals may pay. But the tables do indicate that, as a result of successive improvements in the tax and social security systems, it is now almost impossible for someone to be worse off as a result of an increase in gross pay.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the level of gross earnings in April 1992 taking into account upratings already announced for that time at which(a) a single householder, (b) a married couple and (c) a single parent with one child, aged three years, will lose in housing benefit, assuming full take-up of family credit, average rent and rates and other assumptions, as in his reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), Official Report, 1 December 1987, column 566.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The information requested is set out in the table. This takes into account the upratings announced for April 1992 in respect of family credit, child benefit, housing benefit, community charge benefit and income support, but all other data and assumptions are as for the published October 1991 tax benefit model tables.

  All tables of this kind are illustrative only and do not, except by chance, reflect the actual circumstances of the population at large. In particular, the hypothetical rents used do not reflect the wide range of housing costs individuals may pay. For these examples, the rents are as follows:

  Single person: £22 a week.

  Married Couple: £26 a week.

  Lone Parent with one child aged three: £24.

  Family type

  Gross earnings at which housing benefit is lost(£ per week)

  Gross earnings at which community charge is lost(£ per week)

  Single Parent

  92.00

  80.00

  Married Couple

  123.00

  150.00

  Lone Parent with one child aged three

  185.00

  62.00

  1 Assumes Child Benefit of £9.25. One Parent Benefit of £5.85 and Family Credit of some £41.00 a week are in payment, in addition to Gross Earnings above, which would provide a total gross income of £141.50.

  2 Assumes Child Benefit of £9.65, One Parent Benefit of £5.85 and Family Credit of some £51 a week are in payment, in addition to gross earnings above.

TRANSPORT

  Road Improvement Programme
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost to his Department's road improvement programme of the increase in VAT from 15 per cent. to 17.5 per cent.

  Mr. Chope
  It is estimated that, in 1991–92 total expenditure on VAT of £212 million will be incurred on section A (national roads system: capital—new construction and renewal) of the national roads, England, vote. This is expected to be offset by recoveries of £79 million.

  Shipping Industry
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the amount of money allocated by his Department for the Government assistance for training 666
  scheme in the shipping industry in each financial year since 1988–89; and whether the allocated amount was duly spent in each of the above years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The money allocated by the Department for GAFT since the commencement of the scheme in 1988 is as follows:

  Year

  Allocation £ million

  Spend £ million

  1988–89

  2.5

  0.847

  1989–90

  3.5

  1.756

  1990–91

  3.5

  2.342

  1991–92

  2.754

  12.665

  1 To date.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of what proportion of the total allocation for the Government assistance for training scheme in the shipping industry has gone towards(a) officer cadet recruitment and (b) financial assistance for existing officers to upgrade their qualifications, in each financial year since 1988–89.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The proportion of expenditure on officer cadet recruitment and higher grade certificates is as follows:

  Year

  Amount £

  Per cent.

  (a) Cadet recruitment

  1988–89

  612,000

  24.5

  1989–90

  1,084,000

  31.0

  1990–91

  1,572,000

  44.9

  1991–92 (to date)

  2,064,000

  74.9

  (b) Higher grade certificates

  1988–89

  94,000

  3.76

  1989–90

  490,000

  14.0

  1990–91

  457,000

  13.1

  1991–92 (to date)

  418,000

  15.2

  The remaining amounts being accounted for by publicity for the scheme in 1988–91 and the co-ordinating agents fees.

  Cycling
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authorities which included cycle schemes in their application for transport supplementary grant.

  Mr. Chope
  The following local highway authorities included cycling-schemes in their transport policy and programme statements for 1992–93:

  Berkshire

  East Sussex Hampshire

  Isle of Wight

  Oxfordshire

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  Avon

  Devon

  Gloucestershire

  Wiltshire

  Birmingham

  Solihull

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Bolton

  667

  Manchester

  Oldham

  Salford

  Stockport

  Trafford

  Wirral

  Cumbria

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Durham

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  Sheffield

  Leeds

  Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Brent

  Camden

  Croydon

  Enfield

  Greenwich

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Haringey

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kingston upon Thames

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Merton

  Newham

  Redbridge

  Number of passengers involved in injury accidents on the railways and buses and coaches: Great Britain 1990

  Killed (fatal)

  Seriously injured (major injury)

  Slight (minor injury)

  Total

  Railways

  Train accidents

  0

  13

  144

  157

  Movement accidents

  37

  107

  2,551

  2,695

  Sub-total

  37

  120

  2,695

  2,852

  Non-movement accidents

  2

  104

  3,543

  3,649

  Total

  39

  224

  6,238

  6,501

  Buses and coaches

  16

  721

  8,555

  9,292

  Notes:

  Train accidents are accidents to trains and rolling stock.

  Movement accidents are accidents to people caused by the movement of rail vehicles, other than train accidents. The largest types of incident are falls from trains and from platforms. (The sum of train and movement accidents would be the equivalent of the accidents to passengers in buses and coaches).

  Non-movement accidents are accidents to people on railway premises not connected with the movement of rail vehicles (eg slipping on staircases etc.).

  For definitions of railway casualties see the Railways (Notice of Accidents) Order 1986; and for definitions of casualties on buses and coaches see Road Accidents Great Britain 1990.

  Buses and Coaches
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of buses and coaches involved in road accidents in 1990.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The total number of buses and coaches involved in injury road accidents in 1990 was 12,200.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of buses and coaches failed their MOT test at the first attempt in the year 1990–91.
  668

  Southwark

  Sutton

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  European Community
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what transport measures he intends to pursue with the European Commission and Parliament during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community Council of Ministers and the United Kingdom chairmanship of the European Council of Transport Ministers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Our top priority during the United Kingdom presidency will be the transport measures necessary to complete the single market. We also expect to deal with transport infrastructure issues; transport external relations; and transport and the environment. Those are the issues which we intend to pursue with the European Commission and Parliament.

  Passenger Deaths and Injuries
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will tabulate for 1990 the number of passengers(a) killed, (b) seriously injured or (c) less seriously injured on (1) British Rail and (2) buses and coaches.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is given in the table. Information on railway passenger accidents is contained in the annual report on railway safety, copies of which are in the House Library. There are no separate figures for British Rail as the statistics for injuries relate to all railways.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Thirty-five per cent. of public service vehicles, which account for the great majority of buses and coaches, failed the public service vehicle roadworthiness test in 1990–91.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total fuel duty rebate available to buses and coaches for the fiscal year 1991–92; by how much this has changed in percentage terms since 1986–87; and how this subsidy is communicated in his Department's statistics.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The forecast outturn for fuel duty rebate on local bus services in 1991–92 is £200 million, 55
  669
  per cent. higher than the outturn in 1986–87, reflecting increases in both mileage operated and the rate of duty. Figures for the rebate are given in "The Government's Expenditure Plans for Transport 1992–93 to 1994–95" (Cm. 1907) and in the statistical pubications "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1991" and "Bus and Coach Statistics Great Britain 1990– 91".

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the allocation of resources for measures to promote bus use in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to announce the allocation of £200,000 of supplementary credit approvals in 1992–93 for bus priority measures in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. Further allocations will be considered in 1993–94.

  Marchioness Inquiry
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the name and qualifications of any assessor appointed to assist Mr. Hayes in his inquiry into the Marchioness disaster; if he will indicate the manner in which that inquiry will receive representations and conduct its business; and if it will be in public.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Mr. Hayes has two advisors assisting him with his inquiry. His safety advisor is Mr. Mike Henderson, who is the site manager of the north Tees works of ICI Petrochemicals. He is a chartered engineer, a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and a member of the Institute of Petroleum. Captain Nic Rutherford is the inquiry's marine advisor, and is retired, after a seagoing career with BP. He is a past master of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, and is a former general secretary of the International Federation of Ship Masters Associations. He has been assessor for the Court of Appeal and the Admiralty court.

  The inquiry is not being held in public. Mr. Hayes has sought written submissions from interested parties and individuals and has invited interested parties and individuals to offer oral evidence to the inquiry. The precise conduct and form of the inquiry are a matter for Mr. Hayes.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will add to the list of incidents to be considered by the Hayes inquiry into the Marchioness disaster the collision of the dredger Bowtrader with the northern terminal of the Woolwich free ferry on 30 January 1988.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I shall be pleased to draw this incident to the attention of Mr. Hayes.

  Vehicle Ownership
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the figures for vehicle ownership in Greater London for each year since 1980; and what his projections are for the future.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:
  670

  Currently Licensed Vehicles with Registered Keeper in Greater London

  Year

  Number Thousands

  1980

  2,387

  1981

  2,410

  1982

  2,449

  1983

  2,493

  1984

  2,547

  1985

  2,583

  1986

  2,628

  1987

  2,653

  1988

  2,737

  1989

  2,796

  1990

  2,831

  My Department does not forecast the total number of vehicles in Greater London. However, provisional estimates for 1990, the latest year for which figures are available, show that the proportion of households in Greater London with one car was 42 per cent. and with two cars or more, 19 per cent. It is forecast that by the year 2001, car ownership in Greater London will increase to between 64 and 68 per cent. of households.

  London Regional Office
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the budget and forecast actual expenditure for 1991–92 and 1992–93 of his Department's London regional office.

  Mr. Chope
  Expenditure under the roads vote for 1991– 92 is forecast at £202.5 million against an April 1991 budget of £208.6 million. The budget for 1992– 93 is £241 million.

  Passenger Journeys
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will tabulate in percentage terms for each of the last five years the number of passenger journeys outside London undertaken(a) by bus and coach and (b) by British Rail.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Passenger journeys by British Rail are not available by area.

  Figures for local bus services outside London are available in "Bus and Coach Statistics Great Britain 1990– 91", as follows:

  Local bus passenger journeys (million) Great Britain outside London

  Year

  1986–87

  4,179

  1987–88

  4,081

  1988–89

  4,001

  1989–90

  3,881

  1990–91

  3,654

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proportion of irradiated fuel flasks imported into the United Kingdom in(a) 1990 and (b) 1991, were monitored on arrival by (i) the radioactive materials transport division of his Department, (ii) the National Radiological Protection Board and (iii) employees of Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd and Nuclear Transport Ltd;
  671
  (2) how many consignments of irradiated fuel flasks were imported into the United Kingdom in (a) 1990 and (b)

  Mr. McLoughlin
  One hundred and eight irradiated fuel flasks containing power reactor fuel were imported into the United Kingdom during 1990 and 92 during 1991. Three flasks of irradiated research reactor fuel were also imported during 1991. All flasks imported into the United Kingdom by Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd. (PNTL) at Barrow are monitored by staff of PNTL or British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. before trans-shipment to rail. Flasks imported by Nuclear Transport Ltd. from Europe remain on their railwagon under a canopy and are not routinely monitored en-route. All flasks are thoroughly monitored before dispatch and on arrival at the reprocessing site. During 1990 and 1991 respectively, four and two flasks were monitored on arrival by the National Radiological Protection Board on behalf of the radioactive materials transport division.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the report prepared by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority with regard to a contaminated flask containing irradiated research reactor fuel from India which arrived in the United Kingdom on 30 January 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive fully reported on this incident in its statement of incidents at nuclear installations for the first quarter of 1991, announced in a news release of 2 July 1991. Release of United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority documents should be for the authority.

  Red Route (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the operation of the red route through the London borough of Islington.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 28 November 1991,Official Report, column 575. There has been very little correspondence since then.

  Rail Investment
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out(a) the level of investment by Network SouthEast in each year since 1962 at current prices and (b) the total operating grant paid to (i) British Rail and (ii) Network SouthEast in each year since 1962 at current prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 March 1992, c. 535]: The information is as in the tables.
  672

  Network SouthEast Investment(Capital and revenue)

  £ million at 1991–92 prices

  11982

  192

  1983

  181

  11984–85

  168

  1985–86

  162

  1986–87

  183

  1987–88

  305

  1988–89

  381

  1989–90

  414

  1990–91

  323

  31991–92

  380

  1 Network SouthEast was formed in 1986. Previous comparable figures are available only from 1982.

  2 1984–85 was a 15-month period. The figures quoted is the 12-month equivalent.

  3 Estimated.

  Source: Network SouthEast.

  (b)Grants paid to British Rail: 1969 to 1991–921

  £million at 1991–92 prices

  PSO grant2

  Level crossing grant

  PTE grant

  Other grants3

  Total

  1969

  512.1

  —

  —

  125.7

  637.8

  1970

  490.7

  —

  —

  95.6

  586.3

  1971

  462.1

  —

  —

  55.0

  517.1

  1972

  404.1

  —

  55.3

  452

  911.4

  1973

  506.6

  -

  63.0

  466.7

  1,036.3

  1974

  899.4

  —

  84.6

  -

  984.0

  1975

  850.8

  38.3

  99.4

  323.1

  1,311.6

  1976

  1,005.7

  35.3

  97.0

  152.6

  1,290.6

  1977

  1,009.3

  31.9

  112.9

  —

  1,154.1

  1978

  1,040.1

  32.3

  119.4

  —

  1,191.8

  1979

  1,101.0

  31.8

  126.4

  —

  1,259.2

  1980

  1,111.4

  32.0

  131.4

  —

  1,274.8

  1981

  1,328.1

  32.8

  120.4

  —

  1,481.3

  1982

  1,336.2

  32.8

  125.2

  —

  1,494.2

  1983

  1,337.0

  32.4

  130.1

  —

  1,499.5

  41984–85

  1,272.3

  28.8

  125.7

  —

  1,426.8

  1985–86

  1,161.4

  29.2

  110.8

  —

  1,301.4

  1986–87

  944.8

  27.5

  101.3

  —

  1,073.6

  1987–88

  989.2

  30.0

  102.8

  —

  1,122.0

  1988–89

  647.9

  27.9

  93.8

  —

  769.6

  1989–90

  568.2

  29.8

  106.0

  —

  704.0

  1990–91

  642.0

  30.9

  107.2

  —

  780.1

  51991–92

  900.0

  29.2

  129.0

  —

  1,058.2

  1 Grant is paid to British Rail as a whole. It is for British Rail to allocate it between sectors. British Rail did not receive direct Government grants prior to 1969.

  2 Prior to 1975, grant was paid under section 39(1) of the Transport Act 1968.

  3 This comprises:

  (1) Transitional freight grant—paid 1975–76.

  (2) Grant paid under Transport Grant Act to compensate for Government pricing controls—paid 1972.

  (3) Special grants—paid 1972–73.

  (4) Grant paid under section 40 of the Transport Act 1968 for temporary maintenance of surplus track and signalling—paid 1969–1973.

  4 1984–85 was a 15-month year. 12-month equivalents given.

  5 Department of Transport estimates.

  Source:British Railways Board annual accounts.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Rabies: Controls
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will veto any proposal by the European Community which would oblige the United Kingdom to dismantle or weaken its long-standing defences against the disease of rabies.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the future of controls on the movement of animals susceptible to rabies is currently under discussion within the Community. It would be premature to discuss negotiating tactics when no formal proposal has been made, but the Government will not support any measure which increases the risk that rabies might be introduced into this country.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. At first I thought that there was a certain amount of equivocation, but I am heartened by the last part of his reply. Does he agree that, despite the occasional inconvenience caused to a minority of pet owners, the present arrangements for the control of rabies have served the country well over the years and have spared the people of this country a certain amount of suffering? Does he also agree that it is for the British people, and the British people alone, to decide, through their representatives at Westminster, whether they are prepared to incur greater risks to their health and safety for the sake of some idealistic concept of easier movement across EC frontiers?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, our objective is to keep out rabies, not because of a fear of people being bitten, which is bad enough in itself, but because of the difficulty and enormous cost of dealing with rabies if it ever became established in our wildlife. If that were to happen, anyone exposed to a rabies susceptible animal would have to be treated at great expense and great inconvenience. We must recognise that we are a member of the Community. Much discussion is taking place, and we are of course prepared to look at any system of controlling rabies, but our policy is to keep out rabies.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we strongly support the Government's position on this issue? Apart from the risk element, the administrative aspect of the matter is one that gives great cause for concern. In the event of vaccine replacing quarantine, are supplies of the vaccine available freely in this country, or must they be obtained from other member states?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, on present information, it is unlikely that we shall be relying exclusively on vaccine, but if vaccine were to become the norm it would be freely available.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say something about the steps being taken to prevent the introduction of rabies-infected animals through the Channel Tunnel when it opens?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, Eurotunnel has implemented measures, agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to prevent the entry of rabies-susceptible animals while the tunnel is being built. Those measures include fencing, staged security zones, visual observation of openings in fencing and a system to ensure that any animal which is seen in the tunnel is reported. Ministry staff visit the construction site regularly to ensure that standards are maintained. There are full provisions in respect of rabies once the Channel Tunnel has been built and is in operation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us were encouraged to hear him say that the Government will not support any measures which would increase the risk of rabies in this country, but will that decision be taken by majority vote or do the British Government hold a veto on this matter?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not prepared to talk about using a veto. It would not be wise to talk in those terms at present. Such action would tend to lead to a member state's views being ignored in negotiation. We shall be arguing for the continued protection of our rabies-free status.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House about the strict measures that are being taken against rabies in other member states of the Community? How many people within the European Community have been bitten by an animal with rabies over the past 15 years?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, most European countries follow the WHO recommendations. There are many statistics, but it is generally assumed that in Europe the risk of a person getting rabies is negligible.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Government's robust attitude to rabies extend also to the various diseases suffered by domestic animals, such as cattle, on the Continent, which, if introduced here, could greatly damage our system?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot today answer questions about diseases other than rabies.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at the moment vaccination methods against a dog contracting rabies are not completely reliable? Does he also agree that as, uniquely in Europe, we have urban foxes in this country, a vaccination programme for wildlife would be ineffective, especially in view of the mass release of urban foxes into the

1431
countryside over the past few months, which, I am informed, is promoted and encouraged by animal welfare groups, including the RSPCA?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that the problem of urban foxes is not unique to this country. However, my noble friend is right to say that the densities are greater. We do not believe that we can rely entirely upon vaccination. It is just one measure. I have heard the allegations that urban foxes have been caught and released. We believe that that is deplorable and irresponsible, and probably rather cruel to the fox. Having said that, I can understand that people in a town would possibly want to remove a fox from their back yard. In general of course such foxes are well adapted to their own environment and are unlikely to fair well if they are removed to the countryside.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister clarify his answer to my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon? Will he say—I do not desire to give any offence to those with whom he is in negotiation—whether this matter, when it arises, will be subject to the veto process? When the decision is made—I am not prejudging the outcome one way or the other—will it be subject to the veto or will it be taken under the majority rule? Will the Minister bear in mind that the standard of enforcement of Community law in some countries tends occasionally to be patchy and that there is always the possibility of forged vaccination certificates?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have already explained that I am not prepared to talk about the use of a veto at this stage for the reasons I gave. I understand that compliance throughout the Community is variable.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, which animals in countries which suffer from rabies are the most likely to contract the disease and pass it on?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, all warm-blooded mammals can catch rabies and pass it on, but the ones most likely to do so are those in the habit of biting. They are more likely to be prone to what is called "furious" rabies as opposed to "dumb" rabies. Therefore, the risk of horses, cattle or sheep passing on rabies is remote.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the question of whether or not the vote will be unanimous is important? None of the other countries is an island as we are, and as a consequence their outlook is bound to be different. Therefore, unanimity is important if we are to preserve the protection that the moat has given us until now.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, of course I recognise the importance of the matter. The Republic of Ireland is part of an island and it supports our view. I shall not speak about how we are to negotiate on the matter. We shall keep an open mind on new science
1432
from which we may benefit in Europe. Meanwhile, we shall be interested to hear the ideas that the European Community brings forward.

Hard Boiled Eggs: NHS Rules
3.11 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are now able to relax the rule about the hard boiling of eggs in National Health Service hospitals so that patients wishing to do so can obtain an egg with a soft yolk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): No, my Lords, the Government's advice remains that vulnerable people such as the elderly, the sick, babies and pregnant women should consume only eggs which have been cooked until the white and yolk are solid. We expect all caterers, especially National Health Service caterers, to follow that advice.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that a patient recuperating in hospital would rather like to have a lightly boiled egg for breakfast, not one that is totally incinerated? One can have that kind of egg in this establishment, in Parliament. After all, these instructions were first introduced in July 1988. If it is still considered that there is a risk from salmonella, should not patients be advised to take their own supply of eggs into hospital with them? That would therefore relieve the NHS of any responsibilities.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, although the risk is probably small, I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish us to instruct managements to relax their vigilance or any precautions taken which are, or may be, necessary in catering for vulnerable people in their care. It is up to individuals to heed or to ignore government advice.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it also the case that one has to have a hard fried egg as well as a hard boiled egg? If so, what is the difference in the infection rates between soft boiled eggs and soft fried eggs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government's advice remains that any eggs which have not come from processed egg products and which are consumed should be cooked until they are solid.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it true that boiled eggs are available for Members in another place to buy at breakfast time? Can the Minister tell us whether there is any possibility of extending that facility to Members of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand it, Members of your Lordships' House are able to use the facilities in the other place.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether a hospital would be liable if a patient contracted salmonella at a time when he or

1433
she was more vulnerable? Is the Minister aware that it is much harder to turn out a soft boiled egg than a hard boiled egg?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the risk of a patient receiving a soft boiled egg from a hospital kitchen, at his or her bedside, is probably remote. Of course, hospitals are much affected by the removal of Crown immunity, which was lifted in 1986. So they are subject to inspection and, if appropriate, prosecution in the same way as any other catering establishment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that despite the slaughter of 2¾ million laying hens since 1988, at a cost to the taxpayer of £4½ million, the number of cases of salmonella enteritidis food poisoning in the first eight weeks of 1992 was three times the level of similar cases in 1988? Does that not indicate that eggs may not be the prime cause of salmonella food poisoning?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government introduced a full package of measures in 1988 to control the incidence of food poisoning which is known to have resulted from infection of eggs. The Government are keeping the various measures which are designed to safeguard public health under constant review. I confirm that the number of outbreaks in regard to eggs that have been reported to the Public Health Service Monitoring Laboratories at Colindale is 52 for 1991.
Lord Annan: My Lords, did I hear the noble Baroness correctly when she said that the Government give advice to all caterers not to serve anything other than hard boiled eggs? If so, is it not an intolerable intrusion on the rights of decent chefs? Moreover, a warm hard boiled egg is one of the most nauseating foods to eat.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed, my Lords. The Government issued their advice to apply to all caterers, both commercial and domestic.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this Question will run and run?

Uncorroborated Confessions
3.16 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in advance of the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, they will act to prevent accused persons being convicted solely on uncorroborated confession evidence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the considerable concern in the country at the number of wrongful convictions in recent years? Is there not a remedy which does not require legislation? Should not the Director of Public Prosecutions stop prosecuting in cases where there is a confession but a lack of corroborative evidence?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern about miscarriages of justice. That is why we have established a Royal Commission with wide-ranging terms of reference to see what changes should be made. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that miscarriages of justice are not confined to wrongful convictions. It is also a miscarriage of justice if a guilty person walks free. The task of the Royal Commission is to consider proposals, such as the one which the noble Lord suggests, in their proper context and in the light of the need to convict the guilty as well as to acquit the innocent of crime.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend explain to my noble kinsman that we all deplore miscarriages of justice? Cases where conviction has depended in part on confession and cases where it has not have always been such that there was bags of corroboration. Is that not worth pointing out to my noble friend?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I shall now point it out to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, if he has not already heard it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister agree that wrongful convictions represent a great tragedy? The innocent suffer wrongful imprisonment; the guilty escape. The police and legal services are discredited. In view of that, can the Minister give a reason why interim measures cannot be taken prior to the publication of the Royal Commission's report?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is simply because this is a serious matter. Uncorroborated evidence has been available in the past. If we wish to change that, we need to make certain that we change it in such a way that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are not convicted. We need to ensure that the innocent are not put in gaol and guilty people allowed to walk free. It is a difficult matter. That is why we have asked the Royal Commission specifically to examine it. To take action in advance of the report would be quite wrong.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there have been numerous cases where defendants committed serious criminal offences, made a confession which was totally uncorroborated, pleaded guilty at their trial and never for one moment suggested that they were not guilty of the offence with which they were charged? Would not this rather over-simple proposal mean that such people could not be charged at all?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is absolutely right. An even simpler example one could use is that of a case of murder where the principal prosecution witness is dead. If one is unable to convict on the uncorroborated confession of a person who has committed the murder, the person who has committed the murder would go free.

Northern Ireland: Interviewing of Suspects
3.21 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government the second Question standing in his name on the Order Paper:
Whether they are satisfied that the procedures for interviewing and interrogating arrested suspects in Northern Ireland comply fully with their obligations under international conventions.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): Yes, my Lords. Following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and others in 1988, the United Kingdom derogated from Article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as Article 15 of the convention permits it to do; and also from the comparable provision, Article 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The derogation, however, relates to the system of reviewing prolonged detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and not to arrangements for the interview of suspects per se.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does it not largely refer to matters dealing with detention for up to seven days? What response will the Government make to the representations already made by such bodies as Amnesty International, Helsinki Watch, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland and the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, most of my Answer relates to detention of up to seven days. I believe that the safeguards we have as regards those procedures are effective and comprehensive.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, as regards the interrogation of suspects, does the Minister agree that the recommendations of his noble friend Lord Colville that interviews with suspects should be videotaped—as the Minister knows, that recommendation was supported recently by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights—should be reconsidered by the Government and taken seriously?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we take those recommendations seriously. However, I do not agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, although I am aware of his views on this matter. The position remains that set out in the report of the Bennett Commission of inquiry into interrogation procedures in Northern Ireland which recommended that closed circuit television should be installed in the holding centres under the supervision of a uniformed inspector or chief inspector, but that video recording should not be introduced.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as regards the powers of arrest and detention, is not the Minister aware that a period of 48 hours is often too short? The RUC needs time for forensic tests to be carried out; hence the extension of detention. The Secretary of
1436
State must personally scrutinise every recommendation of the RUC before it is accepted. Is the Minister further aware that prisoners have often been trained to remain silent? If silence meant guilt, they might start to talk. We must consider that factor.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with both the points made by the noble Lord.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the oppression of suspects may well lead, and has been known to lead, to unreliable confessions?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I understand the question which the noble Lord asked. Earlier on in this exchange I was at pains to say that I believe the safeguards as regards holding those suspected of terrorist offences to be extensive and effective. However, I should add that under Section 61 of the Act that concerns emergency provisions the Government are now to introduce a new statutory code of practice on detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects in police custody. That will add a further safeguard. We have repeated several times our intention to appoint a new commissioner for the holding centres to monitor procedure there. I believe that will constitute an important additional safeguard in this complex and sensitive area of the enforcement of the law.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the Minister's first reply was reassuring as far as it went. Can he go a little further, however, and assure the House that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the procedures at the holding centres fully comply with the provisions of the convention against torture and cruel treatment? The Minister has referred to an undertaking given last year that a commissioner would be appointed to monitor the procedures at the holding centres. The Minister has just referred to that appointment. When will that appointment be made? Will the Minister tell the House the terms of that appointment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that the appointment of the commissioner will be made as soon as possible. To repeat what I have already said: the commissioner will monitor procedures, both administrative and legislative, which apply to the holding centres. The noble Lord asked me whether the safeguards that are in place as regards the holding centres comply with the requirements of our international obligations. I can confirm that that is the case. The range of safeguards already in place is more than sufficient to permit the United Kingdom to fulfil its international obligations, not least those which the noble Lord specifically mentioned.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, given that in Northern Ireland scheduled offences are tried without a jury, can my noble friend tell me whether a judge trying such an offence nonetheless has to direct himself in accordance with the rule of English law; namely, that he must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that oppression, or the converse, enticement to confess, has not been used in any case where the confession is admissible?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not a lawyer. If I stand corrected, I shall immediately write to my noble and learned friend and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House. However I am 99.9 per cent. certain that the answer to my noble and learned friend is yes.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, after the Third Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill I intend to make a statement about business for Monday. I expect this to be at about 4.30 p.m. but I shall ensure that as much notice as possible is given on the annunciator.

Business of the House
3.27 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the remainder of this Session.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private Business
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is the normal carry over Motion for private Bills before a dissolution.
Moved,
(1) That the promoters of every private Bill which is at present before this House have leave to introduce the Bill in the next Session of Parliament provided that notice of their intention to do so has been lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than 5 p.m. on Monday 16th March next;
(2) That a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages which they have reached, be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed;
(3) That every such Bill be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than twelve noon on the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament for business other than judicial business, with a declaration annexed thereto signed by the agent stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
(4) That the proceedings on any such Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session;
(5) That no petitioners be heard in the next Session before the committee on any Bill introduced in the present Session unless their petition was presented within the time limited in the present Session;
(6) That any instruction to a committee on a Bill in the present Session be an instruction to the committee on that Bill in the next Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
1438
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill
3.28 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Medicinal Products: Prescription by Nurses etc. Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Still-Birth (Definition) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Traffic Calming Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Cheques Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.30 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 9 [Inspection of certain schools]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 5, at beginning insert ("the effectiveness of the overall management of such schools, including").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to widen the scope of school inspection to include the overall management of schools. The Bill sets out—in Clause 2(1) for the HMCI for England, Clause 6(1) for the HMCI for Wales and Clause 9(4) for registered inspectors—the general duties placed on inspectors in reporting on inspections. Paragraph (c) of each subsection provides a duty to inspect the efficient management of financial resources in schools. However, if inspectors look only at that one aspect of schools management a distorted picture of the quality of management in a school could appear.
For instance, it may be the case that a school is judged to be financially efficient because it keeps within its delegated budget. If that efficiency is achieved through tight centralised control of the budget rather than through giving staff members budgetary responsibility for their curriculum areas it might be judged not to be effective management. Such financially efficient management could lead to a large turnover of staff, with staff leaving because they have not been given sufficient delegated responsibility and have not been able to obtain the kind of management experience they need in such a Stalinist and centralised school.
The amendment asks inspectors to examine the effectiveness of the overall management of schools and

1439
at the same time give a special place to inspecting schools' financial efficiency. We entirely accept that that is also needed and should be singled out.
At Report stage Amendment No. 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and Amendment No. 23 in the name of my noble friend Lady David, sought to widen the scope of school inspections to include aspects of the general running of schools. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred specifically to behaviour but his speech was also concerned with aspects of management excluded from inspections under the Bill. He rightly drew attention to the fact that while financial management is singled out, other aspects of management are ignored. He made particular reference to the management of human resources as well as the management of pupil discipline and arrangements for the pastoral needs of pupils. My noble friend Lady David went on to ask for inspections of the whole life of schools, beyond discipline and standards of behaviour to include such matters as the physical environment, staff/parent relationships and so on.
This amendment seeks to find common ground between the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the amendment of my noble friend Lady David. It widens the scope of the Bill to include inspection of staff management and development and the effectiveness of schools' organisation. It thereby prevents what we see as an over-concentration on financial efficiency by introducing the broader concept of inspection of the overall management effectiveness of schools.
It would be helpful in achieving consistent inspections across the country if that were on the face of the Bill so that all inspectors have a clear duty to inspect the overall management of a school. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we discussed these issues at some length at the previous stage on the basis of an amendment which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, helpfully indicated, stood in my name. The noble Baroness accurately summarised most of what I said but she did not summarise what the Minister said in reply. As what the Minister said seemed to be an entirely satisfactory response to my amendment I hope that the Minister will now repeat it and that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Part of the Minister's assurance which led me to withdraw the amendment was my noble friend's undertaking that the Government would press upon the inspectorate the importance of exactly the aspects of management to which the noble Baroness referred. If the noble Baroness is in a position to do so it would be helpful if, in withdrawing her amendment, she would tell the House that her party is also committed to a similar treatment of the matter.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I refer to something that has already been debated in your Lordships' House, but I was unable to be present during the Report stage of the Bill.
1440
It seems to me that in this connection the subject of catering could be mentioned. I do not know whether that subject has been debated, but I should like to ask the Minister whether it should not be part of the inspectors' duty to look at catering in a school. The amendment might cover that point.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, it has always seemed to me that one of the most important aspects of inspection is that it is very different in kind from a management consultancy. It does not look at the theoretical organisation of management but concentrates on the effectiveness of the delivery of what the management does in a school at the point where the education is delivered to the pupils or students. I should be very sorry indeed to see the words set out in the amendment put into the requirements for inspection.
It is my firm belief that if what is already set out in Clause 2(1)—which states that it should be the duty of the inspector to report on the quality of the education provided, the educational standards achieved, the efficient management of financial resources and the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils—is reported on, then the effectiveness of management has been reported on in the only way which is right and proper in the context of inspection. If a school or governing body wishes to have a report on management and the way in which the school is organised and structured and the way the management goes about its business, it should call in management consultants.
I know that my view is shared by all members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. It is the custom and practice of the inspectorate to comment on management only in so far as it can be measured at the point of delivery to the pupil. I hope that that will be maintained and carried forward under the new inspection arrangements. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on the assiduity with which she has pursued her aim of including the word "effectiveness" on the face of the Bill. This time she followed up the debate which I had with my noble friend Lord Elton at the last stage of the Bill in which, as he has just said, I argued that there is no need for the management policies or any other policies of a school to be singled out for particular mention since they will all form part of the inspection report on the school, and in particular the quality of education offered.
That was an interesting debate because it approached the matter from the right end. The primary concern of the inspection process is to investigate and report on what is seen, but we must make sure that its contributory causes—such as the effectiveness of management—are not ignored. I hope that I convinced your Lordships that such causes would not, and could not, be overlooked in inspection reports.
HMI focuses its inspection reports on what the inspectors see in the school. Inspectors look at the

1441
education—in its widest sense—being offered to pupils, and its observable effects. They then look for contributory causes, which are by no means all a reflection of the effectiveness or otherwise of the school management, and report on those. That is the process we have sought to reflect in very summary terms in the Bill as drafted.
If the noble Baroness would have us believe that this process is equally consistent with her amendment, I argue simply that we might as well keep the Bill as drafted, which is a closer reflection of the process we expect to take place. Our drafting makes plain that hard evidence will underpin all the inspectors' judgment about all aspects of the school and that concepts such as management efficiency, about which experts will argue for hours, will be built up from a basis of fact which is exposed for all to see.
The effect of overall management is evidently covered in all aspects of the inspection process. The need to maintain financial management is because, as we said earlier, it is not self-evidently part of the education and inspection process.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, believes that she is genuinely shifting the Bill away from that factual basis—that inspectors will be able to offer judgments of effectiveness against their own criteria rather than reporting factually on what they observe —she is offering us a dangerous shift in the Bill. I hope that on reflection she will not wish to press the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I thought her comment at the beginning a little snide. I am not concerned about whether or not the word "effectiveness" is in the Bill. I am concerned to ensure that all aspects of the quality of a school's work should be adequately inspected. It is perfectly possible that the amendment could have been worded slightly differently. It could have said:
"the quality of the overall management of such schools.
I find a little puzzling the fact that we should pick out efficient management of financial resources rather than take a more overall and broadbrush approach to the way in which a school is managed. However, at this stage of the Bill I have no intention of dividing the House on the matter. I regret that the Government are unable to accept the amendment. I believe that it would have ensured that all inspectors considered the question of how well a school is organised and managed, which is an important part of a head teacher's role and the senior management team working under the head. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Power of Secretary of State to require information]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall within two years of the date of Royal Assent publish proposals to—

(i) consolidate; or

(ii) consolidate with corrections and improvements in accordance with the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949,

those powers to which subsection (10) above relates".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention a misprint on the Marshalled List. In the last line, the figure (1) should be (10). It is an obvious misprint but I only discovered it when I arrived at your Lordships' House this afternoon.
The amendment arises from the answer given by the noble Baroness to Amendment No. 55 which was discussed on Tuesday at Report stage. I remember saying to her how helpful and interesting I found her answer. However, the consequence has been that both the main local authority associations have been in touch with me. They would like to know more about what the noble Baroness had in mind.
Noble Lords will recall that we discussed the question of whether there was a conflict between these information requirements and the more general information requirements in other legislation. In a very interesting way, the noble Baroness said that one would proceed to consolidation generally, which means also specifically with respect to information requirements.
For a few minutes this afternoon and purely as a probing measure, I want to find out whether the noble Baroness can tell us more about this matter and whether the department has considered the information with a view to consolidating the subject. It is a matter which very much concerns local authorities. They are also rather intrigued with the issue that I raised; namely, whether the department itself has any reason to believe that possible conflict exists or whether subsection (10) is there purely as a failsafe measure. That is the reason I raise this point. I do not want to delay noble Lords too much but I —and more importantly the local authorities—would like to know whether there is any more light that the department can throw on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, when we saw the amendment, we assumed that it was the academic curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which had led to it being tabled. I understand the concerns that he expressed on behalf of the local authorities. I hope that I can put his mind and theirs at rest.
I hope that I do not need to take up too much of noble Lords' time explaining the inadequacy of the amendment as a possible addition to legislation. Proposals for a consolidation Bill are a matter for the Lord Chancellor and are not a matter for any individual Secretary of State. It is not possible to consolidate a power or even a subsection. The object of consolidation Acts is to present the whole body of statute law on a subject in complete form. It would be entirely inappropriate to introduce such a Bill on a small topic within a large subject such as education. And it would be quite improper to try to fix the legislative timetable for a consolidation measure in the way suggested, rather than through the usual procedures which govern such decisions.
Given that the noble Lord wants to find out more about the plans for the consolidation of education legislation and to cover the areas of information to which we referred, perhaps not as clearly as he would have liked, at a previous stage, there is simply nothing

1443
more to tell. The case for consolidation has been accepted for some time and work is in hand to that end. But no decision has yet been taken about the timing of a consolidation measure. I can promise the noble Lord that such a decision will not be taken within the next four weeks. I must ask him to contain his impatience and perhaps take the message that there will be an announcement in due course, after we have been re-elected, when a consolidation Bill is ready and time is available. In the light of my explanation I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the addition she makes to my education in telling me how consolidation proceeds. I am glad to know about it. I do not wish to prolong the discussion. I understand her answer to be that at the moment the department does not see a major problem, which is partly what I wanted to know.
With the prospect of a change of government, we too would both reform and consolidate the education Bills. There is nothing between us on the subject of consolidation. I entirely accept that nothing can be done in the next four weeks on anything that happens in the real world. Having made those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 18, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in sub-paragraph (5) above shall be taken to apply to an employee of a local education authority whose connection with the school or any person specified in that sub-paragraph has arisen in the course of the exercise by the authority of its statutory functions".).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved a rather similar amendment and withdrew it at Report stage. This amendment approaches the matter from a slightly different angle. It seeks to prevent LEAs being excluded from carrying out inspections under the Bill as a result of carrying out their statutory functions. Paragraph 3(5) of Schedule 2 excludes from the team of inspectors people whose impartiality is in doubt by virtue of their connection with the school, with an employee of the school, a member of the governing body or the proprietor. It does not define precisely what "any connection" means and therefore leaves in doubt whether or not an LEA inspector who has been involved in advising or inspecting schools within the LEA would be treated as having had a connection and would prevent the person being involved in an inspection team.
The amendment argues that any LEA exercising its statutory functions should be presumed to have acted in a way that would not put in doubt the subsequent impartiality of its officers. The concern is to prevent partiality being argued against LEAs which seek to bid for privatised inspections. The problem arises because the registered inspector would have to consider partiality in respect of each member of the team. For example, an LEA in the past may have criticised a school. Let us suppose that its chief
1444
inspector now forms an inspection team which includes some of his or her colleagues to bid on behalf of the LEA for inspection at the school. The registered inspector, the LEA chief inspector, is under a duty to keep partial people out of the team. The subparagraph refers to "no person" taking part in an inspection, and so on. It is therefore unclear whether that includes the registered inspector himself. The chief inspector should be immune from having to consider whether the LEA's past view expressed through its officers prevents the participation of those officers. We wish some clarification on that point.
Some local authorities—it applies to the authority in which both the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I live—are setting up their inspectors under an agency arrangement so that they will be free to tender for inspections. We wish to know who will and who will not be excluded from that team. I should like some more general information too. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it is laudable that the noble Baroness seeks information on some points which may not be entirely clear. However, I wish to speak simply to the amendment.
I believe that it is a dangerous amendment. It is paradoxical that the Opposition should propose such an amendment when at an earlier stage it was anxious to ensure the independence of the inspection team from the governing body of schools and from the schools themselves. Indeed, many of us at a much earlier stage of the Bill were anxious that if the governors alone were to appoint the registered inspectors there could be a cosiness between the inspection team or some member of it and the governors; and a relationship might arise. At that stage I used the term "back-scratching".
I realise that this may not be the intention underlying the noble Baroness's amendment; I do not wish her to take what I say amiss. It would be a matter for disquiet if the Opposition sought to weaken the provisions guaranteeing the independence of inspection teams from the schools and governors of the schools. It would be a pity if the Opposition sought to diminish the distance between the inspection teams and the schools which they seek to inspect.
Let it be stressed that under the new Clause 15 local education authorities have powers of inspection outside the normal perennial cycle under Clause 9. In general there is nothing against an employee of an LEA being part of an inspection team under Clause 9 and Schedule 2 unless he has had a connection,
"of a kind which might reasonably be taken to raise doubts about his ability to act impartially".
I see no reason to modify that phrase in any way. It is very clear. Therefore why do we have the amendment?
One can conceive of cases—they may not be those which the noble Baroness intends to address—where an LEA employee has had a close connection with a school in the exercise of his statutory duties. He may have been an adviser of the school over a long period or served as part of the inspection team under Clause 15. It would be altogether inappropriate if he were also to be part of the inspection team under the quadrennial arrangements that we now discuss.

1445
The effect of the amendment would nullify the impartiality provision with regard to LEA employees. For that reason I believe that it is a dangerous amendment. However, I do not believe that the noble Baroness intended that effect.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, we discussed the issue at Report stage. I had hoped that I had managed to reassure her and to put on record the thinking underlying the Bill's provisions on impartiality of inspectors, and our views on how that might work in practice. I hope that I can now reassure the noble Baroness. My noble friend Lord Renfrew stressed that the determination is to ensure impartiality for the protection of the inspection. Therefore the amendment is unacceptable and probably flies in the face of all that has been said on this topic by both major parties.
One—though by no means the only—purpose of the impartiality provision in Schedule 2 is to rule out inspection by those who are closely identified with the work of the school through their previous advisory work. The need to split inspection and advice—not to put advisers in the very difficult position of having in effect to report on their own work—is a key element of our policy. It has also been thought, at least until now, to be the policy of the party opposite and is a central part of its most recent policy document.
As I hoped that I had reassured noble Lords on Tuesday, 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 in 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 registered inspector is placed under a specific duty to ensure that no member of his or her team has a connection with the school such as to call into question his or her ability to report impartially upon it. The registered inspector will have to be in a position to defend the impartiality of the team he has chosen when he submits a tender to the chief inspector; and I am sure that in the vast majority of cases the chief inspector will be able to decide on a common sense basis whether the Bill's requirements in this respect have in fact been met.
If an individual has given advice to a large number of schools throughout the authority, that might indeed suggest that they would be capable of acting impartially in relation to one of them. But if an adviser has formed a close relationship with one or more schools in the course of his or her duties, that might be less acceptable.
The test in the Bill is a straightforward one, and I cannot imagine a serious attempt to argue against the commonsense principle that inspectors should be impartial about the schools on which they report. We cannot accept an argument that the test of impartiality should not apply to anyone who just happens to be employed by an LEA, whether as teacher or adviser.
I am sure that professionals will try to be as impartial as possible, whoever employs them. But
1446
there is nothing about employment by an LEA which guarantees detached judgment and fairness in all cases.
Some LEAs already manage a clear separation of the functions of advice and inspection by employing staff as advisers to schools in one part of the LEA, and as inspectors of schools in the remaining part. Such an arrangement would be perfectly acceptable under the terms of the Bill, and I am sure that many more authorities will adopt it.
The need for inspection to be impartial, for reports to be fair and without bias, is a matter of common sense. It would simply not be right to allow those with a past close connection with a school to report upon it. There is no room for special pleading on that score.
I hope very much that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for further elucidation before I reply. At the end of my speech I stated that the registered LEA chief inspector is under a duty to keep partial people out of the team. The wording in the Bill refers to "no person" taking part in an inspection, and so on. It is therefore unclear whether that includes the registered inspector himself. Will the noble Baroness clarify that?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the registered inspector would be bound by his conditions of employment which would cover impartiality.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It has clarified the situation. The LEAs will better understand the position. I therefore have no regrets about putting down this variant on the amendment that I put down at Report stage. I thank the noble Baroness for that reply.
Now that the HMCI is in charge of the whole inspection duty, we may have more faith in the chief inspector's impartiality than the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has. Such provision makes all the difference. However, in the light of what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Schools Inspections]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 19, line 49, at end insert:
("(1A) An appropriate authority which has prepared an action plan in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above shall so far as practicable undertake the action proposed in the report within the period or periods therein specified".).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment on Report. It proposed that local education authorities should intervene to ensure that action plans were implemented. The Government were unhappy with the amendment because they considered that it would give too much power to local education authorities. I wish to make it clear that the purpose behind that previous amendment was not to increase the powers of local education authorities but simply to ensure that there should be some mechanism for making a school implement its action plan.
We have now tabled an alternative amendment which I hope will be more acceptable to the Government. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 specifies that the appropriate authority is under a duty to:
"prepare a written statement ('the action plan') of the action which they propose to take in the light of his [the inspector's] report and the period within which they propose to take it".
However, it is not stated in any part of the Bill that the appropriate authority has a duty to carry out the action plan that it has prepared. Therefore, it would be possible for a governing body, where that is the appropriate authority, to decide on a range of action and a timetable for carrying that out but to fail to do so. That would be rare, but it could happen. It could occur for a number of different reasons. For example, the action plan might be decided by the governing body at the end of its term of office. The new governing body, perhaps with a new chairman, might not agree with the action plan and decide to ditch it.
Alternatively, the governing body may feel that implementing the action plan will in the end be too expensive and will run the school into budgetary difficulties. For that reason it may chose to ignore it. Another possibility is that the governing body may have several inquorate meetings—I am afraid to say that that is a common occurrence in some parts of the country—and therefore may never be able to act on the action plan.
Since the legislation does not at present require the governing body to carry out the plan, nor does it lay down that any other body such as the LEAs or HMCIs must do so, no action might be taken to deal with the failure of the governing body to act on the plan. That appears to us to be a serious omission from the Bill. There is little point in having a requirement in legislation for an action plan to be drawn up if there is no requirement for it to be carried out. The amendment would ensure that the omission from the Bill was rectified by giving the appropriate authority a duty to carry out its action plan.
I assure the Minister that in moving the amendment, as with the different amendment that I moved on Report, our only concern is to ensure that there is adequate follow-up to an inspection and that improvements in the performance of the school take place. The amendment is about obtaining higher standards in our schools and I hope that the Government will be willing to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, at first sight this may seem an innocuous amendment. It is certainly a well meaning amendment. However there is a real risk that in the end it will prove counter-productive. It should be noted that subparagraph (6) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 also places on the governing body a responsibility to publish later in its governors' report what action has been taken under its action plan. I do not believe that the noble Baroness mentioned that provision. Therefore, even if there were a new governing body it would have the responsibility of publishing what action it had taken under the action plan of the former governing body.
1448
It appears to me that there is a real risk that the amendment will prove counter-productive in a literal sense. If a governing body knows that when it is formulating an action plan it will have a legal obligation to carry it out, and that therefore it will be in difficulty if it does not succeed in carrying out every element of the plan within the period of time which it has specified, there may genuinely be a tendency for the body to make a more modest plan with an extended period of time. In doing so it will be more confident that it will be able to carry out that action plan within the time that it has set itself. The outcome might easily be the formulation of more modest objectives and of longer time periods because the governing body would not wish to find itself in breach of the law in failing to carry out the plan which it would have a statutory obligation to carry out. For that reason this clearly well-meaning amendment might rebound in a manner which the noble Baroness does not intend and therefore I doubt its utility.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have built into the Bill an additional element of accountability for governors by requiring them to produce and to distribute action plans, and to report annually on their progress. That makes sure that parents will know what is planned to follow up the inspection findings and what happens as a result. Parents will have an annual opportunity at their open meeting with the governors to ask about the most recent plan and progress with its implementation, including any readjustments of priorities to take account of changed circumstances.
The amendment before us seems to take no account of this system, which is both open and flexible in its operation. The amendment would impose a direct duty upon the governors, once they had produced a plan and set out their timetable for action, to meet that timetable unless to do so proved impracticable.
But let us suppose that following the detailed plan simply proves inappropriate in the light of changed circumstances. The duty to implement the plan would still apply. Let us imagine that another situation has arisen in which urgent attention is required in another activity in the school for which it is entirely sensible to switch priorities. It could still be deemed practical to pursue the original timetable but not necessarily the most sensible or appropriate action. Again, that would not make good sense for the school. In such circumstances, we should soon find that action plans were being very carefully drafted to involve the minimum of specific plans and the maximum of general and unfocused enthusiasm for improvement. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Such plans would serve schools, parents and the whole community very poorly indeed.
It is also possible that the appropriate authority, knowing that it will be bound in law by a duty to meet a timetable, will be very cautious about time limits which it must undertake to meet. There is no flexibility in the amendment nor is there any mention of a sanction if the governing body does not meet the time limit. It would be in breach of the law. It would be against the law to go over the timetable by a day.
Of course we could get round these practical problems. We could require plans to be regularly

1449
updated. We could have a process of formal adjustment, by agreement with the chief inspector. But this is all entirely unnecessary. The position that I outlined at the start of my remarks—the openness of the plan and its regular and public review—should surely serve the need of the school.
My noble friend has touched on the matter but it was worth pointing out that the Bill not only requires the action plan but also a timetable and a period within which the appropriate authority shall take that action.
Amendment No. 49 tabled on Report by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, gave the LEAs powers to have access to a school where they had concern. HMIs have also retained powers to enter a school in addition to the regular four-year inspections. There are annual reports whereby not only are they required to discuss the action plan with parents but they must return to it each year and indicate the progress that has been made. Those requirements are also supplemented by annual meetings. It is the argument about duty and inflexibility versus what we all want—and as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, wants—namely, to make sure that action plans are produced, that they are realistic and that they build on the strengths and address weaknesses in schools. Governors will not be able to ignore their published plans nor will they be able to adjust them without good reason. However, over the course of a four-year cycle, they must have scope to revise and review their plans and to develop their thinking. I am sure that we have struck the right balance in that respect and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my experience of being a school governor over many years suggests that governors are not nearly as Machiavellian as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the Minister suggest.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend or I were suggesting that governors are Machiavellian. It is important to say for the record that if this amendment were accepted the governors would have no flexibility to do what is appropriate and sensible. They may need to extend the timetable slightly in order to do that. This amendment does not allow a governing body to act in a sensible and an appropriate way for the school.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I take the point about flexibility. Perhaps I misheard the Minister and the noble Lord but I thought that they were suggesting that governing bodies might adjust their action plans if they were under pressure to implement them and may be inclined to be rather less ambitious and less concerned to follow the recommendations made by the inspectors. I believe that that is a rather cynical view of governors. I do not believe that they are that Machiavellian, nor that they operate in such a way. Governors sometimes fail to do what should be done through what I would call the "cock-up" rather than the conspiracy theory; that is, that they are not sufficiently well organised to take on some of the responsibilities required of them.
I am worried that simply requiring governing
1450
bodies to report on progress in an annual report seems to be a rather weak way of ensuring that the action plan is implemented. I believe that the Minister is rather over confident in what she has said. However, in the unlikely event that the Bill is implemented, we shall watch with interest the progress which it makes and see whether the mechanisms in the Bill are sufficient to ensure that the action plans are properly implemented. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. We have had some eventful sittings during our consideration of this Bill, and we are finishing at an eventful time. The Bill has been subjected to open-heart surgery and, following a short period of attention, it underwent further treatment and the patient has been declared to be in robust health. The Bill leaves this House ready for implementation, subject to the final agreement of those in another place and is ready to take forward the Parent's Charter.
The main task of opposition has fallen upon the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who have been supported by a number of their colleagues; in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Glenamara, who occasionally offered valuable support by joining with us to oppose amendments which would not have been in the interest of the teaching profession. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lords, Lord Ritchie of Dundee and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, have, together with noble Lords on the Labour Benches, seen to it that all parts of the Bill were challenged. The debates have been lively, always courteous and of a high order, whatever disagreements there might have been about the content of the Bill. There is, I believe, a philosophical divide between us in that the Government would have devolved more responsibility to schools and governing bodies whereas noble Lords opposite would have left control with local education authorities.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, held strong views about the Bill, as indeed did other noble Lords, and he fought his corner with characteristic tenacity, with great courtesy and from a position of considerable experience, having worked with local education authorities. He has made the case for a restatement of a provision in another education Act of the role of LEAs on the face of the Bill and I am sure that the House will join me in thanking him for that. I only regret that my promise to bring forward such an amendment was not accepted by the noble Earl.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, who is not in his place, has also taken a great interest in the Bill. His sagacious advice during our deliberations on a variety of issues, but in particular on the sensitive issue of religious education, has been most welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has been instrumental in persuading the House—although I have to say the House succumbed readily to the case

1451
he made—that the spiritual, moral, cultural and social dimension of education should be made subject to inspectoral scrutiny. I was impressed with his case from the start and I am delighted that the appropriate form of words was agreed and now form part of the Bill.
I wish to record my thanks to my noble friends on these Benches. They have offered valuable support and constructive criticism, though not always agreeable to the Government; for example, from my noble friend Lord Beloff. However, no-one can doubt that the motives of my noble friend Lord Beloff are of the highest, and that is in the interests of high quality education. My noble friend Lord Elton has pressed his great eloquence for assurances on a number of points some of which are now either incorporated in the Bill or will be addressed subsequently as the Act is implemented. On those issues on which he was not so successful the debate will continue, and he has my assurance on that. I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Young, whose credentials in these matters are well known to the House, and Lady Perry, who has contributed to this Bill from her vast experience in the field of education and in particular as an HMI. My noble friend Lady Faithful] has once again ensured that the question of special needs has been fully examined. My noble friend Lord Renfrew has played a major role in filling a lacuna in the original proposals which he did very effectively. Even though his efforts were overtaken by the "ambush", his expertise has nevertheless added considerably to our debate.
I wish to thank my officials for the skilful way they have served my Front Bench team on this Bill. Finally, I thank my noble friend Lords Strathclyde who "kilted" the Bill with style, as only he knows how, and to my noble friend Lady Denton, who is making a very impressive introduction onto these Benches and has taken a considerable workload in her stride. Of course, I never doubted that she would and her assistance to me on the Bill has been tremendous.
Inevitably, I will not have covered everybody but I am very grateful to all who have contributed for the intellectual and good humoured debate we have experienced, which is in the best traditions of the House.
This is the Parent's Charter Bill. It sets the seal on the education reforms we have put in place over the past few years. Those reforms were designed to improve standards and quality in our schools. This Bill will give everyone, at every level, encouragement to ensure that the full benefits of the reforms are realised, and will demonstrate that achievement to parents.
The Bill will ensure the regular inspection of all schools to high standards set and monitored by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. It will require the publication of a full inspection report on each school, and make sure that each parent is sent a readable summary of that report. It will require governors to prepare action plans to follow up inspection, and to report regularly to parents on progress; and it will ensure that parents and others can compare the performance of all local schools in key areas of educational activity.
1452
The Bill is essentially about more and better information; not for its own sake, but because governors, teachers and parents need the best possible information if they are to play their proper part in improving educational standards. Professionals, governors and parents all have much to gain from this Bill and so, as a result, have all our children. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I regret that due to a long-standing commitment, I shall have to leave before the completion of the Third Reading of the Bill. The Chief Whip is looking rather surprised but he knows that the date of this Third Reading was brought forward with our agreement.
I thank all Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. In particular, I thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. They have been given the most unenviable task in this House in this Session in being asked to take through its various stages such a misguided and unpopular Bill. We all feel sympathy for them. They have done their best to defend the indefensible and to cope with the follies of their right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I am grateful to them also for their patience in dealing with such a large number of amendments at the Committee stage of the Bill. They accepted the amendments on which the Government were defeated in Committee and came back with further revisions to ensure that the purpose behind those amendments was reflected in the Bill and that the consequentials were all in place. We recognise that that entailed extra work for both noble Baronesses in a tight timetable and we are truly appreciative for that.
On the Government Benches I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—I see he is no longer in his place—for his independence and integrity in stating what he believes, and the spirited way in which he attacked the Bill. He has been much quoted, deservedly, because he always puts things in a pithy way—good sound bites I believe is the modern jargon—but also because he put his finger on what is wrong with the Bill. He and I do not always agree but on this Bill we are in almost complete agreement. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the considerable work he put in on the Bill. He managed to secure some improvements in the Bill through his amendments, improvements with which we agree and which we endorse.
On the Cross-Benches I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. He always brings to debates on education a quiet authority based on his long experience of schools and his work as an education officer. We on this side of the House greatly appreciate his contributions, and particularly value the way in which he handled the important amendment—Amendment No. 11A—that he moved in Committee. On the Liberal Benches I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who share our opposition to the Bill.
Finally, I come to my noble friends on the Front Bench, Lord Peston and Lady David. Without their

1453
enormous support I would have found tackling the Bill much more difficult than I did. I mention also my noble friends on the Back-Benches, Lord Young of Dartington—who all his life has been a champion of the consumer and of parents as consumers—and Lord Dormand who, like the noble Earl, also spent time early in his career as an education officer and has a great deal of experience and knowledge of the subject.
Many Members of this House and, more important, many people outside it who will be affected by the Bill if it is implemented, were delighted that the combined forces of the Opposition with Cross-Bench support were able to amend it so that two of the worst features of the Bill were removed. Schools will not now be able to choose their own inspectors. Local education authorities will be able to inspect schools in their areas when circumstances require it. Those are major improvements. However, I regret to say that in spite of those changes the Bill is still one of the worst pieces of educational legislation that has been brought to Parliament since the war.
We are still left with the absurdity of the privatisation of the system of school inspection, although now it will be slightly better regulated than before. We are still faced with a wholly untested system of private firms being set up to inspect our primary and secondary schools. At no time in the course of the Bill has the Opposition claimed that everything about the existing system of inspection is perfect; it is not. The Labour Party's longstanding policy is to place Her Majesty's Inspectorate under an education standards commission independent of Ministers, reporting to Parliament, who in turn would direct and advise on the work of local inspectors who would operate at arm's length from the local education authority.
It was deliberately misleading of the Secretary of State to claim, after the Government lost the amendments in Committee in this House, that it is Labour Party policy that all inspections will be on the basis of allowing local councils licence to inspect local schools. Incidentally, his claim that the amendments were sponsored by trade unions was utter tripe. I assume he thought that making the claim would in some way discredit those who tabled the amendments. I can assure the House that it does not.
The use of private firms as inspectors will not improve standards in schools; it will do the reverse. It will mean that people with insufficient experience and expertise will be let loose on our schools. There is also a serious danger that there will be insufficient funds available to allow high quality inspections at the kind of intervals that the Government claim they intend. That is why the major firms of management consultants who already do educational work have stated clearly that they will not become involved.
Finally, by including further requirements on schools to publish information under Clause 16, the Government are claiming to be implementing the Parent's Charter. There is a serious question of whether the clause is necessary as the 1980 and 1988 Acts already require the publication of almost all the information required in the Bill; only data on the destination of school leavers is a new requirement. We
1454
made clear that we believe that that data will be valueless. But our real anxiety is that league tables based on raw data alone will not provide the kind of high quality information parents deserve in a genuine Parent's Charter of the kind we want to see. Moreover, many parents will be misled and many teachers will be complacent, some even smug, when it is not merited, and others demoralised because their success in difficult circumstances goes unrecognised.
However, a general election has been announced. In just over four weeks' time, after a Labour victory, the Bill will be dead, buried and no more than an unhappy memory in a long chapter of unhappy memories we have had to endure since 1979.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to add a few words of appreciation from these Benches to all those who have taken part in the prolonged and interesting discussions on the Bill. First, I should like to mention the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Denton, whose clarity, coherence and courtesy throughout the Bill has been remarkable. Most remarkable of all has been their stamina. It has been required at a late hour in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion.
We have had many worthwhile debates and I should like to add appreciation for the work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady David, and the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Dormand of Easington, whose pugnacious sincerity is remarkable. I should like to make special mention of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. His contributions are unfortunately comparatively rare but their incisiveness and authority are in proportion to their rarity. My thanks go also to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has sat faithfully on the Front Bench also to a late hour and whose name has not yet been mentioned.
Your Lordships' persistence in scrutiny through long and weary hours and attention to detail is remarkable and has been exemplified in discussing the Bill. We, too, are pleased that we have achieved the two points already mentioned; first, an arm's length relationship between schools and their inspecting authorities, which is to be carried out by the chief inspector. As I remember, that was the purport of an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, which I moved at Committee stage. It is gratifying to know that it has substantially come back from the Government's hands. There is also the right of local education authorities to go into the schools and to inspect those for which they are responsible.
We too regret certain things about the Bill, particularly that the HMI annual report will no longer be based on its own inspections but on inspections carried out by other inspectors. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that what you have not inspected yourself you never know so well as that which you have. We also fear that too much time will be taken up with administration and monitoring the inspections of the registered inspectors which should have been taken up with their own experienced inspecting. They will be inspecting inspectors too much of the time.

1455
We also regret that the registered inspection teams will lack expertise, particularly the expertise to give continuing professional advice to teachers which is what the HMI has been able to do in the past. With its truncated numbers it does not seem that it will be able to do so in future. We also regret that the published league tables will not be modified by any value added or supplementary information.
I notice that in Clause 16(6) (c) the Secretary of State may command that supplementary information should be given by local authorities. I hope that it will include the kind of information that we have been seeking. We must hope that the education service will make things work and that somehow benefit will accrue from the more frequent inspections. We say goodbye to what has been described as the silliest Bill that has ever come before your Lordships' House. We hope that it leaves us a little less silly.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I will not follow other speakers in a long catalogue of comment on my colleagues' performance or in an analysis of the effects of this worthwhile Bill other than to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her kind remarks and to say that it was a pleasure, although a rare one, to find myself in agreement with her. Under those circumstances her eloquence is a great deal more persuasive than it is under others.
As a former Minister of State in the Department of the Environment I should remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lady Blatch is a Minister of that department and not of the Department of Education and Science. She has put in a most remarkable performance, as has my noble friend Lady Denton, in taking this not uncomplex and not uncontroversial Bill through this House with unconquerable competence and in the wake of formidable legislation on behalf of her own department. That is a matter of note and I congratulate both my noble friends.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I imagine that we all have mixed feelings about the passage of this Bill. Believing that it is overall not a good measure, I am glad that certain important changes have been made on the way. The key one of course is the choice of inspection teams: here I believe most people will think that common sense has prevailed. The establishment of an LEA's right to inspect its own schools is important no less for the messages it gives to hard-working professionals of experience and integrity round the country than for the principle that it secures. The Government's hostility to LEAs en bloc has come across fairly unmistakably, and I do not believe this is conducive to good decision-making. There are things to criticise, but there is much that is good at local level, too.
The Government's determination to provide information for parents is entirely right, and I think they can justly claim credit over the past 12 years for helping to change the climate of opinion in this particular. Over the methods of doing so we have argued in this Bill, and I sense some degree of
1456
convergence of views. I would be happier if I felt that the Government fully appreciated the danger of raw league tables, already referred to, for they can do a lot of damage which is not easily undone.
My main worry, which I put in question form at Second Reading, remains unanswered. It is the debate which we have never had. The assumption that the present situation in our schools calls for a massive programme of full inspections every four years rests on very shaky foundations. We need more information, yes. But the leap to what schools are now going to face is an example, I believe, of overkill on the grand scale. In a debate last May introduced by my noble friend, Lord Annan, who is not in his place, I do not think I was the only noble Lord who stressed that the pace of enforced change in the educational world was greater than any organisation could reasonably absorb. Evolutionary change is one thing, but change that is imposed is that much harder to digest—as well as frequently being less effective.
I would beg the Government to consider—they could even take soundings and consult in the way they have not done before this Bill—whether a four-year interval between inspections is really wise. An awful lot of precious money is involved, with an awful lot of time, and an awful lot of disruption. My own suspicion is that most of what the Government want to achieve, and what we all want to achieve, in monitoring and raising standards, can be done by reforms of a less elephantine nature. Previous inspection intervals were undoubtedly too long. Something like seven years may be nearer the mark. It may be, from what some noble Lords have argued, that the economics of the exercise will dictate some relaxation even if the Government do not.
It is not just a courtesy in this case to congratulate the noble Baroness the Minister on the way she has handled the Bill. We differed over most things, and she may not always have represented me correctly, so I am sure she will believe me when I express real admiration for her stamina, her readiness to meet serious argument with serious argument, and her willingness to concede some minor amendments where common sense suggested them. These all contributed, as she said, to some debates of high quality in which many of your Lordships took part. I enjoyed them all. I should add that the Minister was most ably abetted by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield.
Whichever government is returned in April I hope we may see a period when educational change is kept to a minimum and the need for consolidation is understood. I hope also that future governments will see the virtue of working with the educational profession and not against it, because that is the way that we shall see lasting improvements made.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Future Business
4.36 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the business for Monday. It is intended that the House should meet at eleven o'clock. After Starred Questions, we will proceed to the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Finance Bill, the Consolidated Fund (No.3) Bill, and the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. It is anticipated that proceedings on these three Bills will be formal though your Lordships will be aware that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill does provide, if noble Lords so wish, an opportunity for debate.
Thereafter, and assuming that the following Bills are received from another place, we shall proceed to take all stages of the Army Bill and the Friendly Societies Bill. Parliament will then be prorogued. It is at this time hard to say at exactly what time, but at present I believe it will be at some point in the early to mid-afternoon.
Finally, I anticipate that many of your Lordships will have detailed questions as to the domestic arrangements in your Lordships' House during the Dissolution of Parliament. Rather than attempt to spell these out from the Dispatch Box, I can tell your Lordships that a printed notice will be sent out from the House tomorrow, setting out what facilities will be available to your Lordships before Parliament meets again. Your Lordships should therefore be able to peruse that paper and make your arrangements at leisure over the forthcoming weekend.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
4.40 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 7 [Scottish Further Education Funding Council]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. At Committee stage I indicated that I might bring back this amendment at Report stage. I make no apologies for doing so. My intention is to make provision in the Bill which would commit a future Secretary of State to creating a further education funding council. At Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said that it would be inevitable that a future Secretary of State for Scotland would set up a further education funding council. I was happy with that. However, she will be aware that the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, Mr. Michael Forsyth, referring to this matter, said:
"I remain of the view that it would be a mistake to establish such a council".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/92; col. 306.]
That comment was made during the Report stage in another place and not, as indicated in previous
1458
briefings, at Second Reading. The implication is that Mr. Forsyth's comments were made after the Government had introduced the new clause into the Bill and does not suggest that the present Government were convinced of the merits of a further education funding council as it appeared during the course of discussions in Committee in another place. Despite the good faith of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we believe that a commitment should be written into the Bill to ensure that a funding council is established.
Amendment No. 2 is concerned with the question of the formation of a further education funding council. Amendments to the Bill were tabled at Report stage in another place in order to meet a commitment made by the Minister to allow for the establishment of a further education funding council. Because of the timescale imposed on consideration of the Bill, there was insufficient time for close examination of the new Clause 7. It is likely that all parties would wish to consider the correct duties and powers and membership of a funding council in some detail before it is established, rather than after. If the first amendment is accepted, this amendment commits the Secretary of State to full consultation before establishing a funding council.
We on these Benches are particularly concerned that while in England and Wales a further education funding council will have duties in respect of further education, those duties in Scotland are to be vested in the Secretary of State for Scotland. No clear explanation as to why this difference should be preserved was given at Committee stage. Given the timetable set for completing consideration of the Bill, it is essential that there should be scope for full consultation on such matters before a funding council is put into place. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it is a pleasure to return to this subject which we discussed at Committee stage. The noble Lord pressed the Government to make a decision on establishing the further education funding council. However, as I indicated then, and as the noble Lord appreciates, our approach is designed to ensure flexibility and is firmly supported by the college principals. I reiterate that view. Let us ensure the success of the colleges' new status before we consider the case for establishing a funding council.
Good progress is being made by the colleges in preparing for their new responsibilities and there is a momentum for change being established. The momentum would be jeopardised if we were to introduce a funding council into the picture. No date is included in the amendment for the establishment of a funding council, leaving the date of establishment still to be determined by the Secretary of State in an order made under Clause 7. In essence, that is no different from the existing provision. Inserting "shall" rather than "may" would only confuse the colleges of our objectives, and as I said earlier, our prime objective must be to ensure that the colleges smoothly take on their new responsibilities at 1st April 1993.
The noble Lord went on to explain his thinking behind Amendment No. 2. It is, of course, normal

1459
practice for all governments to carry out consultations before taking major decisions and the creation of a further education funding council would be no exception. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is saying to the House and to avoid any doubt I can give an undertaking that the Secretary of State would consult representatives of boards of management, education authorities, and others with an interest, before any order was made establishing a council. No such step would be taken unless there was clear support for it. In any event, the amendment as drafted uses terms which I understand do not fit into the Bill.
I hope that those assurances will give the noble Lord some comfort and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am very pleased that the Minister has been so specific on Amendment No. 2 and that we have it on record that there will be full consultation. I have never understood why there is such reluctance on the part of Ministers and their advisers, of whatever party, to refuse to have "shall" instead of "may".
The Minister has gone quite a long way in regard to Amendment No. 1, which calls for the establishment of a further education council and particularly on Amendment No. 2, which calls for consultation before the establishment of such a council. Knowing that he is a man of honour I am only too pleased to accept his statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Constitution and proceedings of boards of management]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 44, line 42, leave out ("ten nor more than sixteen") and insert ("sixteen nor more than twenty").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. This group of amendments seeks to make provision for at least two persons nominated by a local education authority to have a place by right on the board of management.
We on these Benches have consistently sought to make provision for two representatives of local authorities to have a place by right on college boards of management. An essential part of the suggestion is that the minimum size of the board needs to be increased to ensure that there is scope for local authority and other interests on the board, once the positions given by statute to employers, staff and students of colleges have been filled.
At Committee stage Government supporters indicated that their opposition to local authority involvement in boards of management reflected a concern that local politics would be drawn into the discussions of the boards. Clients of colleges appear, in the Government's view, to be employers and students only—and it has always been established in the mind of the party opposite, that employers, by some wonderful freak, are never political whereas
1460
local authority people always are. However, we on these Benches believe that it would be of benefit to have two local authority representatives on boards to give the point of view of local authorities.
Amendment No. 4 reinforces the points I have already made in these amendments. The amendments are all concerned with increasing the number of people on boards in order to include representatives of local education authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in speaking to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. As I explained at the Committee stage, the Secretary of State will make the appointments to reconstituted college councils later this year. These appointments will be designed to ensure continuity in membership with the existing college councils and the need to ensure a stronger employer presence. I do not think that the noble Lord will disagree with that.
The Scottish Further Education Unit, in a report on the present college council system, identified a number of helpful criteria to use when making appointments. These include an appropriate level of seniority, a record of involvement with the college, expertise with education and training, and a balanced representation of employers to reflect the college's curriculum. This will be helpful in considering membership both when the Secretary of State makes the initial appointments and thereafter when boards fill vacancies themselves. So far, so good. These arrangements do not preclude education authority representatives from serving. I think that boards will see advantage in such appointments—as clearly the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, does—either to the main board or to committees. The noble Lord will agree with that. Much will depend on the personal qualities that individuals can bring to bear.
Other links, of course, need to be considered, for example, with higher education institutions, where there are exciting prospects opening up of much closer collaboration between FE colleges and higher education. That is a vital means of opening up access to higher education via the non-traditional route. Programmes such as the government-financed Scottish wider access programme have stimulated these developments and we will continue to encourage such developments in further education. That goes with the grain of developments in Scottish further education, where 60 per cent. of students are aged over 18, and this can be expected to grow as increasing numbers of under 18 year-olds stay on at school. Colleges therefore need to have many linkages. Some may best be forged at school or university level. It is, I would suggest, best to leave this for boards to determine in the light of experience and the nature of their college.
The noble Lord will not take it amiss if I simply point out that the drafting of the amendments would have some undesirable results. I hope that, with the explanation I have given, he will withdraw the amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that it is rather late for me to discuss whether or not the drafting is right. If he finds,

1461
on the advice of his experts and counsel, that the amendments will not fit into the Bill there is obviously an insurmountable wall which we shall not be able to do much about. The general idea is that there should be local authority representation. Although the Minister said that any intelligent group would accept and perhaps look for suitable local authority candidates to sit on the college boards, I do not believe that that was strong enough. The noble Lord said that this would happen provided the candidates were suitable. I take the view that if someone is democratically elected to a local authority he is ipso facto considered by the people in that area to be a responsible person. That is why we were concerned that people should be nominated by representatives of the local authority.
Having made my point for local democracy I acknowledge that it is unlikely at this late stage, given the Minister's, I am sure, well-founded view that the wording is inadequate, that the amendment can be accepted. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question before the amendment is withdrawn. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that the drafting of the amendments was defective and could cause difficulty. What could be defective about substituting the words "sixteen nor more than twenty" for the words "ten nor more than sixteen" when all the amendment is doing is changing the figures?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a very good point. I did not want to go through the reasons why they were defective but the noble Lord has asked me a question and I think it is right that I should answer it. It is in the consequential amendments that the drafting of these amendments creates undesirable results. Board members should all be subject to the same grounds of disqualification and removal if, for example, imprisoned for fraud. The amendment would mean that education authority nominees would not be while everyone else would be. That is clearly undesirable. I hope that that explains the position. I do not want to make a meal of it though.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I cannot say that I am terribly convinced. I have asked the question and I think that I have received a rotten answer.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, only someone like my noble friend, who has long experience in local government, could have pulled out this good point. It is one with which, in fairness, I do not think the Minister's answer even began to deal. However, I am sure my noble friend will agree that there is little we can do at this late stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Transfer of property etc. to boards of management]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, line 4, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed a similar amendment in Committee but the point it raises is still causing worry to local authorities. They are not nit-picking in terms of the present Government. They are concerned about future governments, not the next one which obviously would be sympathetic to local authorities but others in the future which would not be.
The purpose of the amendment is to remove the provision that the transfer of liabilities from the education authority to the college board should not include debt charges relating to the colleges. It is entirely inappropriate that local authorities should continue to pay debt charges on property which will be transferred to the college boards on the first transfer date. The Government have maintained from the first that this provision has been included in the Bill for administrative purposes. First, the Government argued that it would be difficult to establish the debt pertaining to each college. Thereafter, when local authorities had provided such information quickly and easily, it was suggested by government that it would be difficult to untangle debt since loans taken out by local authorities were made up in a complex way.
Since then we have been assured that in practice there is no difficulty at all in disentangling debt for a particular building. The debt is managed largely through consolidated accounts and it has been a simple matter to identify that around £86 million of total debt is outstanding. The Government have acknowledged that local authorities hold the expertise in such loan arrangements. On 3rd March of this year the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made it clear that he partly agreed with the local authorities. It is these expert officers who have advised us that there is no technical difficulty in making such a transfer.
What seems to be the basis of the matter was finally referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He said that,
"if historic FE debt charges were to transfer, that sum would have to be found out of the Secretary of State's block".—[Official Report, 3/3/92; col. 775.]
We believe that the Government must be pressed to acknowledge that it is this reason, rather than the previous rather misleading statements, which make the Government determined to leave debt with the local authorities.
The Government have also suggested—I am sorry to go on, but this is the one point in the Bill about which I, and many local authorities feel particularly strongly—that debt charges are met almost pound for pound by the Secretary of State. In fact, currently around 12 per cent. of the debt will be borne by the poll tax, plus any under-estimation of the level of inflation in the grant settlement. The convention takes the view that the fact that a relatively small proportion of the cost of debt repayment is currently met by the poll tax does not make the arrangements any less unjust and leaves open the possibility, under future financial regimes, of local government finance meeting a larger proportion of the charges.
The convention also takes the view that it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the proposal amounts to bad accounting practice which flies in the

1463
face of the principle of local authorities being accountable for their own expenditure. The situation would become even more outrageous if colleges disposed of land or property in the future whereupon it is possible that local authorities would be paying debt charges on property that they had sold to a third party. The Minister may remember that I put forward the example of schools in the area which I used to represent that had been sold to local housing associations. A very good job was done in that respect. But under the Bill a local authority could still be responsible for paying debt charges on property which had already been sold on.
The authority members in Scotland are most worried about the Government's insensitivity in the matter. They feel that the proposal is especially unjust and that it demonstrates a real disregard on the part of central government for local authorities, which are at present struggling to remain accountable to the electorate in difficult financial circumstances. We take the view that central government should not be so ready to disrupt local authority accounting principles simply to solve the Secretary of State's short term financial difficulties. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am always keen to be as helpful as possible to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. However, on this particular amendment, I regret to say that there is very little that I can add to the points I made when we discussed the matter fully in Committee. Our position is clear. Local authorities' authorised loan charges are met on virtually a pound for pound basis in the distribution of the aggregate external finance settlement. FE historic debt will continue to be met in that way after 1st April 1993. Therefore, local authorities will have no additional financial burden.
Further education colleges' capital expenditure will be funded by the Scottish Office education department after 1st April 1993 on a different basis. Instead of loans being incurred, capital grant will be paid. They will not therefore be geared up to take over loan charges, even were it possible accurately to disentangle debt of many years and the subsequent rescheduling of debt that takes place. I know that the noble Lord put forward figures and an example of how that could be disentangled. However, my advice is still that it would be a rather complicated and bureaucratic matter. That is why we have taken the line that such matters should be left as they are.
Further, education authorities are experienced in debt management. It is the most sensible and straightforward arrangement for them to continue to administer it. I should stress, as I have before, that the arrangement will not involve them in any financial cost that they do not presently have.
In Committee, and again this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised the question of boards disposing of property. I should like to draw the attention of the House to Clause 18 which regulates the disposal by boards of management of certain property, including property transferred to a board
1464
from an education authority under the provisions of the Bill and property acquired by grant from the Secretary of State. Such disposals require the consent of the Secretary of State and provision is made in subsection (5) for the proceeds, or a portion of them, to be surrendered to the Secretary of State. There is therefore no question of boards having unfettered discretion in that area. I believe that the noble Lord and I both agree that that is exactly the right approach where public funds have created such assets.
I am not sure that the full effect of the amendment is appreciated. Not only would it mean liability for authorised loans would transfer to boards; it would also mean liability for unauthorised loans would transfer. It would reward education authorities for taking out loans without consent as required by statute—Clauses 28 to 32 of the Bill—and render useless the provisions of the Bill protecting college property in the run-up to the transfer of the colleges. There can be no justification for that.
I know that this is a complicated and important matter. However, having aired the situation fully on two occasions, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to disagree with me and that perhaps he will then withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, there is no question about it: it is a matter of agreeing to disagree. The Minister may think that my accountancy skills are not adequate to deal with the matter. I would agree with him in that respect. However, from the way that the Minister explained it, I think that a coach and horses could be driven through any possibility of local authorities being dealt with fairly.
There is always the assumption that the Secretary of State will deal with the matters in the way that we have discussed. One of the horrors that we have in Scotland is that perhaps in 20 or 25 years' time a present Minister of State could become the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that he would give his consent to the selling off of all sorts of things. That is not something that is out of the way. Indeed, there is a Question tabled on the Order Paper tomorrow about which the Minister may be aware. It relates to land which was sold off and which we believe, without adequate protection, could become an extremely serious matter as regards certain parts of Glasgow. We shall deal with that tomorrow. It is the kind of thing about which we are worried. We are worried that a local authority could be paying debt charges for land or property which is owned by someone else.
I have no reason to doubt the Minster's understanding of the matter. I just happen to think that he has got it wrong. I am also, sadly, of the opinion that perhaps even his advisers have taken a way out which saves much trouble at present but which may build up a great deal of trouble for local authorities in the future. However, for all the reasons that we discussed, we shall not be able to do a great deal today. We want the Bill to pass. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [College development plans]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 17, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) how the college development plan relates to the provision of education in the area in which the college is situated.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a provision which strikes me as being a blindingly obvious commitment by any college which is established. It would ensure that college development plans cohere with overall education provision in the area. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, indicated that he was puzzled that the amendment was tabled as the insertion of Clause 22 had been welcomed on Report in another place.
We also welcome Clause 22. But we would argue that the amendment strengthens the clause which was introduced at short notice on Report in another place. We know that sometimes amendments which are introduced at short notice seem good at the time, but in the cold light of day it can be seen that they need a certain strengthening. The Minister indicated in Committee that the amendment would cause confusion as there is an obligation under Clause 12(1) for boards of management to,
"have regard to the provision of education in the area in which the college is situated".
The amendment seems to complement that clause rather than oppose it. Clause 12(1) places an obligation on boards to have regard to the provision of education in the area in which the college is situated. The amendment supports that aim in that college development plans would be required to indicate—the college would not need a seal of approval from the LEA—how the college was dealing with its obligations under Clause 12(1). It is not just a question of the college authority merely saying that it had dealt with the matter; it would have to explain how it believed its development fitted in with the general education requirements in a wider sphere within the area. We believe that that is a strengthening of the clause; in other words, even at this late hour we are trying to be helpful to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is a sensible addition to a sensible clause. The whole of further education provision should be looked at, and to lay down how a college fits in surely cannot hurt the Bill: it will probably strengthen it. In relation to previous amendments the noble Lord mentioned the interaction between colleges. He mentioned higher education colleges. There are school sixth form colleges and higher education colleges. There will always be a level of interaction. An amendment such as this would only strengthen the position by requiring information to show how all the types of education fit together.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I said in Committee, when we considered a similar amendment, that the provision sought already exists in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said Clause 12(1) was excellent. He also said that the amendment was excellent, but I shall explain why it does not fit into the Bill.
1466
Clause 12(1) places boards of management under an obligation to have regard to the provision of education in the area in which the college is situated. To fulfil that requirement they must consider the provision of education in the wide sense of including school, vocational, community and higher education provision and the extent to which it complements or overlaps with the college's provision.
We see the merits in close collaboration between schools and colleges, but that, of course, can and does take place without direct education authority involvement in the same way as there is no need for a middle-link in college and university collaboration.
I do not think, however, that we should be under the impression that such collaboration is necessarily as well developed as it might be, and that includes school/college links within the existing education authority management regime. More could undoubtedly be done, and we shall be encouraging colleges to maintain and develop such links. That is one reason why Clause 22(4) requires a board in preparing its development plan to consult the education authority for the area. Colleges have much to offer young people and I am sure they will realise, as do universities, the benefits of forging close links from an early stage.
To conclude, the amendment is unnecessary and because it overlaps with the effect of Clause 12(1) could cause confusion, which is why it is difficult to accept the amendment, however well-meant it is. However, given the importance of this issue I am prepared to give an undertaking that guidance given to boards on the preparation of development plans will ask them to highlight how their plans relate to provision of school, community and higher education in their area.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are obviously in the give-away season. I am delighted that the Minister has found it possible to go as far as he has. I understand that it is impossible to accept the amendment. The support of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was welcome. I am glad that the Minister has been able to help us to the extent that he has. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Assessment of quality of education provided by institutions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 29, line 1, leave out ("68") and insert ("70").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small textual amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Change of name by institutions]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 36, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) Any designated institution whose name includes the word "university" subject to subsection (5) above is to be treated as a university for all purposes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment arises as a result of a discussion in another place where a similar amendment was moved. The amendment effectively provides that any institution whose name

1467
includes the word "university" shall be treated as a university. When a similar amendment was moved in another place it was suggested that it was unnecessary because there would be no confusion under the Scottish system. The anxiety was caused by the case of a university college in Lampeter in the 1950s. There is a precedent that gives cause for concern. The new universities in Scotland—Heriot Watt, Strathclyde, Dundee and Stirling—had trouble in getting themselves accepted by the Carnegie Trust because initially they were not thought to be universities. That idea was overridden because they had Royal Charters.
The new universities being created will exist as a result of consent by the Privy Council. The amendment seeks clarification. We want to encourage universities—this is something that the Government seem to want—to obtain funding and support from all available sectors (charitable trusts or business). I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a question, although it is probably silly of me to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned other universities. I was interested in the establishment of Strathclyde University which has a Royal Charter. We debated Royal Charters at great length in the other place, and we discovered that there was no such thing until about three months after the university was established.
I am asking for information, because I may have missed something. Will the universities be established under Royal Charter, or is there some other way of establishing them? That may reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. I am asking partly because of the experience we had some 20 years ago in the other place.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has raised an important point. As he said, the issue came up in Committee in the other place and the Minister of State explained that part of the reason similar words appear in the English Act is as a form of insurance against the remote possibility of legal challenge arising from the judgment in a 1951 case involving the University College of St. David's, Lampeter. The Government's view was that the parallels between the position then of St. David's and of our Scottish Higher education institutions today were so slight that the words served no useful purpose as far as Scotland was concerned at least.
Indeed, the words are incompatible with the structure of Part II of the Bill, because, as I pointed out in Committee, there is a clear and very important distinction between the existing universities and designated institutions in the Bill. That does not disadvantage the designated institutions in any way; the distinction is necessary because the constitutional and organisational arrangements for designated institutions are different from those for the existing universities and they are provided for in Clauses 44 to 49.
The standing of the "new universities" to be
1468
established under the Bill has been compared unfavourably to that of the Royal Charter universities. I believe that view is misplaced. There is no special magic in a Royal Charter, it is merely a means of conferring a title and constituting the body with its necessary powers.
In reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, the Bill sets out a new procedure and therefore there is no requirement for a Royal Charter.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that means that we have three types of university in Scotland. We have the ancient universities, the Royal Charter universities and the new universities. At some point a government will need to establish a level playing field—a splendid phrase—or we shall have a hierarchy with the Ivy League and the others. That will surely be bad for education.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point about hierarchies, but there are already different hierarchies within universities and within departments. The noble Lord is right, there will be three types of university, but I do not believe any of us should worry about those different types.
The institutions will have to meet the criteria set out by the Government before they will be eligible to apply for a university title. They will have to have passed tests related to the quality of the work they do and have been judged competent to award their own taught course and research degrees. They will also have to demonstrate that they meet the criteria related to the scale and breadth of their activities. By all these means, they will have demonstrated that they are eligible to use the university title. In other words, they will have what it takes to be a university. That does not mean that they have to be organised on the same lines as the existing universities. The important point is that they have the essential characteristics of universities as they relate in particular to activities and powers.
Accordingly, we see no reason why the new universities should not be given parity of treatment with the existing universities, whether ancient or modern. I hope that that is a full explanation to the noble Lords.
Lord Addington: My Lords, that answer was full and covered most of the points that were raised. It was just a technical procedure, guaranteeing the status of the universities under this clause, so that they would be just as good.
I believe that the Government are effectively saying that if the validity of the new institutions such as universities were challenged—and I hope no one would challenge it—they would correct anyone who makes such a challenge. Is the Minister saying that? He nods his head, so I feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Directions]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 37, line 42, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10, which has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. However, the latter amendments raise quite separate issues and I shall move Amendment No. 11 separately, speaking also to the consequential Amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 11 relates to a most important provision which has attracted attention throughout the discussion of both this Bill and the English Bill: namely, the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the funding council. I believe it is right that, on both the Scottish Bill in the other place and the English Bill in your Lordships' House, consideration was directed entirely to Clause 54(3)—in other words, towards the provision that directions can be institution-specific. That was seen throughout as a threat to academic freedom. The breakthrough took place on the English Bill in your Lordships' House when the power to make institution-specific regulations was cut down to the form that now appears in subsection (3).
However, to my surprise, when I was going through both Bills, I could find no explanation about the equally important power under subsection (2). This confers power on the Secretary of State to give general directions to the funding council. It seems to me that even at this late stage it is important to have a ministerial statement as to the general directions, which are potentially of great importance. I do not believe that one could quarrel with those that I envisage, but I am by no means certain that they cover the whole ground. I therefore put down this amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister could say under what circumstances he envisages general directions to be given to the funding council; the nature of those directions and why it is important for the Secretary of State to have that power. I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on this subject. He is a great expert on it. I understand that he has decided to move Amendment No. 10 separately and we shall revert later to the other amendments which were originally in the group.
The noble and learned Lord has returned to the charge that he set out at Committee stage. He taxed me on institution-specific directions, or at least it was those directions with which my reply was concerned.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not believe that I made myself clear. This is not the amendment that I moved in Committee. That was Amendment No. 11. I should be grateful if the Minister could speak to the general direction, not the institution-specific directions.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was getting to that, I was simply explaining that it was at Committee stage that the noble and learned Lord and I discussed the institution-specific directions. This time, he has moved the amendment on the general direction-making power. That is understood. However, the arguments are substantially the same. I have little to add to the
1470
remarks that I made at Committee. It is difficult to find anything new to say on the subject. After all, the debate on affirmative versus negative resolution procedure must have taken place at some stage during the proceedings on every Bill in modern times.
Essentially, the power to make general directions to a non-departmental public body is a commonplace feature of legislation these days, reflecting modern approaches to financial and ministerial accountability. Such powers are often not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny at all, but in this case they are so because of the concern about the possible effect on academic freedom of the institution-specific power, not the general power.
However, both types are there to deal with unpredictable contingencies. As the Minister of State at the Scottish Office said in the other place, what we are dealing with here is a form of disaster insurance. The power to attach conditions to grant under Clause 42 deals with the general case and the power of direction with the unforeseen exceptions.
I hope that that is sufficient and that the noble and learned Lord will accept the explanation and therefore withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry to say that it is quite insufficient. The Minister has spoken to the next amendment. He referred to the affirmative and negative resolution procedure, which has nothing whatever to do with this amendment. He then quoted the Minister of State in another place. But what the Minister of State was directing his remarks to was the institution-specific power in the next subsection, subsection (3).
I must press the Minister to face the fact that he is seeking wide powers of ministerial direction to the funding council which have been instituted between the Secretary of State and the institutions of higher education. I must press the Minister to say what kind of general directions are envisaged and why it is important that the Secretary of State should have them. Those are the questions. I should have thought that it was quite simple to answer them. However, the answer that the noble Lord found in his brief is the answer to the next amendment and not to this one.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble and learned Lord, I should say to the noble and learned Lord that the position of "arm's length bodies" spending large amounts of taxpayers' money is well understood in Scotland. There are many non-governmental bodies in Scotland that spend a lot of money. As Scotland is a rather small place people follow the fortunes of those bodies more closely than is the case with people south of the border.
When the Scottish universities discussed this matter with my honourable friend in another place—I also discussed the matter with him—it was well appreciated that this was not a threatening provision at all. I do not have the precise types of direction in front of me but I know that they have been discussed. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not be too

1471
anxious about the effects of this clause in Scotland as I believe it has been accepted all round. There is no great concern. The universities are satisfied with it now and they have written to me to say that they are satisfied. I expect they have also written to the noble and learned Lord. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord should be too anxious about this clause. Having said that, I know that my noble friend will wish to reply to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am somewhat at a loss to know how to answer the accusation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that I have not answered him fully. I have gone as far as I possibly could. However, perhaps I could take up one point which the noble and learned Lord mentioned about the Minister of State in another place. When he was talking about these powers he called them a form of disaster insurance. He was talking not just in respect of the specific powers but also in respect of the general powers.
The general power of direction is intended to deal with unpredictable problems which may arise in the future. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, recognises that this is a fairly common provision these days. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for explaining the position of the colleges and their support for this Bill. I hope the noble and learned Lord does not feel that I am being evasive and that my answer is full enough to allow this provision to go through.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this matter continues to be profoundly unsatisfactory. I have no quarrel with this power. I agree with the noble Baroness that it has been recognised generally, both in relation to the legislation for England and for Scotland, that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State should have a general power. What I wanted to know was in what circumstances that would be exercised. The noble Baroness at any rate gave the beginning of an answer that the Minister might have given; namely, that we are concerned with large sums of money. I thought that this general power would be exercised in circumstances where large sums of money were involved; for example, a direction could be given to the funding council—in view of the large amount of money that is available to it—that more medical facilities would be required. But that is only the beginning. That seems to me to be quite unobjectionable.
What I want to hear from the Minister is in what other circumstances a general power might be exercised. It is simply not good enough to come to Parliament and ask to be given general, unspecified powers to give directions to the funding council which is responsible for dispensing the large amounts of money to which the noble Baroness referred. It is not good enough to give general directions to the funding council without telling Parliament the circumstances in which the powers will be exercised and why it is important that the Minister should have those powers. I am afraid that I shall not withdraw the amendment until the Minister answers the questions that I have
1472
asked which seem to me to be perfectly reasonable ones. The Minister knows that I wish him well and he knows the reason for that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is an unrealistic request that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is asking—
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me, but I point out that we should bear in mind that we are on the Report stage of this Bill. We ought to follow the proper procedures.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, am I out of order to speak?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as we are on Report I understand that I may speak with the leave of the House. I shall speak on that basis. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, makes an accusation that I have been unable to explain under what circumstances it might be necessary to use the powers that we are discussing. It is precisely because that situation is unforeseen and we are discussing a contingency requirement that it is difficult to be entirely specific in answering the noble and learned Lord.
One key reason for the power is that the report of the review of the University Grants Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, recommended that the Secretary of State should have such a power because he is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the Government's funding policy. As is the case with research councils, the Secretary of State requires a reserve power to issue directions to the council if need be. We would expect such a power to be rarely used. I have tried to give comfort to the noble and learned Lord. I am not sure that I have been entirely successful so far but I hope that he will accept that these powers are required solely in the light of an unpredictable contingency.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not think that I need the leave of the House to reply to the debate. I am bound to say that this matter continues to be quite unsatisfactory. If I may say so, I well knew what the Croham Committee recommended. I have never quarrelled with the Minister having general powers. What I, your Lordships, and obviously the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, wanted to know was in what circumstances those powers would be exercised, why they were required and why it was important to have them. We have had no answer at all. All we have is the completely negative reply that the Minister is asking for general, wide powers to be exercised in circumstances which cannot be envisaged. I venture to give him one circumstance which could be envisaged; namely, a direction that medical facilities should be extended. The Minister did not even take that up.
We now have on record that no answer will be given. The Minister is seeking for Parliament general powers and refuses to say in what circumstances they

1473
will be exercised, merely saying that they will be exercised in unforeseen circumstances. I leave it for anyone reading the record to determine how satisfactory that is.
I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment. I do not wish the Bill to founder; I wish to see it go through. However, in withdrawing the amendment I must not be taken—and I doubt whether I shall be taken—as thinking that the answer given from the Dispatch Box is in the least satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 38, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) No order under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12, which is entirely consequential. Amendment No. 11 seeks to make the direction-making orders under Clause 54 subject to the more effective affirmative resolution procedure rather than, as under the Bill at the moment, the ineffective negative resolution procedure.
I considered this an essential amendment even before I moved the previous amendment. We now find that there is a general direction power under subsection (2), which is defended on the grounds that it will be needed in exceptional circumstances, but circumstances which cannot now be disclosed and apparently cannot even be envisaged.
When I moved the amendment in Committee I read out to your Lordships the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972–73. I shall not delay your Lordships by doing so again; it can easily be summarised. The Joint Select Committee said that the affirmative resolution should be used for important matters and went on to make clear what was meant by "important" or "substantial." It was anything which was not trivial, consequential or involved tidying up. The essential word here is "trivial." Anything which cannot be dismissed as trivial should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Faced with that quotation the Minister swallowed hard. He could not quite bring himself to say that the matter was trivial but said that it was verging on the trivial. If it merely verges on the trivial it falls on the affirmative resolution side of the divide. Even if it falls only marginally on that side of the divide, it cannot possibly now be argued that that power is other than important. The last resort power under subsection (2) is a general power to be used as a matter of last resort in circumstances which cannot yet be disclosed and which are not yet envisaged. Is that not an important power?
The institution-specific power under subsection (3), as it has been narrowed down in your Lordships' House, is also a last resort power for use in the case of severe mismanagement of an institution. It has been described in both Houses as a last resort power, one to be used when the funding council and the institution have gone completely off the rails—circumstances so
1474
extraordinary that it is not envisaged that the power would be used at all. Is that not important? Is it really to be dismissed as trivial? Is it to be dismissed even as verging on triviality? I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in replying to the amendment I hope that I can justify the Government's position better than I have in the case of previous amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.
In the circumstances which the noble and learned Lord described, it would not make sense to shackle the power to the potentially lengthy and cumbersome affirmative resolution procedure. The 1988 Act did not do that; neither does the Further and Higher Education Bill of 1992.
The House recognises that by convention this House would not normally reject a negative order. Equally, it would not normally fail to confirm an affirmative order. Therefore, in practical terms, from the point of view of this House there is not a great deal to choose between the two.
Noble Lords have placed great importance on bringing the academic freedom provisions in the Bill into line with the corresponding provisions for England and Wales. That also was in the end the strong wish of the Scottish university principals. The Government accepted the wish of the House and I made the necessary changes in Committee. Having committed myself to that policy of consistency it would be very difficult to reverse it in the light of the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.
The noble and learned Lord repeated the points that he made in Committee on the question of the nature of the power itself and its appropriateness to the different classes of legislation available. Following the noble and learned Lord's remarks I revisited the second 1972–73 report of the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation, as no doubt did other noble Lords. Paragraph 43 describes a fourfold classification of affirmative powers. The noble and learned Lord attempted to persuade us that the power of direction in Clause 54 was a class one power, an important power, a power,
"the exercise of which will substantially affect provisions in Acts of Parliament, whether by alteration of their effect, or by increase or limitation of the extent or duration of their effect, or otherwise".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, did the noble Lord also look at the other summing-up provision to which I referred last time, namely paragraph 77 on page 98?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I certainly read a substantial amount of it. Perhaps I could finish the point that I was trying to make. What we are dealing with here is not a class one power but, if anything, a class four power, namely:
"a miscellaneous or general class comprising powers the exercise of which has for a variety of reasons been thought to involve considerations of some special interest".

1475
Accordingly, on that view, the noble and learned Lord's test of triviality or substantiality for negative or affirmative resolution is not apt. Instead, as paragraph 46(4) says of class four powers:
"Research cannot be of much help here as importance is a matter of political judgement".
It is with that point that I have a great deal of sympathy. In my judgment the negative resolution approach is probably the right one. It was the approach that was adopted in the 1988 Act. More recently, in what is now, as I said, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and in the words of the Joint Select Committee in paragraph 45 of the report, I feel that affirmative resolution might risk a needless consumption of parliamentary time.
I know that the noble Lord has made great efforts to explain exactly why he feels that this amendment would be appropriate for this particular Bill. But I wonder why Parliament has not sought to include the powers in the other Acts that I mentioned. I hope that the noble Lord feels satisfied that I have done my best to explain to him what is meant by these powers and why we are introducing them in this procedure.
In the light of that explanation I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord said, first, that this point falls under the second head of what the Joint Select Committee recommended. But it does not. It falls under the first head; namely, whether it is important or whether it is merely trivial. Having got no further last time than saying that it verges on the trivial, I cannot blame him for trying to evade that head of distinction raised by the Joint Select Committee.
Secondly, he said that it is a negative power in the English Bill. So it is. But the noble Lord is responsible for this Bill and he must justify this power in the light of the Joint Select Committee's recommendation which was accepted by both Houses and from which it is not open to the noble Lord to depart. He has to accept it in relation to the Bill for which he is responsible.
The third comment of the noble Lord was that in the 1988 Bill it was no more than a negative resolution procedure. So it was. But that was part of a quid pro quo. The critics of the Bill dropped the agitation for the affirmative resolution procedure when the Government conceded that the safety catch should be fitted to the barrel of this gun: the power to give directions to the funding council. It was a quid pro quo.
This matter must now be determined in relation to this Bill. It is a question of parliamentary control of ministerial order. Obviously, I shall not get any further. I do not wish the Bill to founder. If an amendment were carried against the Government that would be the effect. I do not doubt that noble Lords would so carry it. I see that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has returned to see that the Government have a safe majority. I hope that they have a majority because I wish this Bill well. However, in asking leave to withdraw the amendment I yield to force and not to argument. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
5.55 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill represents a landmark in the history of Scottish education. It has been widely recognised as such and has consequently received a good deal of support from all quarters. We have had debates of high quality in this House. I pay tribute to noble Lords who have worked hard to subject the Bill to such a thorough scrutiny, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and Lord Addington. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her help and advice during the passage of the Bill.
Many noble Lords have brought to the proceedings considerable experience of further and higher education in Scotland and further afield. Many aspects of the Government's policies have been clarified and refined during our debates. We have been able to make improvements to the provisions in a number of key areas. The result is that we now have a Bill which will increase skill levels in the Scottish workforce in order to increase the growth and potential of the Scottish economy. That does not only mean training for school leavers; it also means continuing training and retraining for adults already in the workforce. For the first time all higher education institutions in Scotland will come within the ambit of the Secretary of State. That, together with his new responsibilities for further education, will ensure a coherent and co-ordinated system of further and higher education, as we move into the 21st century.
The theme running throughout the Bill is one of opportunity —opportunity for Scots of whatever age to improve themselves through training and education. It is predicated on the principle that places in higher and further education should be available for all those who wish to take up the opportunities and are able to benefit from them. Only by expanding tertiary education will we continue to remain an advanced economy. We shall achieve that goal and create the means of ensuring our national prosperity in the next century through these reforms.
This Bill will release and focus the energies of principals and their staff. It means freedom to manage and expand further and higher education in Scotland. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind words and for the efforts that he has made throughout the passage of the Bill to

1477
accommodate what we on this side of the House believe to be the anxieties of the people of Scotland. By and large we believe that it is a handy Bill. To say that it is a landmark Bill in terms of Scottish education puts it rather high. But it is certainly an advance. We are particularly pleased that higher education will be made available to more people. We are also pleased that in his short remarks the Minister stressed the fact that the Bill will give opportunities to people of whatever age in Scotland.
Perhaps I speak chauvinistically, but I believe that Scotland has possibly a higher percentage of people who realise that life does not finish academically at school age and that they can move on. This Bill may help them.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their efforts on this Bill. The House is always pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and his very sharp comments on Bills in his attempts to improve them.
The Minister has handled the Bill with great skill. We all look forward to seeing him in the next Parliament, sitting perhaps on the other side and looking at legislation that has been put forward by a different Administration. That legislation perhaps will be seen rather more as landmarks than the Bill which the House has put to bed this evening. We have all tried to be helpful in a common cause. Therefore I am pleased to see the Bill on the statute book.
6 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has been helpful and constructive during the passage of the Bill. We have worked towards improving the Bill and I believe that we have done so. I thank too the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. When I reached a minefield once or twice she put me right. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, took the main brunt of the debate. I am glad that he was so polite about my supporting role.
The words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will ring in the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for some time. If ever I find myself drawn against the noble and learned Lord, I shall make sure that I have done every bit of my homework.
The Bill improves the situation in Scotland. It gets rid of the ridiculous binary divide—and not before time. I hope that it will contribute to the encouragement of Scottish higher education. I speak as a zealous convert to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, Scottish higher education has always provided one of the driving forces and principal examples for the development of higher education in the United Kingdom and indeed the remainder of the world.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the Bill is a landmark in Scottish education. One could also say that a new chapter is opening. The local authorities are naturally sorry to lose the further education colleges. However, as times change I believe that the
1478
new system will work extremely well. I am sure that local authorities will have frequent contact with colleges because, as the noble Lord and my noble friend on the Front Bench said, the colleges remain part of the education pattern. I am sure that they will flourish under the new autonomy. We shall follow their fortunes with interest.
The new funding council in Scotland for the higher education institutions is a landmark. I am sure that it will develop its method of working and its relationship with the Scottish Office with care and vision.
I express my particular gratitude to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and to the Minister of State in another place for the way in which they handled the issue of yet another amendment to the so-called academic freedom provisions. The Bill was amended in another place, it was believed to the satisfaction of all concerned. That turned out not to be so. The Bill had to be amended again. I found it encouraging that the Government listened hard to what the universities said and provided what was wanted. We now have the same provisions as those which exist in the Bill for England. It is unusual for Scots to want that, but we wished it on this occasion.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, had another go at his aspirations for the handling of orders in Parliament. He did so admirably. I thought that he was a little tough on my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, but that probably did my noble friend no harm. We now have a procedure that is no less speedy than that set out in the English Bill. That will give satisfaction in Scotland. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will one day prevail with regard to that aspect. I am very glad that he is as keen on the Bill as I am and that he has ensured that it will not fall by the wayside at this stage.
I thank everyone concerned for the way that they have co-operated with my noble friend on the Bill. I am sure that the future of further and higher education in Scotland will be exciting.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said about the academic freedom clauses in the Bill. It is an honourable settlement that is very welcome.
I thank the Minister. I thank too the noble Baroness for the effort that she has put into the matter. I am glad about the outcome.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as an interloper into debates on Scottish education, I felt it necessary at the outset to ask for the indulgence of your Lordships. Now that the Bill departs from us, I express my appreciation of the way that indulgence has been shown and add how much I have enjoyed and learned from the debates to which I have listened.
It would be an impertinence if I mentioned Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the debates. That has already been done. At the outset I explained why it was a particular privilege to take part in discussion of a Bill that was piloted by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Although we have crossed swords on academic freedom and on parliamentary control, he has successfully piloted the Bill to the very last stage. It would be surprising if it

1479
were now defeated. That has given me pleasure, and I congratulate him and join in the felicitations that others have paid.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Strathclyde: I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now Pass. (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill
6.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Although there have been differences in the House about the scope of the Bill there is, in the main, cross-party support for the principle which underpins the Bill, that social security money intended for mortgage interest should reach the lender.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell, wish to make a few points. I look forward to hearing them. To the extent that it is necessary I shall respond. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side wish to thank the Minister for his invariably courteous, although not always invariably helpful, responses to the amendments and comments that we made. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his friendly verbal support from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the less verbal but no less welcome support of my noble friend Lord Carter who was always present to give helpful advice and encouragement.
Throughout the brief Bill we have been at pains to agree that mortgage payments through income support should be paid to mortgage lenders for the sake both of the householder and the lender. There is no disagreement between us. At Committee stage of the Bill we had the support of the Minister, reported in Hansard, that the Government would use their best endeavours to ensure that the Benefits Agency will pay the income support payments for mortgage payments as speedily as possible so that no arrears that accumulate will in any sense be due to administrative inefficiency or incompetence. We welcome his anxiety to expedite payment of benefit.
We regret that the Minister felt unable to meet us on what we regarded as our "bridge" amendment; that compulsion (that is, direct debit of mortgage support payments) should be restricted to those who have a track record of financial incompetence—those who are two months in arrears, and so on. We believe that that would have been a most helpful amendment.
1480
It would have done much to remove the sense of unfairness of treatment that still remains with those who have always made their payments on time. They feel somewhat stigmatised and penalised by that policy when in no sense have they committed an offence.
Secondly, I wish to register our regret that two wider issues which we on these Benches raised on Second Reading were unable to be brought back by way of specific amendments. They proved to be beyond the remit of the Bill but it is worth flagging them now. The first was our wish to have mortgage interest payments paid in full during the first 16 weeks of income support and not merely at the rate of 50 per cent. As regards the second issue, both the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I tried to draw attention to the implications of moving to the new 16 hours per week rule from 24 hours per week, which will take place in April. There is a need, therefore, to permit families a "better-buy" choice.
As regards the first point, I wish to quote from a letter which I received recently from the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Mr. Boléat stated:
"I noted also your comments about only half of mortgage interest being met by income support in the first 16 weeks of a claim. The experience of lenders is that often they receive no mortgage payments in the first 16 weeks of a claim, because in this period borrowers have to adapt suddenly to a sharp reduction in income".
There is no difference between us; that is precisely the problem that we sought to register on Second Reading. At the point when there is a sharp reduction in income made worse by only half of mortgage interests payments being met, families begin to spiral into debt. That was confirmed last week by the independent Institute of Policy Studies. It showed that about 2.5 million families are in debt, that one in 100 borrowers face repossession and that one in seven borrowers is in arrears and difficulties with his mortgage repayments. The institute showed that such families are not feckless but merely poor.
I do not suggest that as a result of only half the mortgage interest being met those families will be repossessed within the first 16 weeks. That is not the case. Mr. Boléat was at pains to state that no repossession would take place in the first 16 weeks. The point that we sought to establish and to which the Minister has yet to reply was that that was the beginning of the spiral into debt out of which it was almost impossible for a family to climb. At the point when they move into 100 per cent. repayments they continue to carry a burden of arrears, which even capitalised adds significantly to their outgoings and makes it that much harder for them to stay financially afloat.
In Committee we could not return to the second issue that we raised on Second Reading. However, it is important that we flag it for the last time. I refer to the implication of reducing from April what is considered to be full-time work from 24 to 16 hours per week. That means that a member of a family who is at present working up to 24 hours per week can claim income support, obtain a modest disregard of perhaps £15 if he is a lone parent and, most importantly, because he is in receipt of income support

1481
he gets a passport to other benefits. Above all, he receives mortgage interest relief in addition to free school dinners, prescription charges and so forth. By reducing the number of hours from 24 to 16, families coming onto social security will go onto family credit instead. The people who do not have children will not be eligible for anything.
Therefore, some families coming newly onto social security will be better off under the change. Those lone parents who live in rented accommodation will benefit from being able to go onto family credit rather than income support because they do not face the problem of mortgage interest relief payments. All childless couples and virtually all owner-occupiers in receipt of income support who are in part-time work will be direct losers by moving off income support and going onto family credit if they are in low paid work. A typical example might be a husband in work whose wife works perhaps 20 hours per week as a nurse or a school dinner lady. If her husband becomes unemployed she will be beyond the reach of income support. She may claim family credit but she will lose entitlement to the mortgage relief payments that come within income support. In future a family in that situation will be plunged into debt and arrears from which it cannot recover.
In consequence, as the CAB made clear, that will encourage such people to drop work (at which point they will lose benefit entitlement) and not to take up part-time jobs. A recent anti-poverty survey carried out in Manchester showed that approximately one fifth of all jobs were in the 16 to 24 hours per week range. Those jobs will no longer carry with them a passport to mortgage relief.
It is clear that the issue of the 16-week half payment and the reduction in the number of hours from 24 to 16 must await a different Bill. We should have liked to have seen full payment from the first week. We should have liked new families coming onto social security to have the option of "better-buy"; that is, they could go onto family credit or income support plus mortgage relief as suited their circumstances better. However, both those issues must await a different Bill which we on this side of the House look forward to introducing in due course.
I suggest that without those reforms the narrow aims of this Bill will not be met. Without wider reforms—for instance, the releasing of capital receipts for building an adequate supply of socially rented housing, whether by a housing association, local authority or tenants' co-op—more vulnerable families on low incomes and with insecure jobs will be forced into owner-occupation which they cannot afford. The problem will not go away until families of modest means have a genuine choice about whether they rent or buy a decent home at a price that they can afford. We are seeing the end result of 13 years of a government removing that choice from vulnerable families and we see the wreckage around us. That issue, too, will be speedily redressed when Members on this side have the pleasure of introducing legislation to that effect.
6.17 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for her kind words. I thank her also for the enthusiasm, energy and thorough knowledge of the material that she has brought to the Bill. As always I thank my noble kinsman for his kindness, his courtesy, his care in considering arguments and his attention to detail. In respect of this Bill he has made a particular effort to understand why we have put forward our arguments. Although he has not been able to meet them all there has at least been a tentative approach towards the meeting of minds. Many of us—in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—have occasionally talked about the growing thickness of legislation. But my noble kinsman has proved that blood is thicker than legislation and I thank him for that.
I also wish to thank my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown for the effort that he made in initiating the Bill. I am glad that it was brought forward. I look forward to seeing it on the statute book. It is undertaking a necessary job. However, in the very nature of the case—and one does not complain—it was undertaken in a hurry. When Bills are introduced in a hurry, however necessary that may be, there are inevitably some cases in which the tacking shows and parts need to be put together. It will be necessary to look at the issue in the next Parliament.
Unlike the Opposition Front Bench, I do not have the gift of divination; I have no idea which of us will be responsible for looking at it in the next Parliament. Whoever it is, there are some questions which must be addressed. I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness said about income support for the first 16 weeks. It is then that the problems occur. In Committee I listened to my noble kinsman, who seemed to be of the opinion that most people are functioning with a considerable amount of savings. That may be true on some economic levels but I do not think that is so on all levels.
I began to wonder why my noble kinsman thought that. I began to think about the way in which government records are kept, because governments necessarily look at their records. Therefore, I thought about the way in which government figures for savings are calculated. While we are repaying our mortgages, everything which we repay is counted as savings. When we pay premiums for life insurance, all that is calculated as savings. Therefore, when my noble kinsman looks at the figures for savings, I wonder whether he is getting from them a quite unrealistic figure for the amount which people actually have in the bank.
I do not know whether the Government have recorded any separate figure for money which people have in the bank and for money which they are repaying on loans and so on, which is therefore calculated as savings. Until those figures are split, we shall not know how much people have in savings. Until that is known, I remain extremely doubtful as to whether most people have sufficient savings in their possession to continue paying mortgage interest for the first 16 weeks of unemployment. In those 16

1483
weeks, arrears build up. Of course, arrears of interest multiply. Therefore, taking over the interest after 16 weeks means that the department is taking on a bigger job than it needs to. That will need to be looked at.
The question of those who work part-time for between 16 and 24 hours must also be looked at. When that change in the rules was introduced, neither the Government nor anyone else foresaw the Bill before us now. Therefore, the two changes were introduced without reference to each other. It is not exactly a case of the right hand not letting the left hand know what it doeth, because the left hand had not done it yet. At some stage we must look at those two measures together, because that is a significant disincentive to people to take part-time work. That is against the public interest.
One thing which I note from the current size of the public sector borrowing requirement—and I do not intend to make a party point—is that a government, whoever they may be, should think not merely about the size of their spending but about maximising their revenues. The fall in revenues resulting from the recession has caused many of our present problems. I strongly believe that, if we wish to maximise our revenues, we must give people the opportunity to get back to work. In particular we must give women with children a chance to get back to work. They usually go back to work on a part-time basis, for reasons which are too obvious to need developing. In those circumstances, creating a major disincentive to work between 16 and 24 hours in a week does not seem to me to make sense. That too must be looked at.
In Committee we had a fascinating debate on the issue of compulsion. The difficulty arises from the tying of mortgage benefit to income support, because the lender, who knows the borrower is in arrears, does not know whether the borrower is on income support. It may be that we should not have the problems as regards compulsion if we changed, as we must consider doing, to a specific mortgage benefit. However, I am aware that that will involve large problems and will be difficult to do well. Whoever brings in that measure must think about it extremely carefully.
On the issue of delay, I welcome what my noble kinsman said in Committee. He understands the problem well. There is a growing burden on benefit offices of unemployment and recession. I shall say this before the election, because it must be said afterwards, that the current economic forecasts are that unemployment will continue to increase into 1994. Accordingly, the burden is likely to continue to increase. Therefore, my noble kinsman will have to put his money where his mouth is.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall respond to one or two of the points made by my noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I was asked whether there will be delays. I can confirm that the benefits agency will pay as speedily as possible. I accept that there may be difficulties here but certainly the agency is confident that it can cope with any problems
1484
which are likely to arise. Obviously that matter will be monitored once the Bill becomes an Act and the direct payments under the Bill begin to be made.
As regards compulsion, as I implied in Committee, I thought that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was driving a coach and horses through the purpose of the Bill, which is that it should be compulsory. There are enormous administrative difficulties in making it voluntary and as my noble kinsman said, there are problems of confidentiality whichever way one goes. Therefore, my noble kinsman asked that we should look towards a specific mortgage benefit. That would bear terrific cost implications. If my noble kinsman is putting that forward, I should welcome an opportunity to argue that in the coming weeks. I do not know whether that is part of the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, called for the abolition of the 50 per cent. income support payments during the first 16 weeks. I wrote to the noble Baroness to correct the figure which I gave, but it would involve an enormous cost implication of £71 million. I repeat what I said before: that most people in the first 16 weeks, particularly after losing a job and going on to income support, have other forms of savings—for example, payments in lieu of notice or redundancy. That has not created much of a problem in the past. Certainly, the mortgage lenders said, when we made the change, that they did not envisage that it would lead to increased numbers of repossessions.
Turning to the hours rule change for income support and family credit, the noble Baroness asked whether there could be a "better buy" proposal. I cannot go further than what I said on Second Reading. I promised that there would be protection for those at the time of the change but we do not believe we can go further than that.
I am glad that the Bill has not been opposed. It will provide reassurance for many people otherwise at risk of repossession. It will also form part of a package of measures agreed with lenders which will provide relief for many people with mortgage difficulties, whether or not on benefit.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Bill passed.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Midland Metro Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Midland Metro (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Private Business
A Message was received from the Commons that they have made the following orders:
That—
(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which has originated in this House or has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session;
(2) the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than five o'clock on Monday next of their intention to suspend further proceeding thereon, or, if the Bill, having passed this House, is then pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session: provided that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that day be paid;
(3) a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which they have been suspended, shall be prepared by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office and printed;
(4) every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament;
(5) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session;
(6) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto;
(7) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill has been read a second time before its suspension) to have been read a second time and—

(i) if such Bill has been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the present Session, it shall stand so referred;

(ii) if such Bill has been referred to a Committee during the present Session and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall be committed and—

1486

(a) all Petitions against the Bill which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session; and

(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(iii) if such Bill has been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it has been reported with Amendments in the present Session and has not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(iv) if such Bill has been read the third time before its suspension, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

(8) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the next Session and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House in the present Session;
(9) when any Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House, is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) unless the Examiner has reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;

(ii) if the Examiner has so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it has been read a second Lime, it shall be read a second time and committed; but

(iii) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the present Session it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as have been made thereto by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(10) where a Bill has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and the period prescribed by paragraph (1) of Standing Order 171A relating to Private Busineses (Petitions against private bills) has not elapsed before Monday next, any Petition presented during the present Session in pursuance of that Standing Order shall be void, and the period of time prescribed by that Standing Order shall apply to any Bill brought from the Lords in the next Session in pursuance of this Order;
(11) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
(12) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (7) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn or have been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session;
(13) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;
(14) where any Standing Orders have been disposed with in respect of any private Bill in the present Session
1488
or in the last Session, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;
(15) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session;
(16) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the present Session.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past six o'clock.

  POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES
  POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES
  BRITISH TECHNOLOGY GROUP: SALE
  BRITISH TECHNOLOGY GROUP: SALE