Sitting of 1 December 1993

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

    Right to Buy
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tenants have now taken advantage of the Government's right-to-buy policy.
    The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): More than 1·5 million public sector tenants have bought their homes since 1979, of whom 1,140,000 have bought under the right to buy.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend' agree that the extension of home ownership has been one of the great developments of recent times? Will he press forward with his large-scale voluntary transfer initiative and look sympathetically at the application from Castle Point borough council, under that initiative, to transfer the whole of its small estate of council houses to the private sector, where the tenants will be well served?
    Sir George Young: On the first point, I can confirm that introducing the right to buy has been one of our party's greatest achievements—so great that others have been obliged to copy it. On the second point, large-scale voluntary transfers bring real benefits to tenants and local authorities. We have received 14 applications for next year's programme, including the one from my hon. Friend's local authority. I am looking at the applications at the moment and expect to announce next year's programme in mid-December.
    Mr. Betts: Would the Minister be surprised to learn that I was informed by a major building society yesterday that it had not yet received a single inquiry about the Government's rent-to-mortgage scheme? Is it not time that the Government set aside such gimmicks, which do nothing for the provision of social housing? Should not the Government concentrate on putting resources into the social housing sector, rather than making cuts of £300 million to the Housing Corporation, which we heard about yesterday, which will destroy the opportunities for homeless families and lead to the withdrawal of funding by major institutions because they do not believe that schemes will be viable on that basis in the future?
    Sir George Young: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he may regret calling the rent-to-mortgage scheme a gimmick. It brings home ownership within the reach of those local authority tenants not on housing benefit. All the
    1022
    surveys that we have carried out indicate that such tenants would like to be home owners, and the scheme brings it within their reach. As with the right to buy, the Labour party will be obliged to do a U-turn on the rent-to-mortgage scheme and introduce it as part of its election manifesto. The rent-to-mortgage scheme only came on stream in early November, so it does not surprise me that the particular building society that the hon. Gentleman mentioned has not processed an application. The large majority of council tenants will find the scheme attractive.
    On the hon. Gentleman's final point, we will more than honour the undertaking that we gave in our manifesto commitment to provide at least 150,000 new homes through the Housing Corporation. That commitment will be exceeded by approximately 20,000.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that local authorities in Essex are leading the way in taking advantage of the large-scale voluntary transfer scheme? I hope that, in addition to looking favourably at the application from the local council of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), he will approve the application that he will shortly be receiving from Maldon district council in my constituency.
    Sir George Young: The assertion that Essex leads the way in this area was challenged by a number of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench who come from Suffolk, where there have been a number of successful large-scale voluntary transfers. I will look sympathetically at the application made by my hon. Friend's local authority. As I have said, I shall come to a decision on next year's programme in the middle of this month.
    Mr. Pike: The Labour party has always been in favour of extending the advantages of home ownership to as many people as possible—[Interruption.]—as the record of the 1964-70 Labour Government shows. Does the Minister accept that many people who are buying their council houses believe that it would be right and sensible for their local authorities to be able to use those capital receipts for housing purposes? Why are the Government now stopping the use of those capital receipts?
    Sir George Young: I can only admire the courage of the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Many of us were in the House between 1979 and 1983, when the right-to-buy legislation went through. The hon. Gentleman's party fought it tooth and nail.
    The assertion that the Labour party has always nurtured an ambition to bring home ownership within the reach of more people bears no relation to the facts. It so happens that I have with me an article from Roof magazine, giving the views of a younger hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), expressed in 1981. The article is entitled "My Vision for Housing". The hon. Gentleman's first vision was expressed thus:
    "Repeal the law which allows tenants to buy their council houses."

    Charter Markets
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in response to his consultative paper on charter markets.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): We have received a variety of representations both for and against our proposals and are carefully considering whether to introduce legislation to remove from local authorities the right to object to the establishment of new markets within the common law distance of 6⅔ mile.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is my hon. Friend aware that a proposal in the name of competition to abolish without compensation the centuries-old charter rights of markets such as Romford market in my constituency while leaving intact the rights of private market operators would lack a certain conviction? Does not the rapid growth of unregulated temporary markets and car boot sales now provide a major outlet for the sale of stolen property? Is not that a much greater threat to fair competition, and should not dealing with it be the Government's priority?
    Mr. Baldry: I think that there has been something of a misunderstanding. It is being suggested that the proposals would in some way remove such markets, which certainly is not the case: local authorities would continue to own and operate them. All that we are considering removing is the arbitrary power of local authorities to exercise a monopoly right over any rival operator who seeks to bring new trade to an area. I have no doubt that traditional markets that have stood the test of time over the centuries will continue to do so, and to compete with the best.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of local authorities oppose the revocation of charter rights? Will he confirm that he has received many representations from people who trade at local authority markets, and that those people are opposed to the revocation? As there is no evidence that local authority charter rights act against the public interest, will the Minister ensure that deregulation does not include their revocation?
    Mr. Baldry: It is worth recalling that many local authorities—by my reckoning, well over 150—have no such market rights, but they seem to manage perfectly well using their planning powers. It is also interesting to hear Labour Members defending ancient privileges granted by the Crown.

    Water Charges (South-west)
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the relative level of water charges in the south-west.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Tim Yeo): Water prices are a matter for the Director General of Water Services. However, the Government are aware that South West Water's charges for water and sewerage are among the highest in the country, and have been in discussion with the company and others about ways in which prices can be restrained.
    Mr. Nicholls: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he acknowledge the real feelings of outrage that I, with other west country Conservative Members, have been expressing for the past three years about the level of water charges? Will he give an assurance that he will continue his
    1024
    efforts—particularly in any European context—to ensure that the burdens imposed on west country people are not greater than those people can bear?
    Mr. Yeo: I am happy to give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance to that effect. I have been deeply impressed by his long-standing, determined and realistic approach to minimising the costs of providing consumers throughout the south-west with higher water standards. He and other Conservative Members from the west country were making a constructive contribution to this debate long before the Liberal party jumped on the bandwagon. I only regret that their realism is not shared by the Liberal party. I am, however, glad to be able to assure the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who, unfortunately, is not present—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State resisted the demand made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), at a recent meeting at the Department of the Environment, for the costs of improving water around the south-western coast to be borne by constituents in Berwick upon Tweed.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister confirm comments made by the Secretary of State at a private meeting with the Liberal Democrats in the past week that he is considering ending the present extremely unfair water rate system and replacing it with another means of payment possibly, as we have suggested, based on the council tax? If so, will that system include discounts for those living alone and those on low incomes as we have proposed?
    Mr. Yeo: It is a pity that the privacy of the meeting was not recognised by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who immediately spoke to the press. The account that they gave to the press was inaccurate in almost every particular. While my right hon. Friend said that he would examine any possibility, he gave no assurance of the sort that has been described. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are converting hypocrisy into an art form. The stench that the issue is causing is wafting beyond the Chamber to the homes of people throughout the south-west. First, the Liberal Democrats proclaimed a commitment to cutting green house gases and followed it with an absolute refusal to support any measure designed to achieve that. Now, even more fragrantly, they are demanding cleaner water and lower prices in the same breath.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek a further opportunity to raise the issue.
    Mr. Yeo: I shall be only too happy to debate the matter in detail with the Liberal Democrats—
    Madam Speaker: But not now.

    Pollution
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to meet his EC counterparts to discuss pollution.
    Mr. Yeo: I am attending the Environment Council tomorrow and Friday, when I expect to discuss a wide range of environmental matters.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will honour their commitment to ratify the climate change convention soon, even if other European Community members fail to do so?
    Mr. Yeo: I am very hopeful that discussions at this week's Council will enable those countries at present obsessed with forcing a carbon energy tax on the European Union to overcome their difficulties and allow joint ratification to take place. If not, Britain will certainly honour its commitment to ratify the climate change convention before 31 December.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: When the Minister meets his EC counterparts, will he make them aware of the terrible pollution problems in Belfast as a result of coal-burning appliances?
    Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter and I am certainly ready to discuss it in the EC. I am glad to say that positive progress been made recently in Geneva in the sulphur-burning emission negotiations and I am confident that an agreement will be reached on terms satisfactory to this country and other countries in the next few days.
    Mr. Marland: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is currently confusion in the EC about the definition of waste and that this is frustrating the work of many pollution-controlling and recycling businesses? I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to find a cost-effective way to clean up the environment and keep it clean. Will he continue to press for a more realistic definition of waste which identifies harmful material to be discarded and material to be reclaimed that can be successfully reused?
    Mr. Yeo: I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in the subject. He has been to see me to discuss it recently. The definition of waste is a complex matter, as one man's waste may be another man's raw material and demand for recycled material depends on the state of the market and prices being held for recycled material at any time. I take note of my hon. Friend's comments.
    We are wrestling with the complex task of reconciling our existing laws with the requirements of certain EC directives. In that context, I was glad to announce recently that we shall be introducing a waste management licensing system on 1 May next year.
    Mr. George Howarth: Are not the Government seeking to weaken or repeal at least three important EC directives—on nitrates in drinking water, on sewage in bathing water and on nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere—and is not the cause of that nothing to do with any failure on the part of the directives but a failure on the part of the Government? On at least two occasions, they have been taken to court and lost cases arising out of those directives. Instead of wriggling out of their responsibilities, when will the Government face up to their responsibilities and clean up their act?
    Mr. Yeo: In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new position, I express the hope that by the next Environment Question Time he will be better informed about the subject that he has raised. Our position on the drinking water directive is driven by two considerations. The first is the proper application of the subsidiarity principle which, if rigorously applied, would mean that there would be no need for a directive on drinking water. Secondly, given that
    1026
    we are trying to improve the drinking water directive, we intend to apply the latest scientific research results produced by the World Health Organisation. That is the only point of difference between us and the EC at present.
    On nitrates—I am sorry, nitrogen—[Interruption.] I am getting the facts right: I was about to read them out. The fact is that the United Kingdom record compares remarkably well with that of the rest of the Community. In the period from 1988 to 1992, the number of infraction referrals in each member state was: Italy 12, Belgium 11, Germany 8, France 5, Greece 4, Netherlands 3, Luxembourg 2 and the United Kingdom 1. On Mat criterion, it appears that Britain has an exemplary record in the Community.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department is giving towards the introduction of energy conservation in domestic households.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to announce yesterday an extra £35 million a year for the home energy efficiency scheme, which will bring the total amount provided through similar organisations to more than £70 million.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the Government's energy efficiency and conservation schemes have been better than those of any previous Government and that the current one is the best ever? Will he confirm that some 500,000 homes are now eligible to receive benefits under the scheme and that that is good news for large numbers of pensioners and disabled people and for some 1,500 people who will find jobs as a result?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to praise the Government's record. Perhaps through a slip of the tongue he said that 500,000 homes were eligible. In fact, 500,000 homes will have the work completed in any one year. About 4 million homes will be eligible. The scheme will mean that any pensioner who has concerns about insulation will be able to seek support. It is a remarkable achievement and it bears considerable advantage over any achievement of any previous Government.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: As the Secretary of State has confirmed, it will take at least 10 years to insulate the 5 million or 6 million homes that require such insulation. Has he done any work to estimate the length of time that it would take to bring homes up to the standard of heating and insulation that obtains in countries such as Sweden and Canada, which do not have the large number of excess deaths of elderly people in winter?
    Mr. Gummer: I am surprised that the hon. Lady asks that question, as we are spending in real terms 17 times what the Labour Government spent in its last year. She should not try to mix the figures. She might also try to remember that there is a distinction between homes that are eligible and homes that need action. Obviously, many pensioners' homes have already had insulation work done to them or are already suitably insulated. It would be a

    1027
    great pleasure for the people of Britain if occasionally the hon. Lady cheered when things were done well instead of constantly whingeing on.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: My right hon. Friend will have received the report of the Environment Select Committee on energy conservation published on Friday. We look forward to a response from the Government in due course. In the meantime, I welcome the doubling of the home energy efficiency scheme yesterday and the extension of its scope and, before that, the abolition of the client contribution. That was a terrific achievement. Does he agree, however, that the complacency of many better-off people and their failure to respond to market signals and the national commitment to the environment are a disgrace? Would we not be better educating them into improving their own performance?
    Mr. Gummer: I must point out to my hon. Friend that the energy saving campaign that we have just introduced has been one of the most successful Government campaigns ever. It is one of the top 20 in recall factors, thereby showing itself to be a very effective advertising campaign to do precisely what my hon. Friend says. I hope that my hon. Friend will also agree that those parties represented here—particularly the Liberals, who always talk about taxation to deal with the overuse of energy—should stop being hypocritical and support the tax system, as it will reduce the overuse of energy while giving proper support to those who cannot afford it.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The additional resources announced yesterday for the home energy efficiency scheme are of course welcome, but does the Secretary of State not realise that the Chancellor is devoting less than 1 per cent. of Exchequer revenue from VAT on fuel to the addition that was announced? Does the Secretary of State not realise that the HEES is very limited in the help that it gives? For example, it does nothing about cavity wall insulation. Moreover, at the same time as he trumpets that achievement, he has cut the green house programme by £45 million in the past year. And while we are at it, why do the Government not start by putting their own house in order? Is he aware that in the past year the Department of Trade and Industry increased its energy use by 24 per cent. and the Cabinet Office by 10 per cent?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that it would have been more accurate if the hon. Gentleman had read out the whole list. He would then have seen that we are well on course for a 15 per cent. reduction overall and that green Ministers in each Department are committed to that—[interruption.] The sad thing about Labour Members is that they are only interested in green matters when they think that they can win a vote or two. They are not prepared to pay the cost. The hon. Gentleman is in no position to talk about the amount of money that has been spent on energy efficiency when, as I mentioned, we have spent 17 times as much as the Labour Government did. The Chancellor is spending a very high proportion of the intake from VAT on helping those pensioners and others particularly affected by the cost of the scheme. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on social security, said recently that the Government should add to pensions to take account of VAT on fuel and that the Labour party
    "could do it with an extra 50p on pensions."
    1028
    That is precisely what we have done, and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) should have the courtesy to thank us for it.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the process of local government reorganisation in England.
    The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): The process for reviews of local government structure in England is set out in the revised guidance to the commission which was published on 22 November.
    Mr. Nicholson: I hope that none of the threatened reorganisations will impede local authorities in pursuing the opportunities for energy conservation, as indicated in the Secretary of State's earlier reply. Apart from the abolition of Avon, which I think we all welcome, is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Somerset have a low level of interest in, and commitment to, revolution in administration in local government, apart from certain contrived write-ins? Will he therefore be cautious in pursuing that matter and listen carefully to the views that hon. Members in the areas affected make to him in due course?
    Mr. Curry: I will certainly listen to the views of hon. Members. The fact that people have a low interest in something does not mean that it is not important to them. Local government spends £40 billion or £60 billion of taxpayers' money a year, whichever way one defines it, and is the form of government most in contact with people where delivery of service is concerned. It matters to people that they get local government which is effective, can be identified and is organised as rationally as possible. We seek to achieve that by the changes.
    Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware of the anger in Darlington at his decision to overturn the Local Government Commission's recommendation for a unitary tier authority in the town? Does he realise that his decision rides roughshod over the overwhelming public consensus in Darlington, which backs the commission? Why did he not exempt Darlington from any further review, particularly as the commission's recommendation is in line with his new ministerial policy guidelines? Will he agree at least to meet an all-party delegation from Darlington to hear the concerns of local residents and to act on them?
    Mr. Curry: If the recommendation is in line with the new guidance, I have no doubt that when the commission puts forward its revised proposal, it is likely to come up with something suitable for Darlington. That would be a sensible solution. I will meet anybody to discuss the matter, so long as people recognise that the commission's job is to make proposals, which we must then judge. I will not sit down and draw lines on a map, because that is not my job.
    Mr. Dover: Does my hon. Friend accept that in Lancashire we see no need to start carving up existing boroughs and districts? Is it not in order for two or three to group together to share services?
    Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that we do not think that existing districts will become unitary councils on their

    1029
    own boundaries unless there are circumstances that make that common sense. We are looking for building blocks that will create effective and convenient local government, and district councils are clearly one of those building blocks. I have been speaking to district and county councils, and one of my arguments is that they should get to work locally and spend a littlé energy on making schemes that they think will work and be effective and that can be the starting point of the commission's deliberations. That is a sensible point from which to start.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister accept that there is something fishy going on with this local government review? He has set up this commission, apparently to give independent advice. In Derbyshire, it makes proposals; some Tory Members of Parliament do not like them, so they are changed. Most of the population want the status quo. Banham makes further proposals and now Ministers, including the Secretary of State, are telling him to have a third go. They keep changing the goalposts in Derbyshire just because they cannot get the right political result. The Minister wants those commissioners to act as Tory political apparatchiks. They should resign and show up the Minister, because he will not.
    Mr. Curry: Although I am an optimist, the idea that the unitary authority created in Derbyshire from the three Labour authorities would be likely to fall imminently to the Conservatives is more than optimistic. Any idea that this is political gerrymandering is rubbish. We sent back the proposals because we had received many 'representations, which Sir John Banham had reported to us. Because the guidance had changed, the authorities wished to have their future considered in the light of the same guidance as will be used with every other authority. We have done that. If the commission wishes to come back and make a similar recommendation, it is at liberty to do so.
    Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend accept that many people in Staffordshire are deeply worried about the way in which the Local Government Commission has been operating in the light of the Derbyshire decision? I congratulate him on referring the matter back, for sound reasons. Because the Under-Secretary who replied to Question 2 did not answer the point about car boot sales in relation to the division of functions within local authorities, will my hon. Friend accept that there is deep disquiet about car boot sales, for health and safety reasons and because there are worries about criminal activities?
    Mr. Curry: I note what my hon. Friend says. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in his answer, the Government are examining whether it makes sense to remove what most people regard as an archaic rule. The point of having a consultation is to hear what people say, and we are conscious that there is widespread concern about car boot sales. We are looking hard to see what protection local authorities have and what initiatives they can take. If we conclude that that is not adequate, we shall have to change it or look carefully at proposals. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister happy with the current arrangements for public consultation, given that those arrangements seem to vary from place to place?
    Mr. Curry: The commission's job is to produce proposals that will achieve effective and convenient local
    1030
    government. How the commission chooses to judge public opinion is something for it to decide, as is the internal management of the process.
    The hon. Gentleman will be wise enough to know that often the answer to a question is the question one puts to begin with. In some circumstances, people fell back on a two-tier system because they did not like the first option they were given. We have asked local authorities and other people in the communities to get together to provide sensible schemes. By doing so, we want to create the circumstances in which there is a good starting point for the commission to come up with a scheme that reflects local opinion and delivers effective local government. All hon. Members have an interest in that.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give a cast-iron guarantee that no district council will be forced into a merger against its will and against the will of the people? Will he also confirm that there is no absolute minimum size for a unitary authority?
    Mr. Curry: The Government have never said that there is a minimum or a maximum size for the new shape of local government. Flexibility must be retained by looking at local circumstances. Therefore, it would be perfectly silly to issue an arbitrary guideline which might not be sensible in the light of the particular conditions which prevail.
    Mr. Straw: Is it not the truth that what could and should have been a judicious and impartial review of local government is being undermined by a series of inconsistent proposals from Sir John Banham and by incompetence and meddling by Ministers? Does not the Minister understand that having not one, not two but three reviews in Derbyshire and Durham has wasted the time and the money of local communities? Does he accept that that has also—quite unreasonably—destablised the staffs who were affected?
    The review was only necessary to put right the effects of the 1972 reorganisation, for which the Secretary of State personally voted and which the Labour party correctly opposed. Will the Minister now confirm that the full cost of the review will be borne by the Exchequer and that local communities will not be forced to pay twice over for Conservative party mistakes and for the mess?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has characteristically got hold of the wrong end of the stick. There have not been three reviews. The preliminary guidance clearly stated that the commission was to come up with preliminary conclusions, and later it was to come up with final conclusions; the Government then had the responsibility to accept the proposals, modify them or refer them back to commission. We have done nothing that was not spelled out clearly in the rules at the beginning of the procedure.
    We have asked the commission to consider the matter again, partly because Sir John Banham suggested it and partly because people in the communities who saw that the guidelines had changed had said that there should be coherence across the whole review. We are seeking to achieve that.
    Mrs. Gillan: Is my hon. Friend aware that my local county council of Buckinghamshire is anxious about the abbreviation of one week in the review period which has been made? The county council and the local district councils are working towards an agreed solution, which is preferable in all cases, and they are anxious that the time

    1031
    has been taken out arbitrarily. Even at this late stage, will my hon. Friend examine the timetable and perhaps bring some influence to bear on it to reinstate the four-week period?
    Mr. Curry: We accelerated the programme because everyone asked us to do so. People wished to have the uncertainty concluded.
    I know that Buckinghamshire is a sensible part of world. If local people set about the task with a will, and if they are able to come up with the basics for a scheme, the commission will take a great deal of notice. The Government did what people wanted, but I have no doubt that sensible representations from Buckinghamshire to the commission would meet with an understanding reply.

    Local Government Grant Allocation
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to the proportion of local authorities which will (a) raise council tax rates and (b) introduce cuts in local government services following the grant allocation for 1994–95.
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to announce his detailed proposals for the local government finance settlement very shortly.
    Mr. Cohen: Were not huge public, spending cuts announced in the Budget? Does that mean that there will be big council cuts and big council tax rises during the next three years? Has not the Secretary of State failed to defend his Department and shown himself to be the wimp of the Cabinet, and should not he go?
    Mr. Curry: One thing which is always endearing about the hon. Gentleman is his predictability. Council taxes and services depend on the decisions taken by local councils. That depends on their reserves, collection of deficit, tax base and collection rate. What we are hearing now, before anybody knows the facts, is the old Labour litany that this will be a catastrophe. I recall that we heard that about Birmingham last year, yet no catastrophe overtook it, except that it, apparently, spent a lot of money building pyramids.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the announcement that local authority capping will be kept on this year? As, clearly, many electors up and down the country have been foolish in voting in Liberal Democrat and Labour councils, does my hon. Friend agree that they should get what they voted for and take the blame for having increased the council tax, rather than pass the blame back to the Government for being prudent, unlike those councils?
    Mr. Curry: The Government have experience of no controls on local government expendituré and we saw some outrageous increases. Because of that and because of a need to curb public expenditure generally-local government expenditure is a large proportion of the total pool—we think it sensible and prudent to maintain those controls on councils. That does not mean that there is not reasonable discretion for local authorities to determine their priorities. Certainly, there is enough discretion for people to make their choice at the ballot box.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Benton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cities he has visited since his appointment.
    Mr. Gummer: I have visited 45 towns and cities since my appointment, including Manchester, York, Coventry, Birmingham, Leicester, Cambridge, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Nottingham, Derby, Gloucester, Bristol, Rochester and Peterborough.
    Mr. Benton: I note that the Secretary of State made no reference to Sefton on Merseyside. Is he aware that in my local authority, Sefton metropolitan borough council, the housing waiting list is now more than 8,000 and that in my constituency of Bootle applicants have to wait for about three years before they are first considered for housing? The hon. Members for Southport (Mr. Banks) and for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) will testify that it takes about seven years in other parts of Sefton before housing applicants are considered for housing.
    Will the Secretary of State please admit to the House that this problem does not just pertain to my part of the world and that we face a national housing crisis? Will he recognise the difficulty? Will he tell the House what he proposes to do about it, particularly in the light of yesterday's statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he announced further cuts in public spending?
    Mr. Gummer: Two of my hon. Friends have visited Sefton. Sefton has one city challenge scheme, which is a good example of local partnership, and I notice that that gives a particular advantage to Bootle. Therefore, a great deal is being done in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world. It remains true to say that we will more than meet our election pledges on building social housing. What is more important perhaps is that we have already announced new means of ensuring opportunities for people who want to move out of local authority housing that has become too large for them in order to leave the space for others who need it. I hope that that scheme will benefit the hon. Gentleman's part of the world. A considerable sum is still going into housing. I am happy to look personally at the particular points that the hon. Gentleman raises about Sefton.
    Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend was not able to include the London borough of Barnet among those towns and cities that he has visited. Does he accept that he would be welcome to come to Barnet, especially if the standard spending assessment that he announces takes full account of the facts that we educate many children from refugee families and that we have a large elderly population?
    Mr. Gummer: As I have been to a large number of London boroughs and often visit Barnet privately, I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's comment. It is true to say that most Conservative-controlled boroughs in London educate many people from neighbouring Labour boroughs—including the children of some Labour Members who prefer their children not to be educated by a Labour council.
    Mr. Vaz: It is a great pity that the Secretary of State's visits to our cities and urban areas have not given him a proper and clear insight into the problems that they face.

    1033
    Why does he not have the courage to admit that the Government simply do not have a clear, coherent or credible policy for dealing with our cities and urban areas? Why has he failed to defend his Department's budget against the Treasury cuts for local government which were announced yesterday? By how much more is he increasing resources in real terms to our cities as a result of the city pride project? Is that initiative like everything else that he does on the subject—a cheap political gimmick and another municipal gameshow that insults the integrity and intelligence of those who seek to administer local government?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is a little out of date. He spent a lot of time, when we were discussing the setting up of the single unified budget for the great cities of England, telling us that there would not be the money for it. I am pleased to remind him that the £1·4 billion which I announced last year would be available is available this year. That is what we promised that we would deliver and what we have done. The hon. Gentleman first complains that I did not defend the budget; then when I do defend it, he repeats that I did not. He must get the figures right.
    The Government have done more than any previous Government for inner cities in Britain. We should be proud of what is happening in our cities. We are improving them through a series of mechanisms, which the Labour party fought tooth and nail. City challenge has been a great success and we shall continue to fight to improve our cities.
    Since taking on the job, I have made the cities a priority and shown that we need to revitalise our cities all over the country. We should do that by dealing with the planning system properly and ensuring that the life of our cities enables people not only to live there but to work, take their leisure and shop there.

    Urban Policy
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current Government urban policy.
    Dr. Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current Government urban policy.
    Sir George Young: The Government will continue to support urban regeneration through a range of initiatives, including the single regeneration budget announced by my right hon. Friend on 4 November.
    Mr. O'Hara: The Minister will be aware that Sefton may have been awarded city challenge resources, but Knowsley, which neighbours Sefton and has similar problems that are no less severe, was denied the resources, despite an excellent presentation. Will he recognise that the consolation prize of £1 million-worth of urban partnership funding can be seen locally only as a sop when it is accompanied by a rapid rundown in urban programme funding? The authority used to receive that funding at a level of £4·5 million per annum and used it to address strategically a wide range of economic, social and environmental problems. Will the Minister give a commitment to restore urban funding in my borough of Knowsley to such a level and in such a manner that it will be able once again to address its many problems coherently and will not be forced reluctantly to indulge in an annual game of urban funding bingo?
    Sir George Young: As the hon. Member knows, the urban programme is being phased out, but alternative opportunities are available to his constituency—for example, we are spending £10 million through estate action to remodel the Lickers Lane estate in Whiston. We are giving help to three local shopping parades—Liverpool road, Leathers lane and Hillside road. The hon. Gentleman's authority has received £20 million in urban programme resources over the past 10 years. Although it may not have been successful with city challenge, there has been a substantial investment in that part of the country by my Department in particular schemes, which I am sure has been of benefit to his constituents.
    Dr. Berry: What plans does the Minister have for places like Bristol, where existing Government schemes are coming to an end? It has lost area task force money, it is losing the safer cities project money and it does not have the benefit of assisted area status. How will the proposed Minister for Bristol fit into the plans? Would not a better alternative be to fund properly a democratically elected local council?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman mentions all the things that Bristol does not have, but forgets to mention Bristol development corporation, which has just spent £47 million building a spine road linking the M32 to the A4. It is building a new shopping centre and a new business centre, and is helping to regenerate the whole area around Temple Meads station. For the hon. Gentleman to criticise the failure to win a number of smaller prizes when the area has the real help of that development corporation is to look through the telescope the wrong way.
    Mr. Bates: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this year the county of Cleveland will benefit from £100 million from the Government for urban regeneration? Central to that will be the continued excellent work of Teesside development corporation, which has attracted 7,500 jobs since it was established. Does he agree that that success and investment would make Teesside an ideal location for the new headquarters for the Urban Regeneration Agency?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend's note of optimism strikes a much more recognisable tone on behalf of his constituents than do some of the Opposition complaints. It is certainly true that the development corporations in the north-east are transforming prospects and providing a much broader base for the economy and more jobs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the part that he plays in further pursuing the work of the development corporation in his constituency.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to combat homelessness.
    Sir George Young: The figures announced yesterday will mean that more families can move into home ownership, releasing their present local authority or housing association home to homeless families and others in housing need. Some £30 million is being made available to local authorities to run cash incentive schemes; and more Housing Corporation resources will be provided for its successful tenants' incentive scheme. That is good news

    1035
    for families in housing need, who will benefit from new lettings made available. It is good news for tenants and good news for the housing market.
    The Housing Corporation estimates that, with the plans announced yesterday, we will comfortably exceed our target of 153,000 homes funded through the Housing Corporation over the first three years of this Parliament. We now estimate that about 53,000 homes will be completed next year, making a total of 173,000 over the three-year period.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Edinburgh churches and other organisations that are arranging a sleep-out for homeless people on Friday in which I will participate? Does he recognise that the vast majority of people who have homes and incomes are appalled by the plight of homeless people and by the fact that the Government have presided over such an alarming increase in the number of homeless people and done so little to help them? What concrete measures does he propose to ensure that young single homeless are properly accommodated?
    Sir George Young: It is not the case that homelessness is increasing in England. For the past four quarters, acceptances by local authorities of those who are statutorily homeless has fallen. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that. Fewer and fewer of those accepted as homeless are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There has been a fall of 41 per cent. over the past 12 months in the number of families in bed and breakfast.
    In terms of the single homeless, a substantial number of rough sleepers have been assisted by the Government's rough sleepers initiative in London, and the number sleeping rough on the streets has fallen from about 1,060 three years ago to about 360. I am determined to make further progress and to see that number fall yet further.
    Mr. Hendry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those policies, which are bringing down homeless statistics for the first time since records began. Can he confirm that there are 800,000 empty properties, representing 13 empty homes for every family in temporary accommodation? The Government are right to target resources on bringing those homes back into use, and is not that exactly what my right hon. Friend is doing?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that there are 800,000 empty properties. He is also right to promote schemes to bring those properties back into action, such as, for example, the housing association as managing agent scheme. Everybody who wants to bring decent homes within the reach of more people should do all that he can to encourage such schemes to get off the ground so that those homes can generate income for their owners and provide decent shelter for those who might otherwise be in unsatisfactory accommodation.
    Mr. Battle: Do not the Minister's replies demonstrate a shameful complacency? Everyone except the Government seems to agree that 300,000 new homes are needed in the next three years. Is the Minister aware that today, more than 200 homes will be repossessed, more than 500 families will be registered as officially homeless, more than 60,000 families are trapped in temporary accommodation and more than 8,000 will sleep out, not only in London but in towns and cities throughout the country?
    1036
    Why, then, is the Minister backing a Budget that is hammering down on housing investment, cutting £500 million from housing associations and local councils and effectively, at a stroke, cutting out 10,000 new homes? Would it not be economic common sense to go for housing investment, to use the backlog of local councils' capital receipts to generate jobs in construction and manufacturing and to provide homes to rent that are desperately needed—or will the Minister now tell us that his Government have decided that in our society we shall be scarred by homelessness well into the next century?
    Sir George Young: What really matters for those in housing need is not the number of new homes that housing associations built each year but the number of new lettings that housing associations provide. The Government are refocusing the resources of the housing associations into more cost-effective schemes, such as the tenants incentives scheme, shared ownership and do-it-yourself shared ownership. The number of completions next year, at 53,000, is roughly double the number of completions that were achieved in 1991-92. It is not the case that the Housing Corporation will not make a real impact. The Housing Corporation believes that, during the next three year, it will maintain the output that it envisaged completing at the beginning of the year.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although Conservative Members welcome the reduction in the number of the homeless, Shelter claims that there are more than 2 million homeless people in England?
    Sir George Young: A number of figures are bandied around in the housing world. The figure of 2 million homeless people which was produced by Shelter is one of the most absurd figures that I have seen in three years as Housing Minister. Shelter has included in the 2 million figure everyone who is on an assured shorthold. The assured shorthold is now the most common form of letting in the private rented sector. If one were to describe as homeless everyone who had an assured shorthold, one would include many hon. Members.

    Air Quality Testing Stations
    Dr. Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government intend to increase the number of air quality testing stations and by how many.
    Mr. Gummer: My Department published consultation proposals on the development of air quality monitoring on 2 November. Decisions will be reached in the light of responses to that consultation.
    Dr. Howells: Can the Secretary of State say why so few testing stations are currently operating and why, given the huge increase in asthma and the links between asthma and vehicle emissions, he does not have immediate plans to build new testing stations to have them operating wherever concentrations of population and traffic coincide?
    Mr. Gummer: We have 42 continuous automatic stations. We are spending £4 million a year on that work. Anyone in the country can telephone his or her local number to find out the quality of the air in the place to which he or she wishes to go. That is especially valuable to those who have asthma problems. I have great sympathy with people who have such problems, as I am a former

    1037
    sufferer. I am, therefore, pleased that we shall have a report by the sub-group investigating that topic. I hope to have that report in 1994 and to consider it in conjunction with the work that we have already done. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important matter, which I shall not forget.
    Mr. Spring: My right hon. Friend will be aware that much air pollution comes from the motor car. What plans has my right hon. Friend in place to reduce pollution from that source?
    Mr. Gummer: The reduction in pollution that has already occurred because of the move to leadless petrol is a remarkable achievement. That has been extremely helpful and has made a major difference. It is one of the biggest changes that has occurred. Cars now have to have catalytic converters. We are seeking to tighten those arrangements and have been doing so for some time.
    The matter is also under review in the European Community. My hon. Friend will know that I visited the motor show to look at the latest developments and I very much hope that we can press motor producers to do more. With that in mind, I spoke to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and I am pleased to say that I have had considerable support from that organisation to do what we all want to do—reduce the effect of pollution in towns.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Far from being reduced, did not pollution from nitrogen dioxide in central London rise by 17 per cent. last year alone and is not the number of national monitoring stations for nitrogen dioxide in Britain seven compared with 200 in Germany? Given that one in every seven children suffers from asthma and that the number of sufferers has doubled in the past 10 years, is not the least we can do—and the first step we should take—to improve substantially the monitoring of nitrogen dioxide and air pollution so that we can take action to tackle the problem seriously?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Three times as many centres do that already. There are 21 stations monitoring nitrogen dioxide; the hon. Gentleman said that there were seven. The figures we put forward are the facts; the ones he put forward are his hopes. The hon. Gentleman is constantly trying to undermine what the Government are doing. What we are doing is very effective. I have said that I am not sure whether we are doing the job well enough. That is why I issued a consultation paper. I shall consider that consultation paper and act on the facts. If the hon. Gentleman were more willing to acquaint himself with the facts and seek our help on them, we would get much further.

Social Security Uprating
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, I would like to make a statement on social security following from my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.
Spending on social security this year will amount to more than £80 billion. It will increase over the next three years to £83 billion, £88 billion and £92 billion. It is the largest increase of any Department and shows our commitment to the needy, the elderly, sick and disabled people.
Despite the intense pressures on public spending, we will keep our commitment to uprate benefits, keep our pledges to families and the elderly and keep our promise to give extra help with fuel bills.
Although inflation over the past 12 months was low, the cost of uprating all benefits to offset it would have been around £2 billion next year. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for going beyond that, and providing substantial extra funds to help people with fuel bills.
Next year, that extra help will be worth nearly £400 million, and by the time the full rate of VAT has fed through, the total extra help will run at £1·25 billion a year. Over three years, the total additional help for VAT on fuel amounts to £2·5 billion pounds. That will be a permanent increase in the value of benefits to 15 million people.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor explained that I plan to give everyone on income support except pensioners and disabled people extra help next April before the higher heating bills arrive, so their benefits will be uprated by 3·9 per cent., which is higher than most people in work will receive. A further 2 million people above the income support level, who get housing benefits or familiar credit, will receive a similar increase.
I was also determined to help those who have worked, saved and earned modest pensions, and who normally get no extra help. So, from next April, on top of uprating for inflation, all pensions will be increased by 50p a week for single pensioners and 70p for couples. The following year, extra help for VAT on fuel will be £1 a week for single pensioners and £1·40 for couples. From the third year onwards, that extra help will be as much as £1·40 for a single pensioner and £2 for a couple. All those on widow's benefit, invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance and disability premium will get the same extra help.
In addition, I will increase cold weather payments by 25 per cent. over two years. To help those with high heating bills, the scheme to help insulate homes and improve fuel efficiency will be virtually doubled in value and extended to all pensioners and disabled people.
Yesterday, the Chancellor announced a new national savings pensioners guaranteed income bond which will provide regular monthly payments at a fixed rate of interest.
By any stretch of the imagination, this is a substantial package. It far exceeds what most people expected, and fulfils our promise to help those most affected.
We are determined to maintain proper support for all those whom the welfare state exists to help, but given the relentless growth of spending, we have to make sure that the money is spent to best effect. That is the aim of my long-term review.
1040
My first priority is to make savings which do not affect benefit entitlements. That is why operational costs have been kept within last year's cash limit, despite the extra work load, and why I am intensifying the battle against fraud. I have created a new fraud board to step up prevention, deterrence and detection of fraud. It will be chaired by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security.
I am cracking down on order book fraud. The order book has been redesigned to prevent forgery. We have introduced secure delivery methods to prevent theft, and we are rewarding vigilant Post Office employees who stop false encashment of stolen order books. I am continuing to look at new ways of tackling fraud.
I am also stopping a number of abuses. I shall discourage local authorities paying housing benefit for unnecessarily expensive property. I shall stop councils paying housing benefits to people who entered this country on the express understanding that they would be no burden on public funds. I am also bringing in regulations today to prevent employers from avoiding national insurance by paying their employees in commodities like gold bullion. Those measures should save £500 million over 3 years.
We also need to make sure that benefits concentrate help on those whom Parliament wishes to help. I have been examining the social security system sector by sector. I am now able to introduce a fundamental reform of sickness benefits. The number of people on statutory sick pay, sickness benefit and invalidity benefit has almost doubled since 1979, from just over I million to almost 2 million, even though the nation has been getting healthier.
Britain has the second highest level of sick leave of any EC country. The level varies between companies even in the same business. Those differences reflect management's success or failure in motivating employees, caring for their health and monitoring absences. At present, the Government reimburse each firm 80 per cent. of the cost of its statutory sick pay. That largely removes the incentive to reduce sick leave.
From April next year, I propose to abolish reimbursement, except to small employers. Small employers usually have less sick leave but are harder hit by prolonged illness. Therefore, I intend to increase the help to small employers and extend it to more of them.
So far, we have been helping employers whose national insurance bill was £16,000 or less a year. I am raising that limit to £20,000. So far, we have been reimbursing 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay for absences of longer than six weeks. I shall start giving 100 per cent. help after four weeks. That will help an extra 50,000 employers, at a cost of £25 million. The new arrangements will help two thirds of all employers.
At the same time, I am cutting employers' national insurance rates by substantially more than they were spending on statutory sick pay. Indeed, the cut in national insurance will also offset the future extra cost of statutory maternity pay, which employers were expecting to bear without compensation. So employers as a whole will be no worse off. Indeed, their net costs will be reduced by over £100 million a year, and those who respond to the incentive to improve staff health will benefit even more.
There has been a particularly marked increase in the number of people claiming invalidity benefit in recent years. The number on this benefit has more than doubled

1041
in the past 10 years and trebled in the past 15 years. That growth is particularly surprising, given improving health and better health care.
I therefore propose to introduce, from April 1995, a more objective medical test of whether people can work. I am issuing a consultation paper today, copies of which are available in the Vote Office, and I am forming a panel of medical experts and representatives of disabled people. They will be asked to help define what constitutes incapacity to work and how it should be measured.
The new test will apply to new applicants. Those drawing invalidity benefit are already subject to regular review. Under the present test, about 100,000 people each year are found to be fit for work and have their benefit withdrawn.
After April 1995, those on the highest "care" rate of DLA, those with terminal illnesses, those on a list of specified severe or chronic conditions and those currently on invalidity benefit who are by then 58 or over will no longer be subject to any review. But the new test will be used in reviews of other existing claimants. No one who is genuinely unable to work for medical reasons has cause for concern.
I am also simplifying the structure of all sickness benefits for new claimants from April 1995. At present, there are two rates of statutory sick pay. I propose to abolish the lower rate, which means that lower-paid workers will receive the higher rate of benefit, worth an extra £3·70 a week.
I shall also replace sickness and invalidity benefit by a new incapacity benefit that will be payable at three rates—the longer the period of sickness, the higher the rate. The lowest rate will apply during the first 28 weeks; the middle rate for the rest of the first year; and the highest rate after a year.
Those who are incapacitated early in life will receive extra help because they will have had less time to make additional personal provision for ill health. Additional payments will be made to those whose spouses are caring for children or are over 60.
New claimants will no longer be entitled to a state earnings related addition. Incapacity benefit will cease at pension age. Those already drawing invalidity benefit when the new incapacity benefit is introduced will continue to draw their benefit at existing rates and will not be taxed on it. Only those who come on to incapacity benefit from April 1995 will be liable to tax.
I am making a number of valuable changes for sick or disabled people. First, people on incapacity benefit will be free to do up to 16 hours voluntary work without losing their benefit. That will be widely welcomed by potential volunteers, voluntary organisations and those they help.
Secondly, from April 1995, people taking jobs with the help of disability working allowance will automatically qualify for free prescriptions and free dental charges. Thirdly, I am increasing the level of support to Motability, whose help for disabled people is so extensive that it now runs the biggest car fleet in the country. I am making a £1 million increase in the grant to the mobility equipment fund, which adapts vehicles for use by severely disabled people.
Overall, those reforms of sickness benefits will curb their rapidly growing cost; provide a more rational structure of benefits; encourage employers to improve the
1042
motivation and health of employees; and concentrate benefit on those genuinely unable to work. I believe that they will command widespread support.
The incapacity benefits are for people who cannot work. I now turn to benefits for people who are capable of work. Clearly, the best answer, wherever possible, is to help people to find jobs, but sometimes the rules lose sight of that aim. We currently have two benefits for the unemployed—unemployment benefit and income support—and they overlap. Some people are entitled to both, many switch between the two, and the benefit levels leapfrog because they are uprated by different indices. This year, single adults on unemployment benefit will get 65p more than on income support; next year, they will get 25p less.
The two benefits cover different periods. Unemployment benefit excludes Sunday; income support includes Sunday. They have different rules, which require different bureaucracies, offices and computer systems. That results in confusion for unemployed people, complexity for staff and expense for taxpayers. It is time for reform.
I propose to replace the two benefits with a new job seeker's allowance, starting in 1996, which will be more clearly focused on helping people into work. The longer people spend on benefit, the more their motivation and skills decline, and the less chance they have of finding a job.
All unemployed people will be required to enter into a job seeker's agreement at the start of their claim, which will commit them to a plan of action to seek work. We will have a single set of measures for those who fail to take thee necessary steps to seek work, but we will give extra help to those who make the effort to find a job.
The new job seeker's allowance will have a single set of rates. We will provide help for unemployed people and their dependants according to their needs, and this will be paid for as long as they need it. People who have paid national insurance contributions will receive a personal rate for six months, irrespective of their capital or their partners' earnings.
Unemployed people currently cannot get income support if their partners are working for 16 hours or more. That problem emerged as a by-product of improvements in family credit last year. We will retain the current beneficial rules for family credit, but we will restore the limit for partners of unemployed people to 24 hours.
Going back to work can involve extra costs—for example, for clothing and transport. We will be testing a job finder's grant of up to £200 to help people who have not had a job for two years meet those costs. We said in our manifesto that we would do this, and I am pleased that we are now implementing that pledge.
I will also give very significant help to people with family responsibilities who want to return to work. Many people find it unattractive to leave benefit for a low-paid job, especially if they need to pay for child care. I propose to allow families with a child under 11 to offset up to £40 per week of child care costs against their earnings when claiming family credit and related benefits. It will be worth' up to £28 a week; it will start next October; and it will be available to couples where both are working or one is incapacitated, and to lone parents. It will cover the cost of registered child minders or nurseries.
The change will give a powerful new incentive for parents to move into work. It will provide help for up to

1043
150,000 families, including 50,000 whom we expect to take up work as a direct result of the change. The measure has been widely welcomed.
I am today publishing a White Paper on the equalisation of state pension age at 65. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The difference in state pension age for men and women is the last glaring inequality in our benefit system, and we are committed to phasing it out. It is essential to do so in order to provide a clear framework within which occupational pension schemes can comply with the European Court ruling that requires them to equalise their benefits for men and women.
It is right to equalise at age 65, for three reasons. First, women are increasingly playing a role equal to that of men in the economy. Women live longer, and increasingly expect to be able to work as long as men.
Secondly, people are living longer, healthier lives. As a result, by the year 2030 the number of pensioners will have increased by 50 per cent., and there will be fewer people of working age to support them. At present, there are 3·3 people of working age for each pensioner. That ratio was set to decline to 2·2 to 1 by 2030, but equalising at 65 will improve the future support ratio to a more sustainable 2·7 to 1.
Thirdly, throughout the world countries are equalising upwards or increasing pension age for both sexes. The majority of European Community countries have, or are planning, a state pension age of 65 or higher, and the United States is moving up to a pension age of 67. We cannot afford to reduce our competitiveness by lowering our pension age. Equalising at 65 will eventually reduce the pensions bill by £5 billion: it is the key to ensuring that the state retirement pension remains affordable.
Our proposals contain a number of features that will make this decision widely acceptable. We have given women and employers plenty of time to plan for the future: equalisation will be phased in between 2010 and 2020.
Mr. Eddie Loyden rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is not the custom for a Secretary of State to give way while making a statement.
Mr. Lilley: So women now aged 44 and over will not be affected; only those now aged 38 or under will have a state pension age of 65. Furthermore, the pension entitlements of millions of people—mostly women—will be very significantly enhanced.
We plan to extend home responsibilities protection to the state earnings-related pension scheme. That will enable women—and men—who take time out of the labour market to care for children or disabled people to build full SERPS entitlement in as few as 20 working years. That will be a very substantial benefit, enhancing the value of women's pensions by around £2 billion by the year 2020.
In addition, to help those on low earnings, family credit and disability working allowance will count as earnings in the calculation of pensions. Finally, we are extending the period of flexibility during which people can choose to start drawing their pensions. At present, they can defer drawing retirement pensions for up to five years, and for each year of deferral their pensions will increase by 7·5 per cent. In future, the increase will be 10 per cent., and people will be able to defer for as many years as they like.
1044
The best support for an improved social security system is a vibrant free enterprise economy. That is what creates the wealth to pay for benefits, generates jobs and provides opportunities for people to support themselves. To nurture economic growth, we must curb borrowing and ensure that the social security system does not outstrip or undermine the nation's ability to pay for it.
All the reforms that I have announced are intended to strengthen our welfare state, to adapt it to modern needs and to make it affordable into the next century. I have been able to announce a generous package of help for those most affected by the imposition of VAT on fuel; reforms to concentrate help on those who are genuinely unable to work; incentives for employers to improve the health and motivation of their staff; a more rational structure of help for those seeking work; help for working mothers to cope with child care costs; an equal state pension age; and help for women and the low-paid to build up better pensions in the future. I commend these measures to the House.
Mr. Donald Dewar: My constituents will of course be grateful for the knowledge that it will be harder to avoid national insurance contributions by taking payment in the form of bullion. I must add, however, that that is not the test that they are likely to apply to either the Budget or the uprating statement.
This Budget endangers what even the most optimistic and bullish commentators have been describing as a fragile recovery. The 1993 Budget represents the biggest tax hike in history, taking £24 billion out of the economy in higher taxes in just over three years. It is, as I am sure Secretary of State recognises, a pay more, get less, Budget in which 95 per cent. of households will lose and yet see cuts in the services and benefits for which they have paid.
It is astonishing that the Minister who styles himself a low-tax advocate is partly responsible for a tax debacle. Half a million people on low incomes have been trawled into the income tax net as a result of the double freeze in personal allowances.
National insurance contributions are rising by 1 per cent.—a tax that will raise £300 million more than a penny on income tax, precisely because it bites at a lower level of income and hits half a million people who are too poor to pay income tax. In return, national insurance benefits are being cut.
There is little to cheer low-income households in the uprating statement. The Minister has done the essential minimum by uprating in line with indexation, but even here, there are hidden barbs of misery for those who look at the fine print.
Why, in the context of the general uprating, has the Minister chosen to cut the value of the severe disabililty premium paid with income support? How can the Chancellor have claimed to give extra help to the disabled on income support to compensate for VAT on fuel—a tax that we know from research hits the severely disabled more than other group?
When the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) has clawed back all that help and more with a cut of 58p' to the benefit of a single disabled adult and of £1·16 to the benefit of a severely disabled couple, does he not recognise that the country will see that as mean and unnecessary? Does not the Minister recognise that, despite his remarkable complacency, the VAT compensation scheme is a con?
Mr. David Shaw: What a ridiculous statement.
Mr. Dewar: I shall explain that to the hon. Member for Dover. Simply, the Chancellor's 50p will not meet the extra fuel costs when the VAT bills roll in. The Clarke gap means financial pain for many. Pensioners are already saying, "I'm frightened to put on the fire." That fear will grow as the harsh arithmetic emerges. For poorer families on income support, the 0·4 per cent. uprating is a miserable prospect. Has the Minister seen the research from York university published this month that tested the 0·4 per cent. figure and found that 97 per cent. of a sample of 5,000 households on benefit lost financially?
If Conservative Members are happy with what is to happen will the Secretary of State defend the fact that a married couple on income support with two children under 11 will be struggling to make ends meet from April on £113·05 a week because they will have the princely sum of 45p to deal with VAT costs? Go and ask constituents in that situation whether 45p a week is a generous settlement that will cover additional outlays that they will face.
How does the Secretary of State defend the situation in which a single disabled person over 25, who will receive £65·15 income support a week from April, will get only the Chancellor's 50p? Can he confirm that many thousands of disabled people will get no compensation at all, such as those who are in receipt of the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance? If that is so, how does the Minister explain it?
VAT will cost the average household £l a week or more in 1994–95 and £1·30 a week if there are children in the family. Government figures make that clear. In the weeks ahead, the message that Back Benchers will get from pensioners in the country is that 50p is not enough—and they will be right. Ministers cannot buy off the old and cold for 50p.
The disabled seem to be remarkably singled out as Budget losers. I understand that the Secretary of State is obsessed with the growth in invalidity benefits. Does he remember that his own Department argued with great vim and pertinacity with the Public Accounts Select Committee that the principal reasons for the increase in invalidity benefit were demographic factors and the rise in unemployment to which it was directly linked? Perhaps the
Secretary of State should re-read that evidence. He should also recognise that, if he tries to tell the House that invalidity benefit has been a soft touch, he must explain why, last year, 53 per cent. of appeals to independent tribunals against the refusal of invalidity benefit succeeded.
Does the Secretary of State recall his Department's estimates that between 10 and 20 per cent. of invalidity claimants would lose entitlement to benefit as a result of the introduction of the so-called objective test? Does he remember that the estimate was that between 30,000 and 60,000 claimants would be affected? That was a working document, but can he tell me whether that will be largely the effect of the test, as he is now introducing it? If not, how many people who would have qualified if they had applied under the old system will not qualify under the new system? We are entitled to know that.
The Secretary of State will remember the example of the 55-year-old builder with angina, who was unable to walk on the flat for more than 200 yards because of constant pain? He would be deprived of invalidity benefit. Is that the type of person who will find that he does not qualify for the new benefit?
1046
I accept that we shall have to study the documents, but the Secretary of State will recognise that we shall want to examine closely the new test that he is introducing. I understand that it takes the form of a points league table—a form in which the Government seem obsessively interested.
In one section, we shall be invited to consider whether someone is unable to handle a book in order to read it. If he cannot, he will get 25 points. If he cannot lift and push an unladen wheelbarrow, he will get only 4·5 points. If he cannot pick up and carry a 5 lb bag of potatoes in either hand separately, he will get 9·5 points.
We shall want to examine the test. I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that objectivity sounds all very well, but that, if it translates into a lack of sympathy, there will be absolutely no public support for what I believe is ultimately a cost-cutting exercise.
How will the changes in invalidity benefit fit in with the proposed changes to statutory sick pay? The larger employers will no longer be reimbursed for sick pay costs. Does not the Secretary of State accept that that will create a disincentive to employ people who may have a bad health record? Therefore, people will lose entitlement to the new incapacity benefit and at the same time discover that another barrier has been placed in their way as they search in a difficult job market. The Government assume in the Red Book that unemployment will remain at about 2·75 million over the next three or four years.
It seems to me that a Government who are determined not to introduce anti-discrimination legislation to protect disabled people are going in for a little discrimination themselves. Did the Secretary of State see—just to reinforce the point—the Budget taster on the front page of the Daily Mail today, which carried the simple message:
"Sick pay: Can you afford to be ill?"
That may turn out to be remarkably prescient.
The taxing of invalidity benefit is certainly not the place the Opposition would have started in looking for additional revue. Am I right in thinking that, of two people living in the same street, in the same physical state and in the same social and financial circumstances, one could be in receipt of invalidity benefit and the other could be in receipt of the broadly comparable but presumably reduced incapacity benefit? One would be taxed and the other would not. That would create a great deal of bitterness and misunderstanding. It would reduce taxation policy to something of a lottery, based on the point at which one falls ill. I hope that the Secretary of State will give some thought to that.
I turn now to the proposed job seeker's allowance. We have been told that there will be a single benefit for the unemployed. We have been told by the Chancellor, in one of his rather broad brushstrokes, that he will cut through the bureaucratic maze. I am not sure whether he was referring to the efforts of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security over the past few years or to his colleague in the Department of Employment, but we shall want to know in some detail whether it will mean an integration of services between the Department of. Employment and the Department of Social Security and, if so, exactly how it will work, and what the job implications will be.
Our suspicion—I think that many people share it—is that, while the ringing cry is, "It's time for reform," when that comes from the Secretary of State, it can be roughly

1047
translated into, "It's time for a cut." The people who will suffer are those who are at risk and who are looking for work.
I ask the Secretary of State to comment specifically on the impact on, and implications for, the contributory principle. He will remember that there have been many fine ministerial defences of that principle over recent months. What we have here is a situation in which people who have built up their entitlement through contributions over many years see it halved at a stroke. They will have not unemployment benefit for 12 months, but a job seeker's allowance for six months.
That seems to me to be a significant shift in Government policy, and it rather underlines what we know from documents that we have seen about a reconsideration of the Government's approach to the contributory principle. That is a serious and important point, and I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with it.
My worry is that, on the one hand, in some Bonnie and Clyde situation—I shall leave it to the two Ministers to decide who is who—people will have to pay 1 per cent. more in national insurance contributions. That is £300 million more for the Chancellor than a penny on income tax. At the same time, the unemployed and the people looking for work are being kicked as they leave by that remarkable reduction in their rights.
The new job seeker's allowance appears in a fine new livery. It has been beautifully repackaged, but at the end of the day it means paying more for less. It is a bad day for those of us who believe in fundamental and civilised provision on a co-operative basis.
How many will be removed from entitlement to benefit as a result of the cut from 12 months to six months? The figure is bound to be substantial, and has been put at 200,000. Will the Secretary of State confirm that? If I am wrong, how many will there be?
As it will be of interest to the House, will he tell us what the effect would be on the current unemployment figures if his proposed scheme were operating now? I believe, as do many, that one reason why it is so attractive to the right hon. Gentleman is that he can evict people not only from benefit, but from the unemployment totals.
I must conclude soon, so I shall deal with the massaging of figures, but in particular the assertion by the Chancellor that raising the retirement age for women to 65 will make a
"considerable difference to the affordability of the modern welfare state in the next century."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 927.]
We shall all want to analyse that sentence in the period ahead. Perhaps the Secretary of State could draw his colleague's attention to figure 7 of his Department's discussion document "Options for Equality in State Pension Aid". It sets out the impact of the national insurance fund and national insurance contribution rates of equalising the state pension age in 2025, when the Government's proposals will be fully in force.
With a pension age of 60, the combined rate of employer/employee contributions necessary to keep the fund in balance would fall from 23·4 per cent. now to just 19·2 per cent. According to the table supplied by the Department, with a common age of 65, the combined national insurance contribution will fall to 15·7 per cent. There is an important debate about the best way forward,
1048
but it should not be taken on scare stories and inaccurate information, which are designed to stampede people in one direction.
The reason for those dramatic figures is that the Government have been cutting the basic pension as a percentage of average earnings steadily over a long period. It will soon no longer be the "cornerstone of the welfare state", as the Chancellor rather imaginatively described it the other day. It is important that we recognise that we must look at providing choice for people in retirement as in every other part of their careers.
The Government talk about choice, but all too often fail to deliver. Under the proposal, everyone will have to wait until they are 65. It is particularly worrying for women, who will have to wait an extra five years. If the Secretary of State feels that that is the last glaring example of inequality for women in the social security system, I am prepared to supply him with something of which he is quite fond—"a little list" for him to examine.
The tragedy is that there is so little evidence, even in that proposal, that he is earmarking any of the savings to help women to find their way in a system in which, because of their careers as mothers and their employment patterns, they are often severely prejudiced.
We must get away from a set retirement age, which sits ill with the modern labour market and the needs of the future. As the Secretary of State knows, the Labour party is committed to a flexible decade of retirement. The guiding principles should be choice, adequate provision and security. Those contemplating retirement should be able to decide what is right for them according to their circumstances. We shall conduct the debate on that basis.
It was a bad Budget. I do not want to be ungracious, because there were some good things in it. For example, I welcome the proposals for a child care provision for those on family credit. It is a limited concession, worth a maximum of £28 to a small client group of about 200,000 families. It is particularly welcome because it is in sharp contrast to the arid and unpleasant scapegoat politics that we have seen when we have discussed lone parents in recent months and in which, I am afraid, the Secretary of State has taken a rather disreputable role.
The final point I welcome is the fraud board. I want to mention that because I am often accused of forgetting about fraud. I do not do so. I believe that it should be struck at on all occasions. I welcome the fraud board because it is obviously needed. Will the Secretary of State say whether that move is a response to the Public Accounts Committee report of the other day, which pointed out that there was not even a decent computer system for the fraud section and that fraud was often not detected early enough?
The uprating statement is a stage in the drive towards a vision of the welfare state that nobody on this side of the House shares. It is not a case of the Secretary of State being a victim of the Chancellor. I fear that he is obtusely marching in the wrong direction. He wants to shrink the welfare state. He wants to withdraw the Government from some sectors of provision. It goes with the contracting-out move and the obsession with privatisation. That policy, unchecked, will see the basic pension fall to under 10 per cent. of the average wage. We do not share that vision, and we shall continue to fight it.
Mr. Lilley: I apologise for the fact that my statement took nearly as long as the questions from the hon. Member from Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

1049
The hon. Gentleman began by ridiculing the closing of loopholes in the tax system. I agree that it would be foolish to base an entire economic policy on that, and I trust that he will have a word with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) about it.
The hon. Gentleman went on to attack parts of the Budget for which I am not responsible, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is well able to look after himself. The hon. Gentleman attacked the national insurance contributions bill that is to flow from the Budget earlier this year. He then got on to a part of the Budget that I am unable to identify in any of the upratings. If he will write to me about the premium that he thinks we have cut, I shall respond to him, but I am not aware that that is the case.
At long last, the hon. Gentleman got on to the compensation for VAT on fuel bills and said that it was a con, and inadequate. I remind him of what he said in The People on 21 November:
"The Government has to add something on to take account of that"—
the increased impact of VAT on fuel—
"and they could do it with an extra 50p on pensions."
We have done rather better than that. In the first year, the figure will be 70p for a pensioner couple, rising to £1·40 in the second year and £2 for the poorest pensioners in the third year. I am, of course, always sensitive to suggestions that I am spendthrift.
The hon. Gentleman then said that the Government were not giving enough help to those who are on income support. Their benefits will be increased by 3·9 per cent., which is more than most people at work are getting. The child care measure will help many people get back into work who were previously dependent on benefit.
The hon. Gentleman asked for clarification on the severe disablement allowance. That is being increased by 50p in the same way as pensions, to ensure that disabled people who are reliant on benefit will get the same help. It is nonsense to say that the disabled are losers from the Budget—far from it. It is particularly absurd to say that the reforms of invalidity benefit, and its replacement by an incapacity benefit which has a proper objective test, will harm anyone who is disabled. The test is designed to concentrate help on those who are genuinely unable to work, and to make sure that the people who are excluded from benefit are those who are able to work.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked how many people were likely to fail the incapacity benefit test. That will depend on the precise terms of the test, and those will emerge from consultation and evaluation. It is likely in broad measure that around 70,000 people a year who would have received benefit will no longer do so.
He said that we should look closely at the test, and suggested that it was somehow to be ridiculed. I will remind him that the basis on which we are working to build a test is precisely the basis of the survey of disability by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. That survey has become the sacred text of those in the disability world. It is widely respected, and we are building upon it.
The hon. Gentleman described the decision not to reimburse statutory sick pay while compensating employers by reducing national insurance contributions by more than an equal amount as a disincentive to employ disabled people. I will remind him that disabled people have generally a better attendance record and lower levels of sickness and absence from work than do other people.
1050
The Government look on the measure as an incentive to employers to improve the health of their employees, and they will realise that it is in their interests. Good employers already do it, and more will do so and take an interest in that aspect of the well-being of their employees. The hon. Gentleman has not told us what the Labour party's thinking in that area is. Does he believe that the present system should be pickled in formaldehyde, and that nothing in the welfare system should ever be changed, regardless of whether there are obvious abuses and issues which need to be addressed?
The hon. Gentleman then came on to the job seeker's allowance and asked whether we envisaged an integrated delivery. That, of course, must be the objective. My Department, together with the Employment Service, is investigating how that can be best achieved in the long term. That is in the interests of the beneficiaries, as much as in the interests of efficient delivery.
He talked about the Government undermining the contributory principle by the changes which are proposed in the job seeker's allowance. I will again remind him that the Commission for Social Justice, which was established by the Labour party, has issued a document which puts the whole contributory principle in doubt. It suggests that it should be determined whether the principle should continue at all. It is rich for him to suggest that changes to particular benefits threatens that principle.
Mr. Bob Cryer: That is not Labour party policy.
Mr. Lilley: The Labour party has not got a policy—that is the problem. The party has put it out to commission.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked how many were likely to be removed from benefit as a result of the measure. The figure is likely to be half that which he talks about. Two thirds of all unemployed people get back to work within six months. We hope that the associated changes which we are making will improve that proportion, as will the recovery of the economy.
The hon. Gentleman turned to the state pension age, and implied that somehow we could afford to equalise at a lower age, and that that would not cost much. Equalisation at 60 would cost £12 billion a year more than it would cost at 65.
If he believes that the optimum use of £12 billion is to pay out unconditionally a pension to people between 60 and 65 whether or not they are working and whatever their means, he must have a strange set of priorities, especially when he knows that the one group that will not benefit are those with the lowest means who are already on income support, which is set at a higher level than the statutory pension.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomed, albeit grudgingly, the changes that we are making to child care incentives for those on family credit. They have been widely suppprted across the board and across the political spectrum. They will show their value when they come in before too long.
The hon. Gentleman ended with the ritual accusation that I believed in shrinking the welfare state. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who are not prepared to reform cannot preserve the welfare state and ensure that it is affordable into the next century. Because we have the courage to take the necessary decisions, we are the true friends of welfare provision in the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Those initial exchanges have taken 50 minutes. Often, when a Secretary of State makes a statement, the House seems to believe that it can move into debate mode. Statements are not the beginning of a debate; they are made so that the Secretary of State can be questioned on what he has said. I caution the House now that I am not prepared to hear statements from hon. Members on either side of the House. I am here to listen to pertinent questions to the Secretary of State's statement. I want brisk questions and brisk answers.
Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which clearly honours the Government's manifesto pledges. In particular, I welcome the Government's decision to equalise—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is the first offender. Let me hear her question, please.
Mrs. Roe: I note that home responsibilities protection is to be extended to SERPS. What measures are the Government taking to help women to build up a good pension entitlement, which, of course, has been denied to them in the past because of family commitments?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. By extending home responsibilities protection to SERPS—it already exists for the basic pension—we will enable women who work as few as 20 years to get full entitlement to SERPS. This will be as if they had worked the same number of years as others without domestic responsibilities do to get full entitlement. That is of great value.
We will also take account of family credit and disability working allowance in assessing people's entitlement to pensions, treating both as earnings. That will help in particular those on low incomes, predominantly women, to build up their entitlement into the next century. That is worth about £100 million extra to women's pensions next century.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Liberal Democrats welcome the proposals for child care allowance? Will he recognise that his compensation package for VAT on fuel is £300 million short of the figure recommended by the Social Security Advisory Committee, and that, by compensating those on benefit but not those on low pay, he is creating yet another poverty trap? Will he acknowledge that many disabled people will have additional fuel costs? Will he tell the House his estimate of the number of such people and what proportion of them will not be assisted by his support mechanism for VAT on fuel?
Mr. Lilley: I would have been happier, had the hon. Gentleman come clean on Liberal Democratic party policy on imposing taxes on energy—
Madam Speaker: Is that a statement or an answer?
Mr. Lilley: It is a riposte. I am not sure where that comes.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes our position on child care. It is absurd of him to suggest that the VAT package is inadequate. It vastly exceeds what most people expected and asked for.
Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency we have an enormous
1052
number of old people and that the proposals to compensate them for VAT on fuel will be welcomed? The proposal that compensation will not be restricted to those on income support will be particularly welcomed. In general, old-age pensioners will benefit from the proposal. Does he not agree that it is churlish of the Opposition to criticise the proposal, when the cost will be no less than £1·2 billion a year? That is a generous settlement, and it will be welcome throughout the country.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is right about the wide welcome that the proposals will receive. It was important that help should extend beyond those on income-related benefits to include pensioners, those on invalidity benefit, widows and those on severe disablement allowance. I am glad that that has such wide support.
Mr. Frank Field: How many people would be taken off the dole queues if the new benefit were introduced today without one extra person finding a job? Given that we have a Treasury team that boasts about being so tough with the estimates put before it, is it right to assume that the Secretary of State has estimated the cost of the new scheme in 1996? If so, will he tell us what the unemployment level will be in the year that the new scheme is introduced?
Mr. Lilley: On the hon. Gentleman's last question, I am afraid that I have to rely on the fact that we work with a stylised assumption of the level of unemployment over the survey period—I think that it is 2·75 million people. That is the standard way in which it is done. Working on the assumption that unemployment will be roughly the same then as now, savings in the first year of the new job seeker's allowance, which will not start until 1996, will be about £100 million, and twice that in a full year.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a major package of measures. Will he confirm that total payments to the long-term sick and disabled have trebled under the Government and that the new disability working allowances will benefit even more peolpe as a result of the changes that he has announced?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. The caseload of invalidity benefit has trebled. No Government could ignore that or fail to consider whether it was justifiable. We concluded that it was right to introduce an objective medical test. I believe that that will have the support of the medical profession.
Most doctors find it invidious that they have a responsibility to the state to act as the gateway to that benefit, while also having a duty to and natural sympathy for their patients. The new policy wil remove them from that difficulty. Disability working allowance will be enhanced by allowing people on that benefit to have free prescription and dental treatment. Those people will welcome the proposal, which will remove any hesitation that they may have about taking up a job with the benefit of the allowance.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the job seeker's agreement be entered into freely or will failure to sign the piece of paper mean that the unemployed applicant will be denied even the first six months of

1053
benefit? Will the £28 child care allowance be paid while parents are seeking work or only when they have obtained work?
Mr. Lilley: Obviously, the child care allowance is for those on family credit, and it influences the amount of family credit to which they are entitled. Therefore, it will be paid when people return to work or take up a job—that is the intention. The idea that we should pay child care allowance to people who are out of work would go further than anyone could reasonably suppose.
The job seeker's agreement is intended to be in the interest of job seekers and to help them systematically to get back into work. Therefore, of course it will be a requirement of the benefit that job seekers take part in that process. I hope that they would do so and would be encouraged to do so by the hon. Lady.
Mr. David Willetts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's benefit reforms—invalidity benefit, benefits for unemployed people and the pension age. I particularly welcome the fact that he has addressed one of the most absurd features of the current—
Madam Speaker: Order. I took on the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) when she started making statements. I am asking for questions from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Willetts: I have a question about one of the most unsatisfactory features of the current regime for unemployed people. If one partner loses a job, the other, who may be in work, promptly has to give up work to obtain any entitlement to benefit. Will the Secretary of State explain how the new improvement in the rules on income support will help people in those circumstances?
Mr. Lilley: That problem has emerged largely as a result of the reduction in the hours rule, from 24 hours to 16. We propose to restore the rule to 24 hours so that people will be able to work up to 24 hours without their partners losing income support. Therefore, there will be no incentive for them to give up working, which was sometimes the case. That will be a sensible change when we introduce the job seeker's allowance.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: How much good-quality child care does the Secretary of State think can be bought for £28 a week?
Mr. Lilley: The average for those paying for child care is less than that. The average for those who use registered child minders and nurseries is roughly £40 a week. That is the amount that we are allowing people to offset against their earnings. Because of the taper, they will effectively benefit to the tune of £28.
We are saying that, effectively, the working mother—it is usually the mother—will benefit from the taxpayer to the tune of £28, and will contribute up to £12. The level we have set recognises that many people do not work the full 40-odd hours a week. However, that is what they choose to do and to spend. The amount is in line with that and is reasonable. That is why it has been so widely accepted by everybody in the field, apart from the hon. Lady.
Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his characteristically excellent statement.
1054
Will he confirm that, once again, he has shown that the control of inflation is particularly beneficial to those on lower incomes?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People do not realise that high inflation erodes benefits every month between upratings. Now that we have low inflation, benefits are holding their purchasing power between upratings, and that is good for claimants. None the less, it is still expensive to uprate, even with inflation as modest as it has been over the past 12 months. It will cost us more than £2 billion to do so next year, before the extra help that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is giving to uprate additionally to cope with VAT on fuel.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: What is the difference between the compensation that is offered and the increased cost of VAT on fuel? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there will be an inevitable fall in fuel consumption which will hit the poorest hardest, with an estimated 9 per cent. fall among the poorest in our community, compared with only a 1 per cent. fall among the richest? How can he justify the unfairness of that?
Mr. Lilley: As I have said, we have made a generous contribution towards the cost of VAT on fuel for the least well-off, for pensioners and others. In addition, we are offering help to those with higher fuel bills by nearly doubling the home energy efficiency scheme, which helps with insulation and fuel efficiency and will help people to reduce fuel costs without reducing the temperature in which they live. That is desirable, and it is now extended to pensioners and the disabled, irrespective of whether they are on income-related benefits. They will welcome that, and it helps to square the circle to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a widespread welcome for the measures that he is introducing to encourage employers to have a greater concern for the health of their employees and to reduce absenteeism? Does he agree that the main reason for the growth in the number of claimants for invalidity benefit has been the difficulty that people have had in getting off the benefit by returning to work?
What are my right hon. Friend's thoughts, therefore, on how employers can be encouraged to recruit and retain chronically sick and disabled employees? Will the Government, for example, reconsider the requirement that employers should pay 50 per cent. of the cost of special aids for disabled people, and will my right hon. Friend look constructively and sympathetically at the case for anti-discrimination legislation?
Mr. Lilley: Of course, we do not envisage the test forcing people who are genuinely chronically sick and disabled to give up invalidity benefit, or the new incapacity benefit to which they will remain entitled if they are medically unable to work. We envisage that those who are able to work and are receiving a benefit which is not the appropriate one would be guided and helped back into work by the new job seeker's allowance and other such arrangements.
We certainly want—there is a proposal but not yet a compulsion—employers to bear some of the costs of employing disabled people, but we are enhancing and making more attractive the disability working allowance, the principal help that we give people whose earning

1055
capacity is impaired by their disability but who want to work and who find jobs. I hope that that will be increasingly used by people in those circumstances to get back into work.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Who will administer the job seeker's allowance? Will it be the Benefits Agency or the Employment Service or some other agency that has not yet been created? Will young people aged less than 25 receive the same amount of job seeker's allowance as those aged over 25? Currently, the arrangements are that people on income support aged less than 25 receive less money than other people.
May I advise the Secretary of State that the 1991 census return demonstrated that 40 per cent. of the unemployed people in Liverpool had never worked? There is a huge number of young people who are genuinely seeking work and for whom there is none.
Mr. Lilley: In response to the first question, about who will administer the job seeker's allowance, a joint study is taking place involving the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service—our two Departments—to consider how best we can integrate the delivery of the job seeker's allowance. I envisage that they will report to me some time in the spring.
As to the value of benefits, we envisage their being rationalised on the basis of the income support levels. I appreciate the hon. Lady's concerns about people in certain regions of the country who, often for several generations, have had no employment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is keen to tackle that problem, and has brought forward specific measures that will help long-term unemployed people back into work.
Ultimately, as I said, the health of the economy is vital to provide job opportunities as well as the measures that we can take through the social security system, and I believe that we are better placed to make progress on that front than any other country in Europe.
Mr. James Clappison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his package, and especially on the scope and extent of compensation for VAT on fuel. Can he clarify the position of a pensioner couple, where there are two entitlements to pension in the household?
Mr. Lilley: We are proposing that, in the first year, a single pensioner will get a 50p increment over and above the basic uprating to cope with VAT on fuel. When that pensioner has a dependent spouse, he or she will get 70p. When both pensioners in the same household have pension entitlement in their own right, they will get two 50ps—they will be £1 better off in the first year. There will be an increase, likewise, in subsequent years.
Mr. Cryer: Can the Secretary of State confirm that his concern about invalidity benefit is not borne out by the medical examination on which invalidity benefit depends? Can he tell us, for example, whether any doctors have been reproved, dismissed or disciplined in any way because of mistakes made in the past when they were making decisions about invalidity benefit? If that is not the case, and no one has been disciplined, why is he so anxious to change invalidity benefit and put people in jeopardy?
Does that confirm that the Secretary of State has abandoned his unscrupulous and unprincipled attack on
1056
single mothers as the sole cause of the economic ills of the Government, and that the real cost of social security is so high because of the economic failures of the Government, which have produced unparallelled levels of unemployment, which he has admitted will continue for year after year after year? Is it not true that it is a failure of capitalism?
Mr. Lilley: There we have it. The hon. Member will recall that, earlier this year, the medical journal Monitor Weekly conducted a survey of doctors, about two thirds of whom said that they had given people chits to get them on to invalidity benefit even though they knew that they were capable of work.
I, however, have never criticised doctors in that context. I have made it clear to the House that I believe that, if we create a situation which puts doctors in an invidious position; where the rules are unclear; where it is not entirely clear, as a result of the original drafting and the subsequent interpretation by the courts of the laws, quite what assessment should be made and what factors have to be taken into account in deciding whether someone is medically unable to work; it is the duty of the House and the Government to propose measures to change and improve that.
That is what we shall do by introducing an objective medical test. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I believe that we will produce a sensible test. It will show that some people who have been getting the benefit should not have done, and it will also ensure those who should get the benefit get it in future.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been impossible to provide such a generous measure of support for those who will be affected by VAT on fuel had we not also looked at measures to limit the growth of social security into the future? Do not those measures go hand in hand, and would it not be impossible to continue to care for those who need the help unless we take the tough decisions that we need to take?
Mr. Lilley: Well, yes and no. Essentially, the revenue to finance the extra VAT package comes from VAT itself. It is self-contained, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and his predecessor considered that necessary both to raise revenue and to meet our commitments to reduce emissions under the Rio agreements. However, we certainly have to make changes in the growth of benefits to make sure that the system does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay or undermine the working of the economy on which the social security system ultimately depends.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: While I do not wish to take away from the welcome parts of the Minister's statement, is he aware that all the insulation in the world will not be effective unless heat is already in the house? Is he happy that he has got the balance right between the amount of money that has been allowed to overcome the VAT on fuel and the insulation part of the statement?
Mr. Lilley: I believe that we have the balance right. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have agreed to a near doubling of the money. An extra £35 million will be spent on financing additional work on insulation and fuel efficiency. That will enable us to extend

1057
it widely. It was a sensible contribution to the overall package, while the benefits system provides uniform help for all pensioners, long-term sick and other groups.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people should be encouraged to take out insurance policies to provide themselves with a better standard of living in the event of unemployment or to help with their mortgage payments during such a period? What reaction has he had from charities to his welcome announcement that people on incapacity benefit will be allowed to work for 16 hours a week for a voluntary organisation?
Finally, has he seen in the booklet produced by the benefits agency that people who apply for incapacity benefit score 23·5 points for being frequently muddled and confused? Therefore, should not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) be eligible for the benefit?
Mr. Lilley: I cannot say precisely how the hon. Gentleman would perform under the new tests, but we could ask him to participate in the evaluation exercise. What was the first question? [Interruption.] I will participate in the evaluation exercise as well.
As far as insurance is concerned, we certainly encourage people to make provision for retirement over and above the state pension scheme. Of course, people frequently take out provision which will top up their ability to maintain their standard of living if they have any long-term sickness. That would be on top of the basic provision that incapacity benefit would provide.
There is less case for such insurance to deal with the short-term difficulties that my hon. Friend mentioned. However, when I introduced the limit on the mortgage income support help we give, I mentioned that there was a case for people looking to whether they should take out insurance of their mortgages against unemployment to make sure that they had help while they were finding their way back into work. Obviously, I hope people will do that.
Dr. Norman A. Godman.: If the Minister has such a genuine concern for those who legitimately claim invalidity benefit, why does he continue to refuse to accept the judgment of Commissioner Skinner in April 1992? [Interruption.] The Minister may smile, but it is an important issue.
Commissioner Skinner made a judgment in 1992 that women aged 60 to 65 should be allowed to claim invalidity benefit. He said that the Government's position infringed the European directive on equality of treatment. Why does the Minister continue to refuse to implement that sound judgment? Why has he sought a further postponement of his appeal against that judgment before the Master of the Rolls? Why this obduracy?
Mr. Lilley: We normally take decisions on whether to contest rulings of the courts and tribunals on the basis of legal advice rather than an attempt to change policy. Policy is better altered in this place, rather than by the courts reinterpreting things which originally meant something else. Obviously, we look at the results of court cases to see whether the cumulative effect would require a change in the law. It is on the basis of legal advice that particular decisions to contest are taken.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, on the basis of the plans he has announced today,
1058
social security expenditure in Britain will probably reach £100 billion a year by the end of the decade? Does that not show a substantial commitment by the Government to meeting the needs of those in genuine need? Would it be possible to meet the needs of pensioners, the disabled and others who need help and assistance without clamping down on fraud and abuse which the Government are tackling well?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to say that the bill for social security is still rising, despite our commitment to ensure that the money is well spent and concentrated on those in need. At present, the £80 billion bill that we have to meet means that, on average, every working person has to contribute £13 every working day just to finance social security. Obviously, it is right that we should rein in that growth before it becomes unbearable for people to pay.
In particular, we have to make sure that fraud and abuse of the system is ruled out, because no one wants to waste a penny in that way. That is why I attach such importance to bearing down on fraud, and why I have introduced reforms in the management and organisation of the fraud effort in my Department to make sure that it is as effective as possible.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is it not true that 200,000 or more working people at the lower end of the wage scale will be brought into paying at least £1 a week in tax because of the freezing of the personal allowance? Is it not also true that the Budget has been one of the biggest hikes in taxation that Britain has ever seen?
Mr. Lilley: I am not going to take any lectures on taxation from a party that is wedded to increasing taxes and expenditure and whose every proposal and question today has implicitly meant that taxes would be higher to finance higher expenditure. Where would it get the money?
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new single benefit, the job seeker's allowance, will help focus benefit on those most in need and make it easier for them to claim? Will he also confirm that, unlike in the Labour party, the concept of contributory benefits still exists?
Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the job seeker's allowance will be more rational, better focused and accompanied by better help to get back to work, which is what the benefit should be about. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it contains a contributory element, and he is perfectly correct to say that the Commission for Social Justice, in which the Labour party privatised its policy formulation, has been considering the total abolition of the contributory principle, although it has not yet had the courage firmly to reach that conclusion.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State understand that disabled people are not looking for crumbs from the Tory table but are looking for a fair deal? Many of them do not wish to be a cost to the state—indeed, they would love to have the opportunity to work. Why does the Secretary of State not get together with the Secretary of State for Employment and introduce legislation to levy a charge on those employers who do not fulfil the quota under the 1944 Act? Incidentally, that would include his own Department.
Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the motivation and aspirations of most disabled

1059
people. Of course, it is to help those who are in a position to get back to work that we established the disability working allowance. We are reviewing the present quota system to see whether it can be improved or whether changes need to be made. Obviously, until that review is complete, I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. Mark Robinson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to some stories being put about today, disabled people in receipt of benefit will get the benefits of the VAT compensation package?
Mr. Lilley: I can confirm that the more generous help that we are making available will be extended to everyone on invalidity benefit, those on severe disablement allowance, or on the disability premium in income support—which automatically feeds through into other income-related benefits. That covers virtually all disabled people.
I believe that an assessment has been made which refers to people who are not entitled to the benefits that we are talking about, or indeed to any disability benefits, because they have a lower level of disability and were the group identified in the survey of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which extended to a lower level of disability than is covered by DLA.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is the Government's policy to continue reducing the value of the state old-age pension as a proportion of average earnings? Can he explain why he now believes that it is necessary to raise the retirement age for women to 65, when any civilised society would look towards reducing it by equalising retirement age at 60 for both men and women?
Mr. Lilley: As for the final question, virtually every country in the world is considering, or has implemented—
Mr. Corbyn: That does not make it right.
Mr. Lilley: Of course it does not make it right. But it suggests that, as a test of civilisation, it would be unreasonable to rule out all other countries in the world from the civilised community. Other countries are doing it for sensible reasons. The number of pensioners is set to increase worldwide, and the size of the working population is set to diminish. Therefore, anyone is driven to the conclusion which we reached, that equalisation at 65 was the sensible route.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that fuel prices have fallen by some 18 per cent. since 1983? Is he further aware that, in the midlands, prices have fallen by about 4 per cent. over the past 12 months? Does he agree that, taking this into account, the generous package that he has proposed will protect the majority of pensioners from the imposition of VAT on fuel?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Over the past 10 years, there has been an 18 per cent. decline in average fuel prices, relative to the general price level. Recently, we have seen some absolute cuts in gas and other prices. Since privatisation, the trend in both gas and electricity prices is down in real terms. That is good news
1060
for the longer term. As long as those competitive pressures continue to operate, they will feed through to the benefit of pensioners and others, and will mean that the money that we have provided will go even further.
Mr. Clive Betts: Does the Secretary of State accept that, whatever the arguments about the inadequacy of the compensation scheme for VAT on fuel, he has offered no compensation whatever to families in which the wage earner is in low-paid employment? Those families will have to pay the full cost of VAT on fuel.
Does the Secretary of State accept that those families will have to choose next winter among paying for fuel, paying for food and paying for clothing? Does he further accept that, by doing that, he has worsened the poverty trap? People seeking work may well find that they will be worse off financially if they get a job, and the proposed measures will have contributed to that.
Mr. Lilley: No. That is not the case because the impact will feed through to those on family credit and on housing benefit, and therefore they will get extra help. By definition, those who are not on benefit cannot be helped through the benefit system. The benefit system is there primarily to help those who are least able to cope. That is what we have done.
We have done much more than the Opposition spokesman on social security, the hon. Member for Garscadden, suggested we should do. He suggested that it would be sufficient to compensate for the increase in VAT. I am surprised that he gives such a grudging welcome for something which must have exceeded his expectations and those of other people.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does the Secretary of State agree that, notwithstanding his statement that "we keep our pledges to families", the combined impact of the cut in married couple allowance and a few pennies only for child benefit means that the Budget will hit families with children much more than single people? In a year of growing concern about the family, is this not sadly an anti-family Budget?
Mr. Lilley: No. That is certainly not the case. Of course, the married couple allowance does not depend on whether there are children. My right hon. and learned Friend made the changes for the reasons that he gave in his Budget statement. The most significant change in the package of measures announced in the Budget, which was also in my statement today, was the child care disregard in family credit, which will be of great benefit to those with family responsibilities who have the prospect of work—possibly low-paid work—and who will be enabled to work and enabled to pay their child care costs. It will be a boost to the incomes of those who are already working and will encourage perhaps 50,000 people back into work. That is good news for them and for the economy.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Can the Minister tell us what effect cheating the unemployed of six months' benefit will have on the unemployment figures? Is it the case that many people will not be able to claim income support and therefore, apart from depriving them of much-needed money, this will simply be the 31st fiddle of the unemployment figures?
Mr. Lilley: I do not envisage that it will have any measurable impact on the unemployment level, because most people will be entitled to the means-tested element of the job seeker's allowance, or they will register as unemployed to get the credits for their eventual retirement and therefore will appear in the figures either way.

Points of Order
4.56 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to apologise to the House and to you in particular for my rudeness yesterday in using a somewhat inappropriate term when I raised the need for an apology from the Secretary of State for Education for his discourtesy to the House in breaching the Budget deadline, for which you reprimanded him. I regret my verbal misdemeanour—it does not happen very often. I trust that you will accept my extended apologies.
Madam Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Of course I accept his apology.
Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Over the past few months, I have written to the Secretary of State for Social Security with inquiries about Government policy with regard to the operation of the Child Support Agency. I know that other hon. Members have done the same. Those inquiries have been passed to the Child Support Agency for answering, and the replies have been totally inadequate.
Last week, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking him to list the number of inquiries the Child Support Agency has dealt with since its inception by constituency order. I received a reply yesterday, which states:
"I understand from Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, that information in the form requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 429.]
Is it in order for Ministers to avoid answering questions in this way? What steps can you take to ensure that information requested by hon. Members is provided and that Ministers are accountable to the House on Government policy?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the content of answers is not a matter for the Chair. I simply tell him to seek opportunities to pursue his complaint with Ministers. Perhaps I could draw his attention to the fact that there will be an Adjournment debate on that issue tomorrow.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is with reference to your earlier strictures on a somewhat lengthy statement. First, may I compliment you? You called all hon. Members who sought to catch your eye. Nevertheless, I should like to know whether you are ever given any indication of the likely length of the presentation of a statement before the Minister goes to the Dispatch Box.
Madam Speaker: I am concerned not simply about the length of statements but also about the length of replies to statements and the time taken by Back Benchers to put their questions. The whole exchanges during Question Time and following statements concern me. Although I am very anxious to call all Members who stand—I cannot always do that, but I do my best—it is possible only if I have brisk questions and brisk responses from the Minister concerned.

BILLS PRESENTED
  SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mr. Secretary Redwood, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mr. William Hague presented a Bill to increase primary Class 1 contributions payable under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; to correct the provisions as to the appropriate national health service allocation in the case of such contributions; to clarify what reliefs are to be taken into account in assessing Class 4 contributions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]
  STATUTORY SICK PAY
  Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Redwood, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mr. William Hague presented a Bill to remove the right of employers other than small employers to recover sums paid by them by way of statutory sick pay; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 3.]
Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30 November].

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

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

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

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

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

  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  5 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Today we are discussing the imposition of tax rises from April next year, which now amount to the biggest tax demand in history.
  Tax rises have been imposed not just through VAT and national insurance but three changes in income tax push people's income tax bills up. The Chancellor announced three new taxes: on home insurance; car insurance; and holidays.
  Those tax rises are the result of promises that have been broken unfairly and without regret, shame or apology. Promises on taxes have now been broken side by side with promises on public spending. Tragically, those promises have been broken merely to pay for the mistakes of the past, in a Budget that has no clear strategy, direction or leadership for our future.
  With private investment still falling this year, the Budget now leaves public investment falling next year. The Chancellor now accepts that growth has been lower than forecast and will be lower than forecast next year, as inflation starts to rise again. Despite all his boasts yesterday, the Budget does nothing about the central revelation, admitted by the Secretary of State for Trade only few days ago, that our productivity is 25 per cent. below that of our competitors. But contained in the statement was the Chancellor's admission that 3 per cent. growth in our economy was well above the sustainable growth rate that we can expect.
  Let us look at exactly what the Chancellor has done. First, income tax rises will come in March, April and the following April. But let us recall for a minute the promise that the Prime Minister made during the election campaign. He said:
  "I have no doubt that we will be able to make further reductions in the rate of taxation. We will make further reductions in the rate of taxation but perhaps not at the rate of a penny per year but we will be able to make reductions year on year at a smaller rate."

  1065
  Yet what do we have in the Budget? We have three separate increases in our income tax bills from April next year and from April 1995.
  First, personal allowances have been frozen for two years at a cost of 34p. Secondly, married couples' allowance has been cut, at a cost of £1·85 this year and another £1·65 thereafter. Thirdly, mortgage tax relief will be cut in 1994 and again in 1995, representing a further £2·24 in the first year and nearly £5 by the end of the second rise, despite the promise in the Conservative manifesto that mortgage tax relief would be maintained.
  In total, the income tax bill for a typical family will be £5 a week higher next year, with another £1·65 on top the year after. That is from a Prime Minister who said at a press conference: "All mine, all mine." In his election manifesto he said that lower taxes were necessary to encourage people and create a more productive economy. He said that lower taxes would transfer power from the state to the people and that high taxes kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
  That is why the country will never trust the Conservatives on tax again. The Budget finally broke any residual trust that even the most ardent Tory could have in the Government over taxation policy.
  Some 500,000 new taxpayers will be drawn into the income tax net, 300,000 of whom will be women. Some 95 per cent. of British households will lose money as a result of the Budget's cumulative effects. So Conservative Members must explain why they went to the country on election manifestos promising not just no tax rises but tax cuts, whereas the Budget Red Book says that taxes will rise next year from £220 billion, eventually reaching £271 billion in the next few years. I want them to explain their promises of tax cuts year on year, given that taxes will rise from 35 per cent. of national income to 37, 37·5, 38 and then 38·5 per cent.—the biggest share of national income, and higher than under any Labour Government.
  Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman but he has just come into the Chamber and I shall not give way to other hon. Members who have just done that.
  Mr. Townend: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his opposition to tax increases. If the Labour party disapproves of the tax increases introduced by the Government, how would it deal with the budget deficit? Would the hon. Gentleman deal with it all on the spending side? Would that not mean savage cuts? Will he specify in which areas he would introduce cuts?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman forgets that his party went to the electorate and promised no tax rises. I recall an exchange between my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Gentleman in a previous debate, when the hon. Gentleman stood up and boldly said that he had not promised that there would be income tax cuts in his manifesto. So he did not even believe the Prime Minister's comments at the last election.
  Let us be absolutely clear about what the Budget means for home owners. Mortgage tax relief will be cut as people pay more for their homes; VAT on fuel will be imposed so that people pay more to heat their homes; a new tax on
  1066
  home insurance will mean that people pay more to protect their homes. None of those taxes were ever mentioned in the Conservative party manifesto.
  For car owners, the Budget means more tax on licences, petrol and car insurance, and motorists will soon pay to travel along motorways as a result of the imposition of tolls.
  Is it not amazing that even rising crime becomes a tax-raising opportunity for the Government? Home insurance premiums have risen by 500 per cent. because of the rising cost of crime under the Government and now they impose a tax on it as a revenue-raising opportunity. Because of crime, car insurance premiums have risen by 260 per cent. and taxes will put those up a further 3 per cent. as a result of the Chancellor's announcement.
  Not only income tax will rise. As a result of the two Budgets this year, we are now being asked to pay more for less because of the rise in national insurance. Let us remember—it should be recorded in Hansard so that people can see it—that on 28 January 1992, before the election, the Prime Minister stated clearly:
  "I have no plans to raise…the level of national insurance contributions".
  During the election campaign, when it became an issue, the then chairman of the Conservative party issued a statement saying that a rise in national insurance would be a "back door stealth tax". Who has implemented a back door stealth tax?
  People are being asked to pay more national insurance, but they are to receive less. I can think of no bigger blow to the unemployed than that people in work must now pay more in national insurance contributions knowing that, if they lose their job in future years, the unemployment benefit available to them will be halved.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: As the hon. Gentleman does not even approve of those modest tax increases, what public services would be cut if his party were in office? The public need that information to make sense of his attack.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman was almost inaudible because of the noise in the House. He went to the electorate and said that he would cut taxes and that taxes would not rise. We should have an apology from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that he could not hear what I was saying because he was trying to find out from his leader what the answer was. He is now inviting me to apologise. Surely he should give way to see if I am willing to do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to decide whether he will give way.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, as I understand it, asked about what he called modest tax increases, which will mean £10 a week more for the typical family. We will again vote against the imposition of VAT on fuel. We will bring the matter to the House and give the hon. Gentleman a chance to support us. If he is to honour his promise to the electorate, he should vote with us.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Brown: No, I will not give way again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman say very clearly that he is not giving way again. I am sure that hon. Members also heard him say that.
  Mr. Brown: I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).
  Mr. Jenkin: Do we understand that the opening section of the economic policy that will be expounded in the next Labour manifesto will start with the sentence "We will not start from here"?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we will not start from here. We warned the Government about the impact of recession and about failing to take action on unemployment. The hon. Gentleman should warn his Front-Bench colleagues that he made a promise when he stood at the general election for Colchester, North. He said:
  "There are 10 good reasons to vote Conservative."
  And what was reason number four? "Low taxes". We can see what has happened to his promise.
  Let us recall what was said about VAT:
  "We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT."
  What about the council tax? The Chief Secretary admitted on "Newsnight" last night that council tax bills were likely to rise as a result of yesterday's announcement. There will be rent rises as a result of the cuts in housing that were announced yesterday.
  What about all the promises that the Conservatives made about taxes and charges during the election campaign? The Chancellor, in his own personal manifesto, said in Rushcliffe:
  "Only the Conservatives believe in keeping tax down to give incentives to enterprise and investment."
  The Chief Secretary said in Enfield:
  "The Conservatives want to cut your taxes."
  People would not know that from what has been done in the last few months.
  The Chief Secretary is nodding because he obviously believes it. He also said:
  "Higher tax and national insurance would hit those who work harder and do overtime."
  So why is he imposing rises in national insurance and breaking all the promises that have been made? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us why."] When the Chief Secretary goes back to his constituents in Enfield to answer their questions about his failure to keep his promises, will he remain seated there?
  The promises that have been broken by the Government are not only on income tax, VAT, and national insurance, but on public services. We are witnessing, in the public spending announcement that came with the Chancellor's budget yesterday, some of the biggest cuts that we have seen in our public investment and public spending budgets.
  What did the Prime Minister say about that at the general election campaign? I have gone through the transcripts of the Prime Minister's many press conferences during the election campaign. I have no doubt that Conservative Members will want to discuss with the Prime Minister the views that he put to the electorate on the question of public services. Cutting public spending, he said, would not be "economically right":
  "If we were going to cut public expenditure we would have done it before and I don't believe it's economically right. I have said that in the past, and there is no need to do it whatsoever. So you can rule out any prospect of that."
  1068
  He said that it was not possible that public spending might rise or fall, and that there was no prospect of the public spending cuts that we now have as a result of Government decisions.
  Is it any wonder that the country will never again believe the Conservatives? Those are broken promises, not only on tax but on the fabric of our social services.
  At another press conference during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said:
  "We will stand by the figures in the Red Book. I see no reason why we should not meet our promises as we have allocated our reserves. We have seen these concerns in the past, and it will not be necessary to change plans."
  I do not think the Prime Minister will easily forget that, if he survives for another general election campaign. Either the Government were incompetent on a massive scale that beggars belief, or they were deliberately misleading us throughout the general election campaign.
  The Government could plead guilty to broken promises and ask for their incompetence to be taken into consideration, but how could they make the commitments in the election manifesto that have now been overridden by yesterday's statement?
  In 1992 the Government said:
  "Over the next three years we are committed to the biggest investment in Britain's infrastructure in our history."
  Why was that commitment followed by an 8·3 per cent. cut in the transport budget? They said:
  "We believe that the railways can play a bigger part, and are investing accordingly."
  Why has the external financing limit of the railways been cut?
  The Government said:
  "The Conservative party's commitment to the environment is beyond doubt."
  Why was the environment budget reduced by 13 per cent. yesterday? Why is it that local government is down 1·8 per cent., employment down 3 per cent. and housing down 8 per cent., with the accompanying risk to many homes and construction jobs?
  It is not only the promises made during the election campaign that have been broken. At the time of the last autumn statement debate, the Chief Secretary said:
  "I believe the protection of investment within the public spending round is the best way to boost private investment, the best way to create growth in the short term and in the long term as well."
  Why has public investment been cut from £23 billion to less than £22 billion as a result of the announcement made today?
  What about compensation for VAT? When the country realises that a family of four on income support will receive only 45p per week to make up for a fuel bill that every expert estimates will be more than £1·20 a week, and when single pensioners understand that they will get only 50p a week although their fuel bills will be much higher than that, no pensioner or family will accept that they have not been short-changed by the Government as a result of yet another broken promise.
  Mr. Michael Bates: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the remarks made 11 days ago by the Opposition's social security spokesman, who said that 50p per week on top of the pension would be adequate compensation? Does he agree that 70p per week, which is what we have put forward for single pensioners, will be more than adequate?
  Mr. Brown: That is not what my hon. Friend said. Let me put a challenge to the Conservative Members who signed the early-day motion calling for compensation for all pensioners. They said that compensation had to cover in full the VAT rise. Why is it not doing that?
  Hon. Members: Answer the question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is no use hon. Members shouting "Answer the question" if nobody can hear the hon. Gentleman attempting to do so.
  Mr. Brown: We should also be clear about what has happened to invalidity benefit. The country and a wider audience should know that invalidity benefit will be cut. A faxed document issued by mistake by the Department of Social Security to the Press Association a few months ago said that the assessment—that is, of the people who would lose benefit—would include a retired builder with heart disease and angina, who gets pain in the chest after excessive bending, is unable to walk on the flat for more than 200 yards before he has to stop and cannot climb stairs. These are the types of people who will lose their invalidity benefit.
  If the Chancellor announced today that the business expansion scheme was to be closed, and no more tax shelters created for people to make money out of the miseries of repossessed homes, he would save £100 million before Christmas.
  What is the choice that the Government must make? Is their priority to close the tax loopholes that I have identified, or to hit people on invalidity benefit?
  What is the Chancellor's record? At the Department of Health he picked a fight with the ambulance workers: at the Department for Education he picked a fight with the teachers; and at the Home Office he picked a fight with the prison officers. But when he was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, did he pick a fight with the City establishment and tax avoiders? Now that he is at the Treasury, is he more likely to be toughest with the weak—strongest with the least able to defend themselves—or will he stand up to people who have been avoiding tax systematically for a long period?
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will not give way again.
  That is the Chancellor: strongest against the weak, fearless with the disabled and tough on invalids. That is the message that comes from the Budget. As for the Chief Secretary—
  Mr. Forman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will not give way again. I have given way on numerous occasions, and on each occasion I have to remind Conservative Members of their own manifesto commitments, which they have broken.
  Mr. Forman rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is clearly not going to give way. I will ensure that both Front Benchers and Back Benchers on both sides of the House are given a fair hearing in reasonable quietness.
  Mr. Brown: Let us examine the Chief Secretary's record. He now tells us that he supported the Prime
  1070
  Minister in the leadership election, not necessarily because the right hon. Gentleman was his personal choice. In a Sunday newspaper, he commented:
  "The recommendation of Mrs. Thatcher was very clear"—
  moving away somewhat from the idea that a decision was made very quickly.
  What happens when the Chief Secretary makes statements on tax?
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will not give way again. I have given way a number of times, and were I to do so again I would have to remind the hon. Gentleman of his own election manifesto commitments.
  What did the Chief Secretary say in his Enfield manifesto? He not only said that national insurance payments should not rise; he said:
  "I offer you a vision for the 1990s. It is a society prosperous enough to provide for those in need and invest in public services."
  That is the Chief Secretary who has made some of the biggest cuts in public services that we have seen.
  What has the Chief Secretary said about tax in the past? He is the man who told us that the poll tax would be an election winner for the Conservative party. Let us remind ourselves of what he said:
  "Far from being a vote loser, with your help the poll tax will be a vote winner."
  A few months after the tax was introduced, he said in a speech:
  "If this is what the community charge can do for the Conservative party after just one month, think what it can do for us after one year."
  The Chief Secretary is a man of few words on tax, almost all of them wrong.
  I consider, however, that the Chief Secretary's highest point on the question of tax was reached when he published a pamphlet—only a few months ago, before he became Chief Secretary. It was entitled "A Vision for the 1990s", and one of the main chapters was entitled "Towards an Ultra-Low Tax Economy"—not a low-tax economy, or a very low-tax economy; an ultra-low-tax economy. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) cheers the idea of a low-tax economy. I assume that he will be voting against the Budget on Tuesday.
  The Chief Secretary said that lower taxes were "a total political commitment". It might be thought that, if that political commitment was not being met by the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served—given that it was a total commitment—he would give up, saying that he could not be part of that Government any longer. He said:
  "Our European competitors lack the political willpower to introduce low-tax policies."
  What about the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary himself? Do they not lack the political will power to deliver low-tax policies now?
  The right hon. Gentleman also said—I believe that this will resonate throughout the country as we move towards election time—
  "There is no point in going through a Parliament delivering every little promise you made and failing on the big promises."
  What are those little promises? Promises about income tax, about national insurance, about VAT on fuel, about public services and about the social security budget? Those are

  1071
  not little promises; they are promises that affect the lives of millions of people. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
  Conservative Front Benchers are virtually incapable of keeping their promises, whether those promises relate to tax, spending, recovery or youth employment—or, indeed, to the supposed end of the recession the day after the general election. I believe that they are incapable of telling the difference between truth and falsehood—incapable of telling the truth, or even recognising it; incapable, perhaps, of distinguishing between right and wrong.
  How can the Front Bench explain this astonishing record of personal irresponsibility? Recently, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have spoken out on moral decline and personal responsibility. Like them, I would resist any tendency to place the blame for breaking promises and being unable to tell the truth elsewhere. As the Home Secretary said:
  "We should have no truck with trendy theories that try to explain things away by saying someone else is to blame."
  That is the view that the electorate will take.
  Will the Government now blame the Church of England for the breaking of promises following what they said during the election? Was it the absence of a father figure during the war that prevented their promises from being kept, or is it the tragic loss of a mother figure as recently as 1990 that prevents them from telling the difference between right and wrong? Let us be absolutely clear: the Government are repeated offenders in the business of making and breaking promises. They went joyriding with the British economy, they crashed out of the exchange rate mechanism and they left a trail of destruction and chaos behind them.
  The Chancellor began his term of office by admitting that the country was in a dreadful hole. His Budget, however, fails to understand that our problems relate not to too high a quality of services, but to insufficient growth during the period of Conservative government. It fails to recognise that the root of our problem is the smallness and the diminished capacity of our economy. It fails even to appreciate that the problems of trade deficits, unemployment and inflation will return again and again as long as the Government do not tackle these basic and fundamental issues.
  This Budget cannot even begin to recognise the importance of the Government's role in helping to secure the investment in people, industry and our social and economic fabric that we need if we are to have a high, sustainable rate of growth. As a result of this Budget, we are worse off today without the slightest prospect of being a great deal better off as a nation tomorrow. It is a Budget without a strategy for jobs, industry and long-term growth, because it cannot begin to address the foundations of the Government's failure.
  We wanted a Budget for employment, and the Government cut the employment budget. We wanted a Budget for industry, and the Government cut the industry budget. We wanted a Budget for investment, and the Government cut public investment in our economy. We wanted a Budget for fairness, and the Government ended up penalising 95 per cent. of the population.
  This Budget does nothing for fairness, jobs, industry and investment in the way that the country needs. For that reason, it will not commend itself to the country.
  5.27 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) threw down a challenge. He asked whether Conservative Members had political will power. He asked whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had it; whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had it; whether I had it; and whether our party had it. The answer to those questions is yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Yesterday's Budget demonstrated the existence of that political will power.
  Did the hon. Gentleman have the political courage, in a speech lasting half an hour, to mention even one of the Labour party's policies? It was a policy-free zone of a speech, in which the hon. Gentleman did not dare to offer a single thought about what his party would do. This is an unserious shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, trying to address himself to serious problems that Conservative Members are considering seriously. The hon. Gentleman—who sits practising his smile, because he has been told that that is what he ought to practise—is a man who does not allow a single serious thought to enter his mind, or a single serious comment to pass his lips.
  While the hon. Gentleman sits there practising his smile, my hon. Friends have been asking him whether he believes that the deficit is too high. Does he believe that spending is too high? Does he believe that we should put up taxes? What is his party's monetary policy? How will he create all the jobs that he is always going on about? What is his answer to all those questions? When it is not evasion, his answer is to say that it is all being referred to the Commission on Social Justice. That commission is the greatest example of contracting out there has ever been, of which any Conservative council would be proud because all Labour party policy has been subsumed by the Commission on Social Justice.
  The commission has now been in operation for a year and in the past few days it has produced its second report on the important subject of social security. What does the commission say after a year of deliberation? It says:
  "Over the next 6 months we will publish a series of papers explaining some of the tough questions which we believe the country faces: setting out the advantages and disadvantages of different options."
  My God. What courage the Labour party shows. What determination it is showing to address our problems. What extraordinary bravery is being shown by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and his party, and I shall tell the House why.
  It is because the hon. Gentleman knows that his predecessor, the former shadow Chancellor, devised an economic policy and it was a disaster. It was the policy that cost the Labour party the general election. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East now lives in cowering terror of developing a single strand of policy.
  Mr. John Smith rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way in a moment when I have given the hon. and learned Gentleman something to which he can reply.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has learnt the wrong lesson. The lesson is that if he devises policies that blow the election for his party, he will take over and become the leader of the Labour party.
  Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether Conservative Members kept the promises that they made about taxes at the general election?
  Mr. Portillo: We are keeping the most fundamental promise of all—[Interruption.] That is to deliver sound public finances, on which the Labour party has not a clue, because—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I recently pointed out to the House that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will get a fair hearing. The Opposition spokesman got a reasonable hearing; the Chief Secretary will get that same fair hearing.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the fundamental commitment to which the right hon. Gentleman refers not just a fundamental commitment of the Conservative party to lie its way into power and a fundamental commitment to cling to power at all possible cost?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman clearly wants to get into the headlines by being thrown out of the House of Commons for using the word "lie". I shall treat his question with the contempt that that word deserves.
  The Budget which my right hon. and learned Friend produced what was he rightly describes as a "no nonsense" Budget, because we face serious problems and the Conservative party put forward a serious solution. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has delivered a Budget which, after all, had to be tough. He was not able to deliver a lollipop Budget but had to present a lollipop-free zone at a time when we had to tighten the fiscal position. My right hon. and hon. Friends were strongly supportive of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor because the Conservative party is serious about dealing with the problems of the deficit. That is the major contrast between the Conservative party and the Labour party which the electorate will not fail to see when we next face them.
  Of course, the problem that we face is a deficit of £50 billion.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way later. I want to make some progress. The House will be aware that we have a national debt of £200 billion. The public sector borrowing requirement of £50 billion is serious because it represents one quarter of the national debt. If my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessor the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) had not taken steps to deal with that, obviously there would have been a danger of doubling the national debt over a short period.
  Ms Harriet Harman: Why is the PSBR there?
  Mr. Portillo: I must tell the hon. Lady some of the areas in which the Government have spent money. In the three years up to 1992-93, the Government have increased spending on the health service by 5·5 per cent. in real terms every year. Over the past five years, they have increased spending on education by a quarter in real terms; they have increased spending on national roads by 60 per cent. in real terms; and they have trebled investment in British Rail in real terms.
  1074
  On each of those occasions, the Labour party said that we were underspending, that we should spend more, that the health service was underfunded, that we were not investing enough in roads or education and that we ought to invest more in British Rail. Now the Labour party asks why we have such a large PSBR. It says that the Government are to blame and that we should spend more money.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was at it again on "Newsnight" last night, advocating that the solution to our problems was to spend more money. It is some sort of rich joke that the Labour party appoints the hon. Member for Peckham as its shadow Chief Secretary. It is rather like—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chief Secretary has made it clear that he will not give way and hon. Members should take note.
  Mr. Portillo: The irony of putting the hon. Lady in charge as the shadow Chief Secretary is like appointing Joan Collins to buy costumes for an impoverished amateur dramatic club. Tackling the deficit is important for restoring confidence in the economy and ensures that the Government are able to provide the conditions for recovery.
  Ms Hilary Armstrong rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
  During the past year, when the Government have had to borrow £1 billion a week, we had stable short-term interest rates and, in the past week, we saw them fall. We have also seen long-term interest rates falling. The textbooks on economics say that a large PSBR puts upward pressure on interest rates. That has not materialised, because the Government have established medium-term economic policies for dealing with the deficit, on spending and taxation.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames announced the extension of VAT to fuel and power, many Conservative Members were worried about the timing of that announcement and believed that the delay in its introduction would make lobbying against: that proposition more intense. I say to my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends that it was extremely important when the recovery was still delicate and when many were rightly arguing that the economy was not in a state to bear higher rates of taxation, that the Government should give an assurance that over the medium term they would tackle the deficit. It was necessary to offer that reassurance. The funding crisis of 1993 is the funding crisis that did not occur because there was confidence in the Government's medium-term policies in the markets. It was the dog that did not bark.
  Ms Armstrong: The Chief Secretary gave a list of spending increases as the reason for the deficit. Was he not aware of that at the last general election? Why did he and his Prime Minister promise that there was need neither to cut expenditure nor to raise any taxes?
  Mr. Portillo: I am perfectly happy to answer that question. We thought that the recession was coming to an end in early 1992. But the question that cannot be answered

  1075
  by the Labour party is why, in any circumstances, it believes that we should spend more on all those things. Why does the Labour party always urge that we should spend more and that interest rates should be lower than whatever the Government set? Why did it promise high taxes at the last election but now it says that it has no plans for high taxes? Why does the Labour party refuse to answer a single question about its economic policy?
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way in a moment.
  In devising their policy, the Government have faced along the way an escapist tendency. It comes in various forms, but the great mottoes of the escapist tendencies are, "Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?" and "Even if it's broke, don't fix it." There are various types of escapist. There are those who say that there is no need for the Government to take action because the recovery will cure all. The recovery will not cure all. Even those elements of spending that are driven up by the cycle during the recession do not necessarily unwind themselves at the end of the recession when the recovery comes.
  For example, if the Government build up a higher level of indebtedness, that indebtedness is not swept away by the very fact of recovery. Other escapists say that we should, indeed, take action, but that the time is not ripe. But then the people who say that the time is not ripe are the people who believe that there never is a ripe time for taking firm action.
  Then there are those who say that we should take effective action, but that there are spending cuts that can be made and tax rises that can be imposed which carry no pain and no difficulty with them. I have to tell those people that they are wrong. It is not possible to address the problem without facing tough decisions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has faced them. The Government are not a member of the escapist tendency. Despite my ethnic origins, I am not in favour of "mañana". I am in favour of taking action today—timely action to put right the deficit that the Government face.
  Mr. Turner: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his credibility among the Opposition is mightily stretched in as much as he is here today telling us about tax increases when he has always argued for tax cuts? How does he square that with the public outside, who have read his speeches, not over many months but over many years?
  Mr. Portillo: I am realistic enough to know that unless we control the deficit and make sure that the burden of debt does not rise and unless we control the amount of interest that we pay on our debt, it will not be possible for us to reduce taxes. I believe in reducing taxes. I believe in the policies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that they will lead us to lower taxes in due course.
  What is stretched on the other side of the House is not my credibility; it is comprehension. Yesterday, the Labour party was in deep disarray. The Leader of the Opposition was attacking us for our savage cuts. Yet I had the fortune to wander in late in the day to discover the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) saying that there had been no reductions in public spending and that the whole thing
  1076
  had been done by smoke and mirrors and an adjustment to the reserve. I intervened in the hope that he would not make a speech that was so embarrassing to his Front-Bench team or one that was so foolish.
  I want to make the position perfectly clear because I have to be fair to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and say that he was not the only person in confusion. There has been some misunderstanding of the position with regard to the reserves. My hon. Friends will understand that we set reserves for the three years ahead. The reserves in the second and third years of the public spending period are sums of money that the Government fully intend to spend within their plans but that have not yet been allocated to any specific programme. As the third year becomes the second year of a new survey and the second year becomes the first, the portion of the reserves allocated for that year —a third of the total reserve—is drawn down and allocated to programmes.
  In this year's Budget and public spending round, we ensured that as the second year became the first year we did not allocate that reserve to programmes. We allocated it in such a way that we could reduce public spending. What we saw in operation was not smoke and mirrors or fiddles but the exercise of resolution by the Cabinet and the Government. It was the exercise of absolute discipline on public spending.
  We have allocated as reserves for the next three years £3·5 billion in the first year, £7 billion in the second year and £10·5 billion in the third year. The previous plans included reserves of £4 billion, £7 billion and £10 billion. The House will recognise that the total for the three years is exactly the same. So the hon. Member for Cardiff, West was wrong. I am not surprised that members of the Labour party are not able to recognise discipline when they see it and are not able to recognise resolution and collective action by the Cabinet in making sure that the public spending is under control.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: Last year, when we reviewed our plans for 1994–95, we took £4·75 billion off the new control total —the plans for 1994–95. This year, in revisiting those plans, we took another £3·6 billion off the plans for what we were going to spend in 1994–95. The plans for the new control total over the next three years are reduced by a total of £8 billion. That means—I know that my hon. Friends will be pleased with this—that we have The new control total so firmly under control that in the next three years its average rate of growth will be 0·25 per cent. in real terms each year. The House will recognise that that is a good distance below the maximum target that the Government set themselves of 1·5 per cent. growth in the new control total year by year.
  Not only spending within the so-called new control total is under control and is being reduced; a virtuous circle is being established because we are seeing that debt interest will be reduced by £1 billion a year from 1996–97.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: In a moment.
  Cyclical social security will also be lower as the recovery comes through. That means that, in the figure of total public spending—the grand total of public spending

  1077
  known as general government expenditure—we are seeing a reduction over the next three years of £15 billion of public spending. That is what has enabled us to reduce the proportion of our national income which is taken and spent by the Government from 45 per cent. to 42·5 per cent. over the period of the public expenditure survey.
  That is the way in which we shall meet the important promise that we gave in the Conservative manifesto that the Government would reduce over time the proportion of national income that was taken and spent by the Government. That is a fundamental Conservative pledge and one which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor succeeded in delivering in his Budget yesterday.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: Before the Chief Secretary embarks any further on his virtuous circle, does he recall the commitment which the former Chancellor made in the autumn statement last year to 78 public/private finance projects? How many of those are currently under construction?
  Mr. Portillo: We have seen some good progress, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said, it has fallen short of what we hoped for. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday moved in with some radical new proposals to ensure that the private finance initiative delivered good results. We have seen bridges built, important projects in the national health service and an important contribution to the Jubilee line.
  My right hon. and learned Friend put great impetus into his initiative yesterday by announcing, for example, that the west coast main line would be a subject of the private finance initiative. That statement is welcome to Conservative Member, even if the very mention of private finance is anathema to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has been very persistent so I give way to him.
  Mr. Campbell: The Chief Secretary talks about the deficit. How was it created? If my memory is right, I remember the £100 billion from North sea oil which went down the drain. I remember the money from the nationalised industries. It was an enormous amount. We had billions from there. I remember the poll tax fiasco—nearly £4 billion. I remember Black Friday, where we lost £5 billion in one day. The Chief Secretary is the one who has caused the mess-up in the finances of the country, not us.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has inadvertently, I am sure, stumbled into quite a good point. During the 1980s, North sea oil revenue was contributing about 4 per cent. of gross domestic product in tax receipts to the Government. Today, it produces only half of 1 per cent. of GDP. That is an important difference. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. and learned Friend thought it appropriate yesterday to build new elements into the tax base—to broaden it—by introducing two new taxes: an insurance premium tax and an air passenger duty.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the typical family will have to pay almost £10 a week
  1078
  more in taxes from April? Will he now apologise for breaking the promises made by himself and the Conservative party over taxation at the election?
  Mr. Portillo: I do not know what a typical family would be described as, but I must say this to the hon. Gentleman, and then the contrast between our seriousness and his flippancy will be evident: it is not possible to cure a public sector deficit of £50 billion without some restriction on public spending and some increases in taxation.
  It is banal of the hon. Gentleman to get up all the time and so glibly tell us that taxes have gone up. Of course they have gone up, because we are serious about putting right public finances. The hon. Gentleman is not serious about anything and the contrast shows. He is under-performing for somebody in his position.
  Ms Harman: So is the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady may say that, but she is held inside the shadow Cabinet by the safety net of political correctness; otherwise, she would not be there at all. That is not my judgment about who is underperforming, but that of the Labour party.
  Mr. Brown: If the Chief Secretary is performing well, will he now answer my question? Will the typical family pay £10 a week more in taxes next April, and will he apologise for breaking promises on taxation at the election?
  Mr. Portillo: Different families pay different amounts, and I am not disguising the fact that people will pay more in taxes. Does that satisfy the hon. Gentleman? We are taking serious action to put right the problem. He continues to pretend that no serious action needs to be taken. His is a position of profound irresponsibility.
  Mr. Clive Betts: The Chief Secretary has just said that everyone knows that it is not possible to deal with a £50 billion deficit without increasing taxes or cutting public expenditure. Why did he not say that at the time of the general election? In his previous answers, he said that he thought that the end of the recession would come earlier and that that would provide the revenues. In answer to my hon. Friend a few minutes ago, he said that only people of an escapist tendency believe that growth could cure the £50 billion deficit. Where is the consistency in that argument?
  Mr. Portillo: I was talking about views taken at different times. At the beginning of 1992, it appeared not just to the Government but to all major commentators, and the Labour party, that the recession was about to end. In late 1993, it is not possible to take the view, with the deficit having risen to where it is, that recovery on its own will be sufficient to deal with the problem.
  I should like to deal with the way that the Government will approach the cost of running the Government. At a time when people in the private sector have had to go through severe restraint, when they have seen their incomes under great pressure during the recession, it must make sense for the Government to ensure first that their running costs are firmly under control.
  That is why there will be no increase in the cost of running the Government between this year and next year. I do not mean no increase in real terms; I mean no increase

  1079
  in cash terms. We shall have to fund any pay increases that there are in the public sector from efficiency gains and savings that we make inside the public sector.
  That will be possible because we set demanding efficiency targets for the public sector and public bodies. We normally expect them to be achieving a 2 or 3 per cent. improvement in efficiency each year. Out of those improvements in efficiency must come any pay settlements that are made in the public sector.
  As a result of that, over a period, we shall see a reduction in the proportion of public spending that the Government spend on running themselves from 8·2 per cent. down to 7·4 per cent. That is an important reduction in the amount that the Government are taking away from taxpayers to spend simply on running themselves.
  Mr. William Cash: Is not one of the most important features of the Budget the emphasis on enterprise in small businesses, and is not that the means whereby we can regenerate the economy to pay for so much of the public expenditure that is required? Is not another essential part of the budget the rejection of the Delors package and of the movement towards the policies advocated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and others—to increase public expenditure as a means of getting out of the problems that it merely precipitates?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. All we have to do is look at what happened as we recovered during the 1980s. The engine of our recovery was the small business sector. It was able to expand in that way because of the flexibilities that existed, particularly within the British labour market. I believe that it will be the same during recovery this time around.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has taken a series of important measures to help the small business sector. As a Government, collectively, we have taken a united stand against all those who would wish to impose on the British economy the rigidities and extra costs that would be the death of that effort to ensure that small businesses can again be the engine of our recovery, as they were during the 1980s.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: My right hon. Friend has received may challenges from the Opposition Benches tonight about election promises. Is he familiar with my election address in the 1992 election in which I stated categorically to my electorate that we would build on the 20 per cent. tax band, which is enormously important to low-paid workers in my constituency, and that we would maintain sound money? It would be difficult for me to go back to my constituency and hold my head up under that promise if we were to implement some of the suggestions that have come from the Opposition Benches tonight.
  Mr. Portillo: I have read my hon. Friend's election address less frequently than I would wish, but equally I have read "War and Peace" only once in my life, so she must not be offended. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be further progress with the 20 per cent. tax band from April 1994.
  1080
  My right hon. and learned Friend has set out clearly what his monetary policy is. He has made it perfectly clear that he will not follow the policies advocated by the Opposition.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No. I am going to finish.
  For the Conservative party, sound public finances are the predominant economic policy that we must follow. It is the policy that takes precedence. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that, in 1981, in pursuit of sound public finances, we faced a Budget from Lord Howe that required us to take heavy tax increases. As a party we accepted that because, for us, sound public finances were the most important of all our economic objectives.
  I share my right hon. and learned Friend's judgment that he made yesterday about the speed at which he reduces the PSBR. I congratulate him profoundly on being able to achieve the reduction that he seeks with so much emphasis on the control of public spending and with so little raising of taxes, particularly in the year ahead.
  The Conservative party believes in low taxation and keeping down the rates of taxation, because we believe that high rates of taxation have a profound effect on incentives. As rates of direct taxation are raised, they tend to drive out of the country those people who create wealth.
  The search for extra revenue by raising the rates of direct tax usually proves elusive, because the people who create the wealth up sticks and go somewhere else to do their business and take their wealth creation with them. We are a country that is profoundly concerned about competitiveness. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) said a moment ago: we are profoundly concerned about competitiveness. The country attracts one third of all inward investment from outside the Europen Union, yet 45 per cent. of our national income is spent through the Government. In the United States, the figure is only 38 per cent., and in Japan only 32 per cent.
  To be an internationally competitive nation, we must keep public spending as a ratio of national income down to an internationally competitive level so that we can enjoy internationally competitive rates of taxation. Thanks to the policies of my right hon. and learned Friend, we are enjoying internationally competitive rates of taxation for both personal and corporation tax, but we must still reduce the proportion of our national income that is spent by the Government.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has pointed the way in which that will be achieved and charted the steady progress that we shall make in reducing the proportion of national income taken by the Government. Not least for that reason, I commend his Budget to the House with great enthusiasm.
  6 pm
  Mr. David Rendal: It is a great honour for one who has come to the House comparatively recently to be able to speak so early in the Budget debate. I imagine that a number of hon. Members who have been here longer than me will feel envious of my opportunity. I have some advice for them, which I have given to many other people: they should join the Liberal Democrats because that gives one a better chance.
  We are in danger of going into great detail about the Budget when there are one or two critical points about it

  1081
  that should be brought to the attention of the House and public. As a result of a combination of the Budget in March and yesterday's Budget, next April we are due to have the largest tax hike in history. The Government cannot get away from that. Nobody expected it after their promises in the election and they should be deeply ashamed of it.
  The Government would no doubt like to believe that the taxes are mainly indirect, and there are indeed a number of indirect tax increases in line. They have always said that, as long as tax was taken indirectly, it would not matter and that the important thing was to reduce direct taxation.
  I shall begin by reminding the House of some of the indirect taxes that will be put into effect. First, there is the obnoxious imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. We have all heard a great deal about that over the past year, and, sadly, it was clear from the Chancellor's statement yesterday that he failed to listen to the pleas of electors who told him what should have been done—cancellation of that tax. The reaction of the electorate has been shown in Newbury, in the council elections, in Christchurch and in council by-elections ever since the imposition of the tax was first announced.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not true that at the last general election the Liberal Democrats fought a campaign based on an energy tax? Can the hon. Gentleman explain what that energy tax would have been?
  Mr. Rendel: I shall come to that point later.
  The important point is that the imposition of VAT has been rejected wholesale by the people. As I was saying before I was interrupted, people have made that rejection clear in the council by-elections since May, in which the Conservative party has succeeded in losing two thirds of all the seats that it fought. That is an unbelieveable and unprecedented record of electoral failure.
  It is true—we have said it plainly and we have been extremely honest about it—that we believe that there should be fuel tax increases; but they should be introduced in the right way. Time and again, the Liberal Democrats have made it plain that they are prepared to support energy taxes when they are aimed at reducing pollution and not simply at cutting the Government's deficit. Such taxes should be introduced in a way that would help those who are worst hit by them.
  The second of the indirect tax increases is that on petrol tax, which was introduced yesterday. That was the second huge increase in nine months. I well remember at the last general election the Conservatives in my constituency, and no doubt elsewhere, putting on the frighteners and saying that people should not vote Liberal Democrat because we would increase petrol tax by as much as 10p a year.
  We had honestly and openly said that we believed that there should be a petrol tax increase of 10p a year. We did not believe in an increase of 30p in a year, which is what we have had from the Conservatives. That is a huge increase, which will bear most heavily on those in rural communities, who have suffered from bus deregulation and who have now lost all public transport services and are totally dependent on the use of their private cars for transport.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rendel: I have already given way once, and that should be sufficient for the hon. Gentleman.
  1082
  Those who have lost their public transport services in rural areas will be those most hard hit by the increase in petrol tax. In the last general election campaign, the Liberal Democrats made it plain that we would introduce a scheme to help such people before any petrol increases were introduced by our Government. Such a promise was notably absent from the Chancellor's statement in spite of the fact that he must know, as we all do, how hard people in the rural communities will be hit.
  Thirdly, the Budget introduced an indirect tax on insurance premiums. One would have thought that insurance premiums were close to the heart of the Conservative party. Have not the Tories said that people should stand on their own two feet and look after themselves? Surely one way in which members of the public can look after themselves and make sure that they do not rely on the state to finance them when disaster strikes is through insurance policies, but here are the Government discouraging people from insuring themselves.
  Fourthly, there is the tax on air passengers, with all the disadvantages that that will bring to those who are trying to export and those who wish to travel abroad to get more sales for our goods in foreign parts. Again, one would have thought that the Government would do their best to encourage rather than discourage exporters.
  It is important to add that, in the past, the Liberal Democrats have said—I come here to the intervention of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—that we support a carbon tax. Recent figures on the European proposals for a carbon tax show that, as they now stand, they would cause a petrol tax increase of about 6p a gallon —a great deal less than the increase that the Conservatives introduced yesterday.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rendel: I have already allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene, and I have now answered his question.
  Let me now deal with direct taxes. While the Conservatives have always claimed that the one thing they would not do was increase direct taxes, whatever happened to indirect taxes, that is what they have done. Not only did the last Budget effectively introduce a 1 per cent. increase in tax on everybody's wage packet through the increase in national insurance contributions—an increase that hits all except the super-rich who do not pay national insurance on the top slice of their earnings—but personal allowances have been frozen. In real terms, even if not in cash terms, that effectively means an increase in the income tax take.
  There will also be the reductions in mortgage interest relief, which will take place both next April and the following April, and a similar decrease in the married couple's allowance and in all the allowances that go with that. Those will mean real cash losses for many families. All the direct tax increases—which the Government promised they would never introduce—will hit hardest, the public sector employees who have no extra money with which to pay them because of their zero increase in pay next year. Is the Conservative party a tax-cutting party, as it has suggested? Frankly, what hypocrisy. The Conservative party has raised tax more quickly than has ever been done before.

  1083
  For what are all the tax increases intended? First, of course, they are intended to reduce the Government's debt which has resulted from their gross mismanagement of the economy. We have heard a lot about the Government getting public sector finances right. Are the Government really going to pretend that they were aiming at sound public finances when they ran up a public sector debt of £50 billion? Again, what hypocrisy.
  The Government, despite their tax-raising measures, are not investing in our future by investing in education. We heard nothing about investment in nursery schools, despite the fact that we have been told time and again that, for every £1 which is invested in nursery schools, the state will eventually reap £7 in terms of reductions in crime and social security pay-outs and the increased profitability of our economy. That £1 would release £7, yet we heard nothing about investment in nursery education in the Budget.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has made clear his opposition to the £50 billion deficit. Given that at the previous general election his party said that it would put one penny on income tax to pay for education—therefore, that must be taken out of the equation—will he tell the House exactly what other taxes he would levy to get rid of the deficit?
  Mr. Rendel: My party said at the election and has said recently that we would raise income tax by one penny to make sure that the educational needs of the country were met. We have produced also a number of further proposals to put people back into employment. That is the most important way in which we can reduce the deficit in future, as I shall show later in my speech.
  There are other areas of expenditure where the Government have failed to make the necessary investment. We are seriously under-investing in our infrastructure, our public transport, our roads and our housing.
  It is also highly significant to examine the public sector net worth. Figures produced recently by Gavyn Davies, one of the Government's advisers, show that the public sector net worth increased year after year until the early 1980s. By that time, it had reached—depending on how one calculated the figures—between 70 per cent. and 100 per cent. of GDP. The net worth increased consistently under both the Conservatives and Labour until that time. Since then, it has fallen consistently, until it is now only 10 per cent. of GDP and is still falling. Indeed, in a few years the net worth is likely to become negative. In practice, we would then have a Government sector with a net worth of zero — effectively bankrupt.
  A result of that can be seen in a survey by the World Economic Forum of 22 modern industrialised countries. Britain comes 22nd in infrastructure investment, 20th in quality of education, 21st in commitment to research and development, and 22nd in number of qualified engineers.
  There was some good news in yesterday's Budget statement. I commend the Chancellor for his promise to study the matter of interest on late payments. That excellent idea was produced in the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the election and has, like so many of our good ideas, been pinched. Sometimes it takes the other two
  1084
  parties some time to pinch our best ideas. On this occasion, it has taken the Government two years even to get around to thinking about it.
  It is a pity, perhaps, that the idea was not in the Government's manifesto at the election. Come to think of it, that might have been the kiss of death, as they have turned over most of the other things which were in their election manifesto.
  I will now talk about housing. The Budget statement contained a cut in the housing budget of over £500 million, or about 10,000 new homes between the Housing Corporation and the local authorities. Of course, the construction industry has been particularly hard pressed during the recession. There are few better ways of bringing us out of recession and into recovery than by investing in housing to get the construction industry off its knees.
  There is another important reason for investing in housing. The Conservatives claim to be the party of the family, in spite of the Chief Secretary's admission just now that he did not know what an average family was. Housing is one of the main causes of family break-ups. A lack of housing and poor housing are two of the main reasons why parents do not stay together.
  I should like to tell the House about one family in my constituency, and perhaps theirs is the saddest case I have yet to come across. The family has six children. The parents and the youngest daughter were living in one of the three bedrooms. Four children lived in the second bedroom. I was told that the four children shared a couple of bunk beds. I assumed that there were two pairs of bunk beds, so each child could have one bed, but that was not so. When I went upstairs, I discovered that the four children shared one pair of bunk beds.
  In a third room, another daughter who was married lived with her husband and their one son. Needless to say, the family was under considerable stress. I fought to get them rehoused, or at least the eldest daughter and her husband and child. Sadly, I was not successful and eventually the parents had to evict them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was it a Liberal council?"] At that time, the Liberal Democrats were not in charge of Newbury district council. We have been since, perhaps as a result of the incident about which I am talking.
  The young couple were evicted by the parents. The couple were, of course, temporarily housed as an emergency priority case by the council and they eventually moved into other accommodation. Sadly, that was not before the family had broken up. The husband could stand it no more, and moved out. The Conservatives call themselves the party of the family. Yet they refuse to put money into housing which is needed to make sure that such terrible cases of family break-up do not continue.
  Local government is the other area for which I have special responsibility for my party. Standard spending assessments have increased this year by 2·3 per cent., a level far too low to allow local government policies to remain even at the levels they are at now. Services will have to be cut again next year. The services which will be cut will be especially those which councils are not statutorily required to provide, because it is those that the councils will find easiest to cut.
  One of the services which I suspect will be cut first is crime prevention. That is not at present a statutory requirement, but it is a service on which the best local councils are trying to concentrate. That service will be almost certainly cut and, as a result, we can expect crime

  1085
  to increase. The Government have claimed that they want to do something about the rising crime rate. Why will they not give local government money to invest in crime prevention?
  Another interesting point about local government which came out of the Budget is the question of capital receipts. For a long time we have known that local government capital receipts have not for the most part been fully used. Certainly many are in the hands of local government but cannot be used for further investment or revenue spending. What a contrast, then, between what local government is allowed to do with capital receipts and what the Government allow their Departments to do with them. Yesterday we heard that the Ministry of Defence will sell a lot of its housing. The money will go directly into reducing the amount of net revenue spending. That is not something that it will be allowed to do; it is something that it will be forced to do—in complete contrast to what happens in local authorities.
  It is not just that there will be a huge hike in taxation; there are also huge cuts in spending. How will that help us to recover from the recession? What should the Chancellor have done? He should have cut unemployment, not unemployment pay. That, surely, is the main answer to his problems. Unemployment costs nearly £10,000 per head per year. Instead of cutting unemployment by means of the investment measures necessary, he attempted to balance his figures—just as, he told us, he did at the general election—by some fanciful forecasting, instead of getting the figures right, and by cutting other parts of the social fabric.
  This country needs a Government who are prepared to invest in our future, our children's edcucation, in housing, infrastructure, public transport and all the other areas of Government spending where investment has been so low in the past. This Government have consistently disinvested. That is why the Chancellor's Budget is a failure and why the House should reject it.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has mapped out the path to restore balance to our public finances and, of course, he had to do so. Otherwise, our public indebtedness would have driven us back into high inflation and high interest rates, which would have meant a harsh future of worse unemployment and poverty.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has sought to be fair in his tax increases. He has recognised that the strong should help the weak. Substantial tax increases are to be laid on the better-off. The thresholds for higher rate income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax have been held. The measures against avoidance, against people who get paid in gold bars or pretend that a sale is an exchange to avoid stamp duty, are right, particularly when the Government are also, rightly, tackling social security abuse. The insurance premium tax will fall progressively on the better-off.
  Although the Government have had to announce spending cuts that we would not ideally have wished, notably in the housing programme, my right hon. and learned Friend has found substantial savings in planned expenditure while protecting the welfare state. He has been able to reduce the contingency reserve because of the fall in inflation, which means that a smaller cash sum is needed
  1086
  to purchase a given volume of activity and enables the cost of debt service to be reduced. These are rewards of the disciplined approach to economic management that the Government have pursued and that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and, these days, even the Tribune Group know to be necessary.
  I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend ignored some of the more draconian counsel offered to him. He has not cut spending programmes massively. He has increased taxes, but he has also somewhat eased monetary policy, and he is strongly placed to ease it further if growth should falter. I hope that he will be disposed to do so. He has stressed his commitment to growth. That is the only way to restore balance without pushing us back into recession and all the social damage that goes with it.
  Above all, we need to generate jobs, more jobs and better jobs. My right hon. and learned Friend's macro-economic strategy is well designed to enable that. There is also a series of micro-economic measures which will support job creation.
  My right hon. and learned Friend stressed the crucial role of small businesses in generating new jobs. I welcome his raising of the profits limit for small businesses paying corporation tax, his significant increase in the turnover threshold for VAT registration, his measures to encourage venture capital, and his help for small businesses on late payments.
  I also welcome the reduction in national insurance contributions for employers in respect of lower-paid employees. Although our objective should be not low pay but high pay well earned, above all, it is important to help people to get jobs. The human as well as the economic waste of unemployment is a basic challenge to our society and to the Government.
  My right hon. Friends are right to be troubled by the size of the social security budget, not because we should not support people in poverty as generously as we can, but because high spending on social security is an indicator of systemic failure.
  A large proportion of social security expenditure derives from unemployment. A decent society and a properly functioning economy aim to involve everyone —all our people—and not to leave some of our people isolated on the margins of society, eking out a meager existence on benefits. Moreover, the more we spend on the relief of poverty, the less we have available to spend on other decencies and necessities—better health care and better education.
  I am pleased, therefore, that my right hon. Friends are seeking to tackle the roots of the problem of high social security spending by setting out to remove the obstacles to employment. I am very pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor yesterday declared unequivocally his commitment to the welfare state and reassured us that the Government do not intend to dismantle it.
  He has found extra resources for training and education. I welcome the new apprenticeship scheme and the Government's commitment to extending opportunities in further education. The French, too, have responded to economic difficulties by increasing their investment in education. If we are to be competitive, we can do no less.
  I particularly welcome the disregard for child care costs of up to £40 a week that is being introduced into family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The Government have already made

  1087
  significant advances in reducing the poverty and unemployment traps. We need to go considerably further still.
  However, for many people the costs of child care have been the final and decisive obstacle to getting into paid employment, thereby achieving the release that they want from dependence on benefits. My right hon. Friends have done the right thing here, and I am glad that they dismissed, as of course they must, the harsh fantasies with which some toyed, about cutting benefit for children of lone parents.
  With this measure of support for child care costs, my right hon. and learned Friend has shown that he is willing to spend more money in the short term to recoup public expenditure in the medium and long term. He is fully justified in that approach. There is no reason to think that the markets will not tolerate borrowing to finance public expenditure, which is part of a convincing programme of investment.
  I welcome the new presentation of figures in the Red Book, which separates borrowing for purposes of current expenditure and borrowing for investment. The figures presented as borrowing for investment represent sums intended to be spent on physical capital investment.
  For me, the most interesting section of the Red Book is contained in paragraphs 5A.15 to 5A.19 on page 111. In paragraph 5A.15 it is acknowledged that
  "some spending that is conventionally considered as current, such as that on education and training, research and development, or health care, can be considered to produce a stream of future benefits in much the same way as purchase of physical assets."
  Very fairly, the Red Book continues in paragraph 5A.17:
  "assessing the investment element of such spending raises some extremely difficult measurement questions."
  However, the conclusion which so much encourages me is in paragraph 5A.18, which states:
  "it is important to bear in mind that future productive capacity in the economy is supported and developed by spending that is not covered by the normal capital spending definitions."
  My right hon. and learned Friend is right to pursue with determination a policy which eliminates borrowing for current expenditure, which is just that, particularly if it is wasteful expenditure. He should also be prepared, however, to increase investment in human capital. As rapidly as, in his judgment, the understanding and tolerance of the markets will allow, he should invest not only in child care, but in high-quality play facilities and well-trained play workers.
  Recent terrible events have underlined the horrors of what children's play can mean in circumstances of trauma and neglect. Conversely, good play facilities and guidance offer enormous benefits to early learning and to the development of personality. I hope that the Government and local authorities will provide more support for such provision, particularly in areas of social deprivation.
  We should also invest on a larger scale in nursery education. I was encouraged to gather that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister personally attaches importance to that. We should invest more fully in the whole of our education system, building on the progress that we have made. In particular, we need a proper system of support for part-time students. The Government are right also to maintain their support for civil science and technology.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor should maintain a sizeable programme of investment in so-called
  1088
  human capital. The Government are justified in borrowing to invest in that programme, in the same way as a private enterprise borrows to strengthen the capacity of its work force and its ability to create wealth. Investors will support investment of that type in the public sector in the same way as they support private sector investment.
  I do not like the term "human capital", any more than I like the term "consumer". Those economist's metaphors suggest a limited view of humanity. I prefer to think in terms of us acting together to support our fellow human beings to develop their strengths and to enable them to contribute more to our society.
  In that spirit, I hope that my right hon. Friends, as they consider the future of the welfare state, will not feel constrained, either by economic imperatives or by their social vision, to place further emphasis on means testing. In a year in which employees' national insurance contributions are to rise, I am sony that contributory benefits will be cut with the proposed introduction of the job seeker's allowance and incapacity benefit.
  I hope that my right hon. Friends will proceed cautiously and sensitively on the issue of invalidity benefit. I know that they have commissioned research into the operation of invalidity benefit, and I believe that they have yet to receive its findings. Therefore, I am not clear on what basis my right hon. Friends contend with confidence that significant sums are being paid in invalidity benefit to people who are not genuine invalids. In eight out of 10 claims referred to the Benefits Agency medical service, I understand that the general practitioner's decision to certify eligibility has been upheld.
  The Department of Social Security commissioned research by Erens and Ghate, which makes it clear that the reason for the growth in the numbers of invalidity benefit claimants is not that more people are coming on to the benefit, and it finds no evidence of extensive abuse. It shows that it is difficult for people to get off invalidity benefit.
  The rational policy response is then to help employers to keep chronically sick and disabled people in work, and to encourage employers, particularly previous employers, who are the most likely to do so, to recruit them back to work. I fear, however, that the measures on statutory sick pay and the previously announced requirement that employers should pay 50 per cent. of the cost of specialist equipment for disabled people, will tend in the opposite direction.
  I fear that they will frustrate the Government's intention to reduce their spending on invalidity benefit and incapacity benefit. Will the Government also consider carefully the case for legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people in employment?
  Against the background of plans to reduce expenditure on invalidity benefit, I am glad that my right hon. Friends have considered other ways to help disabled people into work. They have removed disincentives—the loss of free prescriptions and help with dental care—which have prevented take-up of disability working allowance. They have also applied the child care disregard to disability working allowance recipients. That is good.
  At no extra cost, the Government could also allow social services departments to make direct cash payments to severely disabled people instead of providing help in services. In that way, disabled people, through their added inde
  pendence, would have a better chance of entering employment.

  1089
  I urge my right hon. Friends to reconsider the virtues of universal benefits as against targeting. The arguments have been rehearsed many times. Means-tested benefits are complex for recipients and administrators; they create unemployment and poverty traps; their take-up is poor; and they fail to provide security. The uncertainty that attends them means that they discourage efforts at self-help. Unhappily, a stigma goes with them. With little constituency of support among the better-off for improving means-tested benefits, those benefits are less than generous.
  By contrast, universal benefits are secure. They provide incentives to work, since there is no penalty of withdrawal. They are easy and cheap to administer, and take-up is high. Contrary to what is often said, they are also targeted, as they effectively redistribute income from better-off taxpayers to people on middling and low incomes, and redistribute income over the life cycle to help people in times of greater need. Some 75 per cent. of expenditure on child benefit goes to families on incomes of less than —200 per week. Most importantly, universal benefits give all of us a stake in a shared system.
  For the same reason, we should not erode the contributory system, which is the most effective way to commit us all to support each other through decent benefits.
  The welfare state is affordable. As Mr. John Hills recently explained in "The Future of Welfare":
  "even if benefit levels kept up with overall living standards, the total net effects on public finances over the next fifty years would add up to an addition of about 5 per cent. of GDP—no more than the increase (mainly due to the recession) over the past three years."
  We cannot, indeed, afford not to sustain and strengthen the bonds of our society.
  I do not, of course, argue that everything must be provided directly by public expenditure. I do not argue at all against reform of the welfare state. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on his willingness to promote a rational debate on the future of the welfare state. I agree with him that welfare provision should not be monopolised by the state, and that we should think, as Beveridge did, in terms of a welfare society. We should promote the generous virtues, not only through the agency of the state.
  I welcome the sensible and overdue decision to encourage the participation of private capital in public works—not only roads, but hospitals and schools. I want the Government to develop this philosophy of mutual support and cohesion.
  Their vision of the role of the voluntary sector remains to be developed. I welcome the new provision that a person on incapacity benefit will be able to do 16 hours of voluntary work without losing the benefit. Could the Government bring that provision forward ahead of 1995? Are the Government applying a similar concession in relation to unemployment benefit and the job seeker's allowance?
  I was sorry, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor did not have something to say in his Budget speech about the role of the voluntary sector. While I appreciate that this is not an easy time for the Government to provide more fiscal relief for the voluntary and charitable sector, if the Government want that sector to work in partnership with statutory services—sharing responsibility for programmes in the public interest—they
  1090
  must develop a clear and consistent set of principles for enlisting it. They must not load an extra tax burden on that sector, as both this year's Budgets have done.
  I offer these thoughts in a constructive spirit, which I hope matches the generosity of spirit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. He balances intolerance of what he characteristically calls "nonsense" with a recognition that the Government exist to help us all achieve the good purposes that we cannot achieve either individually or in private groups.
  Wealth does not simply trickle down: we have learnt that, I take it. The rebalancing of our public finances should also be the rebalancing of our society, between public and private, and between rich and poor. To balance competition with mutuality, discipline with compassion, and the individual with society, is the true Tory tradition.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who made a sensitive and—I do not want to embarrass him—thoughtful speech. I was sorry to hear that he intends to support his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Division Lobby. I was unable to detect much by way of support from the hon. Gentleman for the proposals from the Government Front-Bench team. Of course, that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman. He made some thoughtful and enlightened comments, especially about the need for public sector welfare provision.
  I shall not pursue the hon. Gentleman's line in support of the Budget, because I and my hon. Friends intend to oppose it. It does not provide a strategy for future economic growth; the Budget is about paying for previous Government mistakes.
  Some aspects of the Budget can be given a modest welcome. For example, the efforts to close tax loopholes are welcome, although the Government could have gone significantly further. We also welcome the increase in tobacco duty, but the Government's credentials on health issues would have been substantially advanced if they had also proposed a ban on tobacco advertising.
  The new child care allowances are a welcome step, and I was intrigued to hear that the Government are to introduce proposals to boost investment in the west coast main line. That issue directly concerns everyone in the north-west, and we look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State for Transport about a specific timetable for that investment. We have heard many promises and we have pressed the Government on previously publicised private-public sector investment programmes, but we are still waiting for progress on many of them.
  The Government's overall strategy is fundamentally flawed, and the Budget strategy reflects that fact. I doubt whether it could be said that the Budget has any overall strategy, other than short-term and immediate political imperatives. The proposal about compensation for VAT on fuel bills has caused considerable concern. Careful news management has created the impression of great generosity towards pensioners and those on benefit, but it is undeniable that the measures still will not cover the full increase in electricity and gas bills. People should be aware of that reality.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that: the imposition of a tax on insurance premiums was

  1091
  progressive. It is regressive, and will have a bad impact on families and householders on fixed incomes. It will be a serious penalty on families who have the misfortune to live in high-crime areas, and particularly in inner cities.
  It could be described as a tax on the victims of crime, because people who live in high-crime areas constantly worry about their insurance on home contents. As people who live in inner cities will testify, through no fault of theirs, the cost of that insurance is extremely high, and a tax on the premiums is a tax on the innocent victims of crime. That is extraordinary when viewed against the background of the Government's much-trumpeted policy on tackling law and order and, in particular, the Home Secretary's claim to put the victims of crime at the centre of that policy.
  The Opposition have welcomed a limited number of measures in the Budget, but, as I have said, the Budget is not a comprehensive strategy for growth, investment and jobs. The limited measures that we have welcomed are helpful but, sadly, they lack any overall shape or strategy. The Government do not have a policy to boost investment in the public and private sectors, and it is not clear which part of the Budget will stimulate economic growth. Such growth seems merely to be assumed rather than underpinned by any specific, concrete measures.
  According to estimates from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, capital spending by the public sector has slumped from over 9 per cent. of GDP in 1975 to an unbelievable 1·5 per cent. in each of the past two years. Nothing in the Budget addresses that fundamental decline in investment.
  The Chancellor said much about the merits of public and private sector collaboration. That is a welcome development: we have been pressing for such schemes for many years. However, we need to recognise the valuable contribution that the public sector can make in that field. Sadly, the Government are intent on pursuing their familiar prejudices against all things public.
  Business investment is also in a bad way. There should be further capital allowances to bring forward new private sector investment decisions. The Budget should have built on and advanced some of the measures in the previous Budget. The Engineering Employers Federation called for that. I noted the comments of Graham McKenzie, the president of the federation, who said today that he regretted that the Government had wasted an opportunity to improve on the measures in the last Finance Act.
  The proposed new measures to help businesses are strictly limited. The proposed enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trusts will have to be carefully monitored if they are not to become devices for tax evasion. The budgets for key Departments such as Trade and Industry and Employment, contain further evidence of the Budget's contradictions.
  According to the Red Book and the other literature that accompanied the Budget, the budget for the Department of Employment is to rise by £145 million next year, and £117 million of that is accounted for by transferring the careers service to the Department. On my figures, that means an increase for the Department of only £28 million, which represents a real-terms cut in the Department's budget for the next financial year of 3 per cent.
  1092
  How will the new and much-heralded apprenticeship training scheme be financed from that dwindling budget? Have consultations started on implementing it, when will it start, and what will the trainees be paid?
  I have a particular interest in that issue because of the collapse of apprentice training in my constituency. The VSEL shipyard used to employ 400 16-year-old apprentice trainees every year to learn vital engineering skills. The shipyard has not done that for nearly three years, and that is a ruinous waste of skills and talent. I hope to have some assurance from the Government that they will start to replace those lost skills. I hope that the Government's proposal is not another bogus trailing of a scheme that will fail to materialise.
  If I am right, and the Department of Employment's budget is to fall by 3 per cent. next year while at the same time we are promised 30,000 additional engineering apprentices, where is the money to come from? The scheme needs to be properly supported, and there is no evidence whatever in the Government's documentation that proper financing will be provided.
  Many hon. Members have expressed concern about the attack on social provision that is at the heart of the Budget. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon reflected some of the concern among Conservative Members. Some of the Budget measures will have an extremely serious effect on the social fabric of our society.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke about the reduction in the value of unemployment benefit. People have been paying into a national insurance scheme for many years, and their contributions are soon to rise. It is extraordinary that those people have now been told by a Government who have always prided themselves on their handling of public sector finances, that because they are in such a hole, the pay-out from the scheme is to be halved. That is a betrayal; there is no other word for it.
  I understand that nearly £1 billion will be cut from the grant to the Housing Corporation over the next three years. That is bound to have a dramatic impact on the provision of social housing, and it is an appalling and cynical measure. If the Government are able to maintain the delivery of social housing to the extent that they have promised, that cut in grant is at least bound to affect rents, and that is greatly to be regretted.
  The taxing of invalidity benefit is incomprehensible. It is an unfair extension of the tax base, and I agree with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon that the Government have not made any credible case for saying that there is irregularity or fraud at the heart of the scheme. That case has never been made.
  For years and years, GPs have been applying the regulations that the Government have laid out for access to the invalidity benefit scheme. There is no suggestion, I hope, that local doctors and consultants are somehow conniving in a conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer, which is what, ultimately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer implied yesterday. There is nothing irregular about access to the invalidity benefit scheme; in fact, many of us would argue that the eligibility criteria are far too strict.
  The increase of the state retirement age for women to 65 is another significant and serious issue. It is estimated that that will save the Exchequer nearly £5 billion. Perhaps it should have been a priority for the Government to use that £5 billion to improve the range of pension benefits that are

  1093
  available to our senior citizens, and not to regard the harmonisation of the pension age as an excuse to cut public spending.
  An opportunity was wasted on increasing the state retirement age. It would have been far preferable to discuss a more flexible approach to retirement, which would have reduced the age at which there was access to the state pension to 60. It is a mistake, and it will be shown to be so in the years to come.
  It has been said—the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) drew attention to it, rightly in my opinion—that the Budget conceals a significant cut in grants of nearly £1 billion to local authorities, which will clearly have an impact on a range of important social services, including education, housing and social services. That is another matter of serious concern, and it should be to Conservative Members.
  Today, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils have all predicted serious consequences of that cut in support to local authorities. I shall return to that subject when I discuss the new child care allowance, because it will have an impact on that provision as well.
  The Budget also proposes further changes to the student loans scheme. That is a sneaky way for the Government to raise extra financial resources. That too will hang, around the necks of Treasury Ministers in the run-up to the next general election.
  I wonder how we can take seriously the Chancellor's assertion that he will not dismantle the welfare state against the background of evidence such as that. Why does he allow the Chief Secretary to continue his tirade against public welfare provision, unless he shares the same basic agenda and is quite prepared for someone else to make the running? There is a particular risk that those wider cuts will also negate the effects of other measures in the Budget.
  I now return briefly to the subject of the proposed child care allowance. There must be a worry, because nursery education is a non-statutory provision, that it will bear the brunt of any reduction in local authority spending. There can be little doubt about that. There is no doubt, at the same time, that nursery education, properly planned and properly delivered, can form a coherent part of an overall strategy for child care provision. If there is, as a result of those cuts in local authority grant aid, a reduction in the availability of nursery places in our communities, what then are we supposed to make of that £28-a-week allowance for child care?
  I wonder whether anyone has properly advised the Chancellor about the true cost of child care for many families. Of course £28 a week is better than no provision at all, but it will not meet the realistic cost of child care provision for many working parents. If we add that to the possibility of a decline in the number of nursery places, we get a better flavour of the Government's commitment in that area.
  In essence, it is once again the sick and those who are£ out of work and on benefit who will ultimately pay the price for the Government's economic mismanagement. Some things never change.
  There must also be concern throughout the country—because of the enormous tax hike that those two budgets represent when they are added together—about the combined effect of the last two Budgets on consumer confidence. We are told that, during the next three years,
  1094
  £23 billion will be taken out of circulation. That is an enormous tax hike£the biggest in British fiscal history. No one can predict its effect on consumer confidence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has already starkly drawn attention to the details of those figures. A typical family will be £16 a week worse off as a result. That is bound to have an effect on consumer confidence and consumer spending. If we are talking about growth in the economy, it is difficult to see where else that growth is likely to come from in future.
  It certainly will not come from public spending on vital new capital investment projects, because we are witnessing an overall reduction in public spending. That economic growth is not likely to come from an export-led regeneration of British manufacturing, given the problems of the wider European economy. The Government are proposing, therefore, effectively to take £23 billion-worth of consumer spending out of the economy. I would like to hear some assessment from Treasury Ministers of the impact on consumer confidence of such a measure.
  While we are discussing export-led growth, it has struck me, and, I am sure, many of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches, that, throughout the Chancellor's lengthy Budget speech, we did not hear a reference to the trade deficit. We did not hear anything from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the appalling imbalance of trade that has grown up, not just between Britain and the European Community but between Britain and the rest of the world.
  Those are serious economic issues, and the problem with the Budget is that, instead of the serious analysis of them which we were led to believe that the Government would give us, we have had a ritual chanting of mantras that ultimately mean nothing. When we consider the evidence—the experience of 14 years of Conservative government—we are entitled to say that those mantras mean nothing.
  Now I shall mention one aspect of the Government's public expenditure round which has not been mentioned so far in the debate—the reduction in defence spending. Once again, I have to say that that issue is of direct relevance to my constituents. In Barrow-in-Furness we have the highest dependency on defence-related contracting of any travel-to-work area in the United Kingdom.
  The announcement of a further £800 million-worth of defence cuts was received, and is being received, by my constituents very badly. We have already suffered a loss of 8,000 jobs in the shipyard in less than three years. That is an unsustainable loss of skills and jobs—and employment opportunities—for any single community to expect to deal with on its own. There is no end in sight to that.
  We need some information—and we need it quickly —from the Secretary of State about what the Government are now planning in terms of future procurement decisions. I fully support the idea, and the proposal, that the Government should conduct a review of the country's defence policies. That is long overdue.
  I am also interested to hear the Secretary of State say, as I understand that he did to the Defence Select Committee today, that the bulk of that £800 million can be saved by means of efficiency measures. If that is the case, why were not those defence cuts proposed before? Are the Government simply saying that they have been overspending in terms of the running costs of that Department to the tune of £800 million? What a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money that would be.

  1095
  I think that the reality is that there will be significant procurement cuts, especially in the budgets of the armed services. I very much hope that that is not the case, and I hope espėcially that the Government will announce that they still intend to procure replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid in the very near future. We need those ships, not just to maintain the ability to deploy the armed forces safely and securely around the world, but to secure vital employment in the shipbuilding industry.
  When all the hype and froth is stripped away, the Budget will be seen for what it is—a giant confidence trick. We are all being asked to pay more for less. The fundamental weaknesses of the British economy have not been tackled by this, or any other Tory Budget for the past 14 years. The sick and the unemployed are being hit once more.
  Perhaps the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) had it about right when he commented in the Evening Standard today:
  "It could be cheers today, but tears tomorrow"
  for the Tories. I agree with that assessment.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). He talked about the need to stimulate growth, but the fact is that growth is in revival in the country, and it is in revival because we have a combination of low corporation tax, low inflation and low interest rates. That sets our record apart from those of the other countries of Europe, and the economy is certainly in revival.
  I also listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). Coming from the county of Suffolk, which is now experiencing a combination of the Liberals and Labour in government at a county level, I can see the wish list of goodies very much in evidence.
  Mr. David Porter indicated assent.
  Mr. Spring: I see that my hon. Friend agrees with me.
  Sometimes, those who are practitioners of economics or politics can lose sight of what economic policy is all about. It is, of course, to provide a framework in which sustained economic growth can lead to decent living standards and secure employment prospects for our people.
  As always, every Budget is a balancing act, but this historic Budget has succeeded very well in bringing together all the disparate elements which make up a coherent budgetary package. The result yesterday, for the whole House to see, was the floundering performance of the Leader of the Opposition. I have to say that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) did not even reach the beach.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) summed up the predicament of both the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party in a press release some months ago:
  "We have nothing to say across the whole range of macro-economic policy, on exchange rates, on interest rates, fiscal policy, demand management and public spending".
  As one looks back at the long history of the House, there can be no time in history when the Government have been
  1096
  faced with an Opposition more ineffective and economically illiterate. Yesterday and today, they had nothing to say. They know it, and we know it too.
  During the summer, I visited Japan and Taiwan with the Employment Select Committee. Japan may have its difficulties, but Taiwan regards itself as in recession with a growth rate of some 6 per cent. Our much-improved export performance is due to the substantial increase in exports to the Pacific rim countries. All that is good for jobs and economic growth.
  We have been the major beneficiary of Japanese and other foreign investments in Europe. The effect has been profound. Rover now outsells Mercedes Benz in Europe; Toyota is moving its local content in the United Kingdom from 60 to 80 per cent.; the productivity of the work force in Britain is identical to that of Japan; the days of Friday afternoon cars and Monday morning cars are clearly in the past.
  When we visited the Ex-Im bank in Tokyo, which monitors investment flows, it was disappointing to hear that investments from Japan into Europe are very small compared with those to other parts of the globe. Why is that so? Time and again, we heard about the adverse cost structures in Europe and of employment costs that are simply pricing Europe's goods and services out of the world's markets.
  There is no point in talking about education, NHS, transport or defence spending if we cannot produce what the world wants. The consequence is that Europe is paying a bitter price. There are 17 million people unemployed in the European Union, potentially rising further in the years to come.
  In that gloomy European picture, Britain stands out, with falling unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates. Each and every other EU country has a minimum wage policy— either statutory or collective—and it is no coincidence that, where there is a statutory wage provision in the larger EU countries, there is chronic unemployment, among young people in particular. In France, it is 23 per cent. and rising; in Spain, it is 33 per cent. and also rising. The inflexibility of their labour markets has caused real economic destruction and personal misery.
  Britain, like other industrialised countries, has to grapple with a sizeable budget deficit. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has not shied away from it, and I applaud him for tackling it with his characteristic panache. I believe that the unified Budget will be seen to be as important as the Budget of 1979 which brought down confiscatory taxation and abolished foreign exchange controls; and the tough 1981 Budget, which set the scene for a sustained period of economic growth unparalleled since the war.
  One reason why the Budget is so important is that it addresses important aspects of welfare spending. It is not a party political issue—nor, indeed, is it confined only to this country. Some 25 million Britons out of 55 million are in receipt of benefit. In each of my surgeries, I try to help people, often with limited resources, because, all too frequently, the system benefits those who do not need it.
  The Budget is especially important because it has put down markers for dealing with these problems, while retaining the essential integrity of the welfare state. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security took the matter up so well this afternoon.
  I was in my twenties in 1976, when the country went bankrupt. I remember feeling anger that I was going to be

  1097
  bequeathed a country which had become a byword for industrial anarchy, and the laughing stock of the world. Today, I have children of my own. It would be fundamentally wrong to bequeath them an economy laden down with a debt which would be difficult for them to service and pay off, and we should never be forgiven if we did not rise to the challenge.
  The key element of the Budget is the disappearance of the budget deficit by the end of the decade. It is the most critical component of macro-economic policy.
  During the boom years of the late 1980s, the vast majority of new jobs came from small businesses. It is important to remember that 96 per cent. of our enterprises in Britain employ 20 people or fewer. I therefore greatly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's measures to help small businesses.
  In rural communities such as my constituency, dozens of businesses exist which are the lifeblood of the west Suffolk economy. Many have been hard hit during the recession, but there are now clear signs of recovery. My right hon. and learned Friend's announcements will be a considerable boost to them. Only yesterday, I was talking to a number of my constituents involved in small businesses, and how pleased they were that they would now no longer have to register for VAT due to the increase in the threshold.
  Businesses in that category will no longer suffer the costs and irritation of a statutory audit. Many of my constituents will benefit from a welcome measure for which the Small Business Bureau has been campaigning for many years. We should look carefully at what the attempts will be to cut red tape and help small business.
  The audit requirement for small businesses has been significantly relaxed. The requirement will be abolished for most companies with a turnover of below £90,000. For companies with a turnover of between that figure and £350,000, the audit will be replaced with a simplified process which will help some 500,000 businesses, all potentially involved in job creation.
  I greatly welcome the immediate lifting of the VAT registration threshold to £45,000. Some 70,000 traders will be able to opt out of VAT—greatly to their benefit. The Budget is of great help to the small business community and therefore to job creation.
  There are many reasons why we seem since the war to have been bedevilled by a rollercoaster ride of interest rates. One has been the distortions flowing from our national propensity to put money into bricks and mortar rather than other economic activities. The restriction in mortgage tax relief is welcome, and I personaly hope that, over a period, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider phasing out altogether that distorting relief.
  In particular, I applaud my right hon. and learned Friend for initiating the new enterprise investment scheme and a new venture capital trust, and I am personally gratified that any investments potentially will not be property-related. In looking at measures for enterprise, and therefore job creation, the enterprise investment scheme will provide income tax for individual investors of 20 per cent. on up to £100,000 of qualifying investment per year.
  Companies will be able to raise up to £1 million per year under the scheme. That is greatly to the advantage of entrepreneurial activity in our country.
  The new venture capital trusts will pool savings for investment. That means that investors will receive dividends and capital gains free of tax. That is a useful way
  1098
  of spreading risk and encouraging entrepreneurial revival and activity, and therefore further job creation. In that context, I greatly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's efforts to reduce red tape and bureaucracy.
  As our public finances get into better balance, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will begin to re-examine certain income tax cuts. I hope that in due course he will take more people out of taxation altogether and continue to broaden the 20p tax band. We have seen the fruits of low corporation and income taxes being good for growth and inward investment. However, too many people in Britain are still paying tax too soon—there are too many people in the grey area that overlaps with welfare payments. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend never to lose sight of the benefits of a 20p basic tax rate.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is on the Front Bench this evening. In the drama of a Budget, the avalanche of figures and their enormity, the impact of it on distinct groups can be overlooked. Ten days ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment visited my constituency, notably Newmarket, the racing capital of the world.
  The racing industry generates considerable employment in my constituency. The industry had been in catastrophic decline. However, as a result of the spring Budget, the number of owners coming back to the industry has started substantially to increase, and the number of horses in training has increased as well.
  There has been a quantum leap in confidence in Newmarket in the western part of my constituency. We are now seeking to upgrade the quality of training for young people in the industry. With the benefit of hindsight, nine months on I express the gratitude of my constituents to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General for effecting those changes, which have dramatically changed the fortunes of many of my constituents.
  Yesterday's Budget will put the seal on the recovery that is now in place—a recovery that will ensure in due course that we will win the next general election. The winter of recession is now over—or, to use an expression that I learned at an early age:
  "If winter comes, can spring be far behind?"
  7.12 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I want to consider the interaction between health and the Budget. In particular, I want to look at the direct damage that is caused to people's health by the Government's deliberate actions. Earlier the Secretary of State for Social Security bewailed the doubling of the number of people on sickness benefit and invalidity benefit since 1979. He said that that had happened although "the nation is getting healthier". Clearly he accuses a large number of people of malingering.
  The Secretary of State's answer is to look for devices to disallow benefits and claims. Not only does he think that people are malingering—apparently he thinks that doctors are conniving at it. On the contrary, the number of people on sickness benefit reflects a real increase in illness. The nation cannot be said to be getting healthier when the number of people claiming sickness benefit has doubled in 14 years. Certainly the nation is getting more polarised so that the rich and the fortunate become even more rich and fortunate, and the poor get poorer.

  1099
  Fourteen years of Tory government are making people sick in the literal as well as the metaphorical sense. But what if the Secretary of State were right? Why does he not ask himself why 14 years of Tory government should produce a nation of malingerers? Surely there is something wrong with that as well. Why were people not so sick or so given to malingering in 1979 as they are after 14 years of Tory government? Could it possibly have something to do with bad housing, a lack of jobs, insecurity and casualisation of work, more money worries and more stress, and a culture of cruelty deliberately induced by the Government which encourages the weak and the vulnerable to be pushed to one side and enshrines greed and selfishness? Could that have produced the situation that the Secretary of State bewails?
  Government supporters sometimes say that the national health service is a sort of bottomless bucket which will require limitless resources. That will be true if we continue to have a Government who damage people's health with their savage social policies. Bad housing is a major cause of bad health, especially respiratory diseases which are increasing, stress-related illnesses and mental breakdowns. In Preston, I see many children suffering directly from inadequate housing. I see many babies and toddlers who never seem to have been properly well.
  What is the Chancellor's response to the housing crisis? He has looked at housing as an area in which to make what he calls savings. He has even cut the resources that go to his chosen instrument, the housing associations. Housing associations were supposed to be able to provide social housing so much better than local authorities. The Chancellor cut local authority housing, and he has now cut resources for housing associations. He says that that will produce savings. However, it is the most crass and cruel false economy. The cut in housing finance epitomises the Budget. We will need to continue spending more on picking up the casualties which the Government have created.
  What are the Government doing to the national health service? With a twin-track strategy, they are creating a situation in which there is no boundary between the public health sector and the private health sector. We have gone far beyond the simple contracting out of health jobs. Public money is being used to buy treatment in private hospitals, and people are driven to private insurance to get treatment in public hospitals. In both those cases, public health suffers, and public facilities are abused by the process. I regard it as contrary to the philosophy of the national health service.
  On the one hand, the Government are making people more ill by making their social conditions worse and, on the other hand, they are making it harder for people to get the treatment that they need when inevitably they become casualties. When the Government look at the number of people who are claiming benefits and the doctors who are signing the sick claims, they say, "There are too many of them." They ask not how they will correct the situation, but how they will push people to one side. What new scrap heap will be created for those people to inhabit?
  The Budget, for which we are all supposed to be so grateful, is a disgrace. In 1993, it is a disgrace that the biggest boast of the Government who have been in power for 14 years is that they have not increased taxes on food
  1100
  or children's clothes. Their claim to fame is that we were all trembling that they might tax books, clothes or food. We are supposed to be overcome with gratitude that those things have not happened and that families' conditions will not be worsened in that way. I noticed today that one tabloid even spoke of "Santa Clarke". Santa Claus's mantle sits ill on the figure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Tony Banks: He has the girth.
  Mrs. Wise: Yes, he has the girth, but no other attribute.
  It is a redefinition of "gratitude" to suggest that we. should be grateful for the Budget. I am amazed that pensioners are supposed to be overcome with glee that they will be given back half the loaf that is being stolen from them through the imposition of VAT on fuel. People will not be overcome with glee. They can recognise when they are being robbed, even if the thief gives back to them some of the proceeds. Their gratitude will be distinctly limited.
  Although I despair of the problems that the Budget will continue to cause people, the only silver lining or hope that I can derive from it is that it will further expose the hollowness of the Government's claim to have a right to govern the country.
  7.20 pm
  Mrs. Angela Knight: The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) obviously feels strongly about her constituency. She advocated spending but did not say how she would raise the money. I disagreed strongly with her remarks about the health service, which is doing an excellent job. Her description sounded like the decay that existed in the 1970s rather than the vibrant country that we have now.
  I welcome the Budget. It is tough but fair and it shows a genuine commitment to the welfare state. I listened with interest to the wholly negative speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Opposition Members are evidently not prepared to take tough decisions. The sum total of their policies can be described as a decision to defer a decision, in a Micawber-like hope that something will turn up, and a policy to hunt for the phantom loophole. It would be pleasant if difficult choices never had to be made. It would be pleasant if the sun shone all day and it rained at night. But that is the stuff that fairy tales are made of, and this is reality.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary reminded the House that sound finance was the Budget's underlying theme, and the continuing recovery is already helping to reduce the deficit. But I welcome his decision to tackle expenditure and the deficit so positively. If left unchecked, they would result in an increasing debt burden in future years for the next generation to pay. I believe in passing on to the next generation not liabilities but sound finances and a strong economy.
  The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said that the combination of this Budget and the last one was detrimental and would affect confidence. I remind him that the United Kingdom is the only European country with falling unemployment and rising output. We are moving steadily out of recession, unlike our European partners. A recent survey of 1,000 companies in the east midlands, published at the beginning of this month, showed that more

  1101
  than two thirds were expecting sales to increase, and strong signs were reported of improving trends in employment, profitability and confidence.
  In the past few days I received a letter from the managing director of a company, Guy Birkin, in my constituency, which is the oldest registered lace company in the world. He wrote:
  "During the last five years the company has more than doubled in size; a strong sales drive into Europe has been highly successful … A major investment programme has been undertaken with over £20m spent on the latest technology … The push forward by the company has been supported by a very flexible and enthusiastic staff … All this has led to international recognition of the company, increased employment, improved opportunities and working conditions for our employees, a good return for our investors, and increased business for the companies who supply us with goods and services."
  That is one of many examples of a highly competitive British company that is succeeding in world markets. It is prospering because of low interest rates, low inflation and the economic conditions in this country.
  The Budget will be judged not just by the specific measures that it contains, or by the instant comment that has resulted, but by the contribution that it makes to keeping the economy moving out of recession, reducing unemployment, which is still too high, and reducing the deficit.
  The Budget is a strategy for long-term growth and it helps business, jobs and recovery in a number of ways that are widely supported by the business community. In my constituency of Erewash, nearly 45 per cent. of the work force is employed in industry, which outstrips the average for the country, the east midlands and the county of Derbyshire. The measures relating to industry are therefore particularly relevant to my constituency. After all, it is industry which creates wealth and jobs. Big companies are the engine of the economy and small companies are the spark plugs. Some 35 per cent. of all jobs are in small companies, and growth in employment com s from them.
  The past two Budgets have held the increase in business rates to the rate of inflation, which has been widely supported by business in my constituency. This year, the maximum increase in business rates will be halved and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred to some of the benefits of that. Coupled with that are the changes to corporation tax. These measures will assist successful companies that are contributing to the growth of the economy.
  The reduction in audit requirements has been mentioned. Small companies have wanted such a measure for some time. Audit requirements have often been out of proportion with the size and profit of the business and there is a heart-felt welcome for this deregulation.
  Raising the VAT threshold benefits sole traders in particular and will drop many out of the VAT requirement altogether. But late payment of debt is a significant problem that adversely affects small companies and I have had most complaints about this problem. It has often been highlighted in the House and, in his speech yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor proposed two options: either a payment performance standard or a statutory right of interest. I urge the latter course, with responsibility to a high level in the company, and continuing measures to strengthen the small claims court.
  Finance for small companies is yet another continuing problem. Although I appreciate that the banks have been looking more favourably at ways of financing small
  1102
  businesses, based on their prospects and business plans rather than simply on the amount of collateral that the owner can put up, it is still common for a small company to operate with its cash flow financed by an overdraft and its expansion by a second mortgage on the home. That is not a long-term way for small businesses to operate.
  I therefore welcome the venture capital trust and the enterprise investment scheme proposals. I trust that attention will be paid to detail, to ensure that small businesses, which often seek modest loans, are helped by these two proposals.
  Assistance to business and the need for good infrastructure go hand in hand. The public-private sector partnership that the Treasury is promoting will bring forward schemes that otherwise might not have been introduced so quickly. It was extraordinary that Opposition Members appeared to shrug off the proposals when the Chief Secretary mentioned them today.
  Many of my hon. Friends were delighted yesterday at the announcement of the improvement to the west coast line and I look forward to the day when my right hon. and learned Friend can announce a partnership that will bring about the electrification of the midland main line, which is another important railway link that connects the manufacturing heartlands of Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield. Like other hon. Members, I have a further list of projects which I look forward to seeing come to fruition as a consequence of that partnership.
  Let me turn to some of the other issues in the Budget and to the concerns that have been expressed about the continuing rise in the social security budget and the need to control it. Currently that budget is spending £13 per person for every working day, which is an extraordinary amount.
  There is clearly a pressing requirement to prevent fraud and to spend where spending is necessary, but not indiscriminately. Realistic changes have to be made to ensure that we have a system that is affordable, that helps people to find work, and that properly helps people in need.
  I join with my hon. Friends in welcoming the measures to assist those on low incomes and pensions in paying the increases in their bills when VAT is added to domestic heating. I am surprised that those proposals have not been welcomed by the Opposition.
  A few days ago the Opposition's social security spokesman said that the Government must add some something to pensions to take account of VAT, and that they should add an extra 50p to pensions. Not only have the Government proposed an extra 50p; they have proposed more for future years. It is an excellent measure.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) poured scorn on the proposal to put VAT on fuel and power, but the Liberal Democrats' document entitled "Costing the Earth", advocated as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy. It continued:
  "for example, by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel."
  It is strange that the hon. Member for Newbury did not comment on that tonight.
  The Government believe in helping those on low incomes and pensioners. I welcome their proposals.
  The addition to social security will be of considerable assistance. Gas and electricity prices have been falling—down by 3·5 per cent. in the east midlands this year—and that will also have an important impact.

  1103
  I expect that the granny bond will have a widespread appeal. I also welcome the extension of the home energy efficiency scheme, particularly to pensioners. It is a low profile scheme, somewhat unsung, bat it gives grants to insulate homes, which results in lower fuel bills. This Friday, I am helping to publicise the scheme by helping a pensioner in my constituency who has received a grant and is insulating the property accordingly.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I see a press release coming on.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am getting a little tired of seated interventions. The rule of the House is quite clear: if Members wish to intervene, they must seek to do so. Muttered commentaries are not acceptable.
  Mrs. Knight: Yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer ann0ounced that the pension age for men and women will be equalised at 65 by the year 2020, but that it would affect only women under the age of 44. Further details were given by my right ho n. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security this afternoon. I must declare an interest in this matter because I am not yet 44. I suspect that I am one of an exceedingly small minority of hon. Members who will be affected by this measure.
  The demographic changes in the country are well known, and by the year 2020 there will be many more people than now who are over retirement age, and far fewer of employment age. If no change is made, the financial burden on those in work would substantially increase. Just as I believe that it is not right to pass on a deficit to the next generation, so it is not right to pass on a heavy financial burden to my children.
  The measure will have a long phasing-in period—and rightly so—and changes are proposed to the state pension scheme which will particularly help women. I hope that further attention will be paid to occupational pensions, particularly for women, who go in and out of work more regularly than men as a consequence of their family commitments. Occupational pensions provide not only additional financial security but give individuals a flexible choice of when to retire.
  The announcement on the retirement age reflects the changes in our society. More women now choose to work, and with the encouragement given by the child care proposal in the Budget, even more women will come into the work force.
  The Budget has put the Government's finances on a sound footing and clearly helps both businesses and jobs. It decisively tackles head on the difficult economic problems that must be solved in order to ensure a long-lasting recovery.
  7.34 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: As the Chancellor was making his speech yesterday, I was looking for two things in the Budget. First, I was looking for a commitment to help the major manufacturing plants in my constituency to maintain employment in the steel industry. Secondly, I was looking to see exactly how the Government were going to translate their oft-quoted phrase "traditional family values" into the preparation and presentation of their Budget.
  1104
  I came straight to the debate from a meeting with the Sheffield branch of the Engineering Employers Federation, where, as a South Yorkshire Member of Parliament, I heard a very worrying description from the major employers in our region about the extreme fragility of the recovery in their economic fortunes, if any.
  When I talk about the steel industry, I am not talking about a frothy, "easy come, easy go" manufacturing sector, but about a core industry of special steel manufacture. The representatives were complaining about their competitiveness with other European steel industries. They said that they were at a disadvantage—that there was an uneven playing field—because they had evidence that other European Governments were giving their steel industries incentives and assistance in the form of help for capital investment, for environmental issues, for training, for easy finance and for land deals.
  It is more sensible for us to say to our Government, "It is not fair that you are not helping our basic industry to compete in a very competitive world," than to say to a European Community country, "It is not fair that you are helping your basic industries to compete."
  One issue that members of that federation feared, when the Chancellor presented his Budget, was that they would have to carry extra costs such as sick pay. So I was very disappointed that sick pay was included as an extra cost for these core industries. That is not to say that the federation does not welcome many of the incentives and issues that the Budget gives for small business investment and expansion, but we cannot use that expansion to invest in a basic steel industry, as that does not come within the scope of a small business. Some 75 per cent. of the Sheffield engineering employers would be outwith that kind of help.
  While I fully support many of the proposals to assist small businesses, I have a nagging worry, which the Government should address urgently. They make great play of having closed a couple of tax avoidance loopholes, but I fear that in doing so they may have opened the door to 22 more. I believe that they have done that in a range of ways, when relaxing requirements for accounting and auditing procedures in smaller unquoted companies.
  I was particularly interested to learn how the Government intended to translate their oft-quoted insistence on traditional family values into the Budget. Over the past few weeks, I have observed an underlying assumption every time that phrase has been used—the assumption that such values include a substantial amount of unpaid work on the part of women at home. When the phrase "traditional family values" is linked with the phrase "back to basics", there is a specific reference to the role of women 40 years ago.
  The hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) mentioned one obvious implication of the Budget in that regard: the equalisation of pension ages at 65. It should be admitted that the £5 billion that that will save is £5 billion taken out of women's benefit. That will not be very popular among women of 40, 44 or, indeed, any other age, who will lose their entitlement to many other benefits at the age of 60, as well as their pensions.
  I should have preferred the Government to make really significant strides by extending equalisation of pension entitlement to part-timers and short-term contract workers. That is crucial to giving women real equality with men when they reach retirement age. At present, female pensioners are substantially less well-off than men in terms of income.

  1105
  I welcome the Government's admission in the Budget that it is very difficult for a single parent to become involved in the job market without easier access to child care. The provision of a child care allowance for single parents was certainly a start. However, another oft-quoted phrase was fundamental to traditional family values in the context of the Budget—the Government's frequently stated intention of moving from a system in which income is taxed to one in which spending is taxed.
  I believe that the real burden of the Budget will be experienced sharply at the household spending level. Who takes the responsibility for such spending? The figures are interesting. In households in which the men work, who does the household shopping? Four per cent. of men do it; in 42 per cent., it is done mainly by the women. In households in which women are not in paid work, the shopping is done by 57 per cent. of women and only 5 per cent. of men. In households as a whole, only 8 per cent. of the men do most of the household shopping, which is done by 45 per cent. of the women.
  The role of women, however, is not simply to go out with the shopping basket. Who organises the household money and bills? That is a more significant question. Again, it is mainly women who take on the responsibility: in 45 per cent. of households, they are chiefly responsible for such organisation. The effects of the Budget will be felt most markedly in that regard. The imposition of VAT on heating bills, for instance, will affect a central aspect of household budgeting.
  Although welcome help has been given to households receiving income support, the Government should not imagine that that will be sufficient, given that the imposition of an 8 per cent. and then a 15 per cent. levy on heating—a crucial household commodity—will be felt next year and the year after. They will have to think again, as the spending power of households is increasingly eaten away.
  Insurance of homes and household goods represents another crucial spending element, especially—as has been pointed out—during the current period of rising crime. The cut in Housing Corporation grant will result not only in fewer houses being built for rent, but, inevitably, in substantial rent increases, which will have a major effect on household bills. Those moves follow other increases —for instance, the 26 per cent. increase in water costs over and above inflation since privatisation in 1985, and the extra cost of car licences and insurance.
  Yesterday, the Chancellor said:
  "people should be allowed to keep as much of their own money as possible."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 936.].
  That, it seems, is the reason for shifting the burden of taxation from income to spending. I do not believe that households with tight budgets will have the freedom to spend their own money in the way they want; the basic household bills will have removed all their spending power.
  In the past few weeks, we have heard a good deal about another element of "traditional family values"; the importance of the head of the family in spending terms —usually the woman—in taking in single parents or students back home. Increasingly, they are young people studying at university, who have been caught by the massive cuts imposed on students in yesterday's Budget.
  1106
  The cuts in maintenance grants may not affect the numbers, but they will certainly change the type of student who can enter higher education.
  There has been a shift in class structure among university students. It is very difficult for young people —and even more difficult for mature students—to go into higher education at a time when grants are being cut, and local authorities are being squeezed so that discretionary grants are almost a thing of the past.
  In describing the reason for the cuts in student grants, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday:
  "Why should the bus driver …pay higher taxes to finance all the living costs of tomorrow's lawyers?"—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 929.]
  Why should not today's lawyers, and for that matter, today's trust managers and quango directors, pay through income tax to finance, help and invest in the skills of tomorrow's generation?
  As well as the extra burdens on the household budget, we heard in the Secretary of State for Social Security's statement that the shift is not merely from taxing income to taxing spending. It was a remarkable effort in combining hefty increases in tax and spending with hefty increases in taxing income.
  There is no doubt that taking £10 billion out of total public spending over the next three years will have a disastrous effect on many areas of our quality of life. The opening remarks of the Secretary of State, in which he placed great emphasis on targeting welfare benefits, were interesting. He mentioned that hon. Members such as himself would be concerned with
  "those for whom the welfare state was designed"
  I am not as young as the hon. Member for Erewash, but I have always believed that the welfare state was designed for every one of us who may want to use the library or who may want to send our children to state school, who may want to use the state health service, or who is concerned about the cleanliness of the environment.
  As soon as the welfare state becomes something that is available to that mythical "those", who are not all of us, it will decline in quality and will not operate in the best interests of all the British people. That is a central element of the irresponsibility with which the Government approach the whole issue of public finance for the future welfare of us all.
  The Budget did nothing for jobs and manufacturing in my constituency, and it points to the worrying way in which the Government intends to serve the British people, in whose interests they were supposed to design the Budget.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I feel sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) does not feel that the Budget will do anything to improve manufacturing in her constituency. I may follow up those comments later.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned family values. Anybody who starts to talk about family values should be heard because we need more of a consensus in the House about what family values should be and how we should sustain them. But it is a little churlish to lead family values against VAT on fuel after the announcement of such an incredibly generous package of measures that is certain to protect poor families, not only because of the special measures that

  1107
  will be announced, but because all possible commodity price rises are already reflected in the retail prices index. That index affects the annual uprating of all social benefits.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned the impact on higher education of reducing student grants and converting them to loans. There is no evidence whatever that since the Government have introduced loans, people have been discouraged from entering higher education. On the contrary, we are ahead of the Government's target of getting more people into higher education. We hope to get one in three into higher education by the end of the century and we shall easily beat that target.
  Speaking as an hon. Member who represents a university constituency, I realise that our system requires more generous provision for student maintenance, whether through parents, state grants or loans. It is more expensive for the average British student to attend university because the average student lives away from home. That is not the norm in most other European countries and often not the norm in the United States, but the introduction of loans has not discouraged people from taking on the liability of higher education because they know that it will improve their earning power in the long term.
  I declare an interest in the debate as an adviser to the Legal and General Group plc and congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the presentation of the Budget. I choose to call it the hush puppy Budget—not that the hush puppies and the softness of their step should deceive us of the weight and stature of the man that fills the shoes, or conceal the heaviness of the task that he has borne or the toughness of the decisions that he has had to make. I wish to comment on two general areas: the steps that the Government appear to be taking towards a comprehensive reform of our welfare system and the lessons that we can draw from the extraordinarily successful anti-inflation policy pursued by the Government that has created excellent prospects for the United Kingdom economy.
  There are several aspects of the Budget that I have always considered most important for Britain's economic health. I am delighted with my right hon. and learned Friend's plans to eliminate the PSBR by the end of the decade. That is the dividing line between the Conservative party and the Opposition parties. There has been absolutely no evidence in any of the debates from either the Opposition Front Benches or Back Benches that there is any strategy whatever to deal with the deficit.
  It is no good merely throwing around false charges about election pledges. I am perfectly happy to stand by any pledges that I made about the Conservative party being a party of low taxation. Compared with any of the Opposition parties, that is certain. It is rich of those on the Opposition Front Bench to pretend that somehow they will not raise taxes as high as the Conservative party.
  Even better in the short term is the Government's plan to end borrowing for current spending, which is wholly unproductive and merely robbing tomorrow to pay for today.
  Contrary to the out-dated fears of the few remaining monetarist commentators, those steps will provide a powerful boost to the economy that will increase employment and create wealth. From the rises in the gilt market and the stock market we have already seen that the financial markets have every confidence in that statement.
  1108
  The Government have successfully demonstrated their determination to manage their finances prudently and live within their means.
  We should pay tribute to the tough decisions made in the March Budget because they laid the foundations for yesterday's announcements and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) should not be forgotten or dismissed for his role. However, the March Budget left a question mark over the determination to deal with the deficit—one with which I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames would have dealt.
  The figures were serious. I refer briefly to a written answer given by the former Chancellor to a question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) in which the projected out turn of the national debt as a proportion of gross domestic product was described. The answer said:
  "This ratio fell from 49½ per cent. at the end of 1978–79"—
  when we were first elected—
  "to 27¼ per cent. at end 1990–91, but has since risen to an estimated 33½ per cent. at end 1992–93. The PSBR projections in table 1 of 'The Budget in Brief' imply a ratio of 49¾ per cent. at end 1997–98."—[Official Report, 29 March 1993; Vol. 222, c. 17.]
  That was an indebtedness in excess of what we had inherited from the last Labour Government. It was clearly unacceptable. That Budget was clearly an interim arrangement, pending strengthening economic performance, before my right hon. and learned Friend the new Chancellor had a chance to put his stamp on the proceedings.
  We now have a much improved scenario. The consequence of mounting up less debt is much less debt interest. It is a virtuous circle. The less debt, the less debt interest and the lower the public sector borrowing that ensues the following year. So we have reduced debt interest by a billion and more in all the forward years.
  Conservative Governments are nothing if they cannot live within their means. Amid all the manifesto pledges that we made at the last general election, one of the most pre-eminent surely was and remains that we should see the budget return towards balance as the economy recovererd. I am extremely pleased to see that the manifesto pledge will be fulfilled. No matter how many manifestos the Labour party signs up to, it is business that creates wealth while Governments' efforts to redistribute wealth tend to undermine the wealth-creating process.
  I welcome the tight cap kept on public spending. My right hon. and learned Friend is to modest when he talks of
  "a real terms freeze in the new control total over the next two years".—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 924.]
  By insisting that next year's reserve should not be sprinkled around the various Departments, the Government have ensured that the control total for 1994–95 represents a real terms reduction against the expected outturn for the current year. Over the summer, while Parliament was in recess, a few of us put ourselves into the line of fire by insisting that that would be possible. We gained much criticism from the "Today" programme and the Labour party and all the other people who said that it would not be possible. I am extremely pleased that it has been possible without inflicting great pain on our public services.
  Simply because we are in a less inflationary environment, it is easier to manage the public finances, and

  1109
  it is right that the Government should seek to take advantage of lower than expected inflation by lessening the burden of public expenditure. The control totals in the March Budget were already tight, but the futher reductions are entirely reasonable, given that inflation and public sector wage costs have turned out lower than expected.
  The Government still take too great a share of national income. Those countries in which public spending is a lower proportion of national income are best placed for economic recovery. We ought to take more active steps to reduce our public spending. The public sector pay freeze is a good start. I welcome the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary today about the administrative cash limits that have been put on Government Departments.
  There are plenty of instances in the folklore of Whitehall and Westminster of vast waste and extraordinary Byzantine practices around the corridors of power. One special adviser—a little while ago, I have to say—working in the Department that one would imagine would be the most cost-conscious of all Departments, the Treasury, told me that, if he was preparing a document, it first had to be sent down to the typing pool. If it was sent back, he could make up to seven corrections on his computer on his desk. If it needed more than seven corrections, he was required by civil service rules to send it back to the typing pool to have the corrections made.
  I know a similar story from the Department of the Environment. A trainee was sent off to do some jobs which included some photocopying. She asked where the photocopier was. The reply came, "Oh no, you don't do the photocopying. That goes down to the fourth floor. Len does the photocopying." She asked when she would get her work back. She was told that Len was on holiday and would not be back for two days. I can give chapter and verse on a personal basis, but perhaps I should do so off the record. I am sure that the competitive testing programme is designed to take heed of such practices.
  Perhaps some of the best news in the Budget is what did not happen. Income tax rates did not rise. While we see the benefits to the Conservative party of a 20 per cent. basic rate of income tax—increased incentives to work hard and encouragement for those with the lowest earnings—we are right to increase national insurance contributions to fund the deficiency grant of the national insurance fund.
  Another move that was clearly needed was the first step towards abolishing the remnants of mortgage interest tax relief. That will remove a distortion in the economy, which was ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), and help prevent another property-based boom like the one in the late 1980s. People will be less encouraged to invest in non-wealth-creating residential property and more encouraged to invest in productive assets.
  Furthermore, by effectively raising the cost of money to domestic borrowers, we make it easier for reductions in the base rate to take place, which benefits industry as a whole. We must still encourage home ownership and make it easier for young couples to buy their first home by means of first-time reliefs. But we do not need to subsidise the rest of the economy. With interest rates at a 16-year low, the typical mortgage payer is some £170 better off already. Now is clearly the time to start the long-needed abolition.
  As secretary of the Conservative Back-Bench smaller businesses committee, I welcome the measures to help
  1110
  small businesses. Along with the forthcoming deregulation, simplifying the paperwork that the Government require is a great step forward. Not only will taxation forms be simplified, but some 45,000 businesses will be freed from VAT. Many more will no longer be subject to audits. All those measures will allow small and medium-sized businesses to get on with making money rather than enriching accountants.
  I particularly welcome the ideas to tackle late payment of small company debts. We look forward to the development of those ideas. Also welcome are the measures to encourage investment in small businesses. The new enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts will bring in capital. Allowing angels to take paid directorships will bring in valuable expertise.
  While the changes to capital gains tax are welcome, I believe that the Government are missing a trick here. We successfully raise far more revenue from top-rate taxpayers by abolishing special reliefs and cutting the rate from the previously punitive levels. Yet we have set CGT at a relatively punitive level. We find ourselves compelled to introduce an ever-evolving set of special reliefs to ameliorate its damaging effects. There is a better way.
  If the Laffer curve, as it has become known, applies to income tax rates, why does it not apply to capital gains tax rates? Two interesting papers have been produced on capital gains tax, which I recommend to interested Members. One is by the Centre for Policy Studies and the other by the Adam Smith Institute. I shall precis the latter document.
  The United Kingdom rate of capital gains tax is 40 per cent., although it is adjusted for indexation. It is among the highest in the world. It is far beyond the point of maximum revenue yield. Several academic studies in the United States provide empirical support for the argument that the present 28 per cent. rate of capital gains tax is above the maximum revenue rate. Estimates of the latter vary from 9 to 21 per cent., with 15 per cent. the mid-point of the range.
  There is no reason to believe that the revenue maximising rate of capital gains tax is higher in the United Kingdom than in the United States. There is good reason to believe that it may even be lower. The revenue maximising rate of capital gains tax is not necessarily the optimum rate, in that the maximum revenue-raising rate would be damaging to the infrastructure of the economy.
  The taxpayer loses from the current system of capital gains tax. The available evidence suggests that the revenue maximising rate of CGT in the United Kingdom is possibly about 15 per cent. Further benefits could be realised if the tax rate were reduced below 10 per cent., and ultimately to zero, as in many other countries, such as Hong Kong.
  In the current period of fiscal stringency, I do not recommend abolition, but a substantial cut in the current 40 per cent. rate would release assets, currently imprisoned by the 40 per cent. rate, for more productive uses, there would be a substantial increase in capital gains tax revenue for the Treasury to go towards reducing the PSBR further, and it would substantially improve general business incentives without resorting to the expensive profession-subsidising mechanisms that have been announced in the Budget, welcome as they are.
  I particularly welcome the measures to protect those on low incomes from the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. The Conservative party has made clear its commitment to preserve a functioning welfare state and to helping those in

  1111
  need, which the package does. It will benefit 15 million people—one fourth of the population—and we are starting the relief measures before the taxes kick in.
  One measure of particular merit is the pensioners income bond, which will provide a guaranteed monthly income, alowing those on fixed incomes to plan their budgets more easily—those reliant on their savings.
  I shall now deal with social security. As well as the comprehensive VAT compensation package, there are other items such as the reform of invalidity benefit—the introduction of incapacity benefit, changes to statutory sickness pay, the reform of unemployment benefit, the introduction of the job seeker's allowance and equalisation of the state pension age.
  All those measures are part of a clear programme that the Government are developing to improve work incentives and reduce reliance on the state. I shall talk in detail about the job seeker's allowance, which is intended to be, and will be, a single, simple and comprehensive benefit for unemployed people. It will require that the recipient completes a job seeker's agreement, which will set about the conditions to be fulfilled to receive benefits. People who do not look for work will be penalised. That is better than workfare, because it encourages people to find a productive job rather than be stucck in a non-productive job.
  There is a strong case for change. At the moment, there are two benefits: unemployment benefit and income support. They do not fit will together and there are inconsistencies between them. The two benefits have different rules, offices and systems. It is too easy for people who are not genuinely looking for work to claim for an indefinite period.
  Under the current system, there is no effective penalty for people on unemployment benefit who fail to participate in training schemes. Under the job seeker's allowance, income support will remain unchanged for pensioners, carers and their families. Benefit will be paid weekly with two possible routes of entry: the contributory route or the means-tested route. The new benefit simplifies procedure and will reduce fraud by targeting the help on those who are genuinely seeking a job. The vast majority of my constituents will be delighted that there will be less shirking under the arrangement.
  I mentioned that that is part of an ongoing plan for reform. I would point out that two of the proposals that appeared yesterday in the Budget: equalisation of the state pension aged at 65 and the reform of unemployment benefit, are broadly explored in a pamphlet that a group of us published over the summer.
  I do not take any personal credit for the proposals that were introduced. If the Labour party is honest, it knows that its so-called social justice commission is forced very much to the same conclusions and to explore the same arguments. It is difficult. Anybody studying the problems that we face on the ever-growing burden of social security, is forced to the same conclusions that we have been forced to draw.
  Mr. Barry Legg: My hon. Friend does not do himself justice when he refers to the publication that he has before him. Out of the measures that are advocated in it, four were introduced: the equalisation of the retirement age; reforms to the earnings
  1112
  related element of invalidity benefit; the fact that the new benefit that will be introduced in respect of invalidity benefit; and also the new job seeker's scheme, which will be available for six months.
  My hon. Friend should also note the support that the Prime Minister gave to another—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is, I believe, seeking to catch my eye, but he seems to be making a speech rather than a short intervention.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, as he makes a valuable point about the influence that we may have had, but I do not claim to have been that influence. Those are natural conclusions to be drawn from the arguments once one explores them.
  Another point that I wish to emphasise to the Opposition is one made by Beveridge in his original report. We quote it in our document. He said:
  "The danger of providing benefits, which are both adequate in amount and indefinite in duration … [is] …that men as creatures who adapt to circumstances may settle down to them."
  That is something to which the welfare state that we have inherited today does not pay sufficient heed. No doubt Labour's Social Justice Commission will have to grapple with that as well.
  I shall now move to the second area that I wish to cover to say a few words about our economic prospects with particular regard to the Government's outstanding inflation record. The anti-inflation policies have been remarkably successful in view of the shocks and dislocation to public policy just a short time ago, particularly after the devaluation of sterling, which many commentators—the Treasury, the CBI and the Bank of England—said would lead to higher inflation than has been produced. Last March the Red Book showed a reduction in the forecast that was previously forecast. This week's Red Book shows a further reduction.
  Since the pound left the exchange rate mechanism, we have proved; first, that we can have lower interest rates than the Germans—we are not necessarily inexorably tied to them; secondly, that a substantial depreciation in the rate of sterling does not necessarily lead to uncontrollable inflationary pressures; thirdly, that the exchange rate is far more useful as an indicator than as a target. I am pleased to say that the Red Book uses the exchange rate as an indicator and not as a target.
  The success of our policy since we left the ERM and the prospects outlined in the Red Book—startlingly high growth prospects rising to a steady 3 per cent. annual growth in GDP—represent the coming of a new golden era, perhaps a second "golden age" for the Conservatives. I shall draw attention to one or two ratios and indicators, which are woefully ignored by hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Central Government fixed investment is far higher now and will remain far higher than ever it was in the 1970s. Let us look at unit labour costs and manufacturing. Unit labour costs have fallen recently, making us more competitive. All the indications on cost competitiveness show that we are gaining competitiveness at the current time, which leads me finally to a brief comment about monetary policy.
  We have succeeded in re-establishing a more orthodox monetarist policy that enables such success to take place. Some commentators have been consistently monetarist and I shall draw the attention of the House to one in particular. Tim Congdon wrote on 26 September 1985:

  1113
  "It would be particularly foolish to reject the PSBR and sterling M3 because the figures have generated problems of interpretation. Sterling M3 cannot be 'meaningless'. It consists of bank deposits and notes and coin, and no one in his right mind can believe that their holdings of these assets do not affect the behaviour of individuals, companies and financial institutions."
  On 17 October 1985, he wrote in The Times an article that described how sterling M3 growth accelerated rapidly in the preceding six months. In The Times of 22 November 1985, he was warning that the EMS was no easy option. By 27 June 1987, he was writing in The Spectator:
  "Much has gone wrong with the management of the British economy in the last two years. The growth of credit and money is too high, the economy is expanding too quickly and interest rates are too low to prevent the return of inflationary pressures."
  If only the Conservatives then had heeded those warnings, we might not have had such a serious recession to contend with, and certainly not such serious inflation.
  What is perhaps more interesting is what Professor Congdon is saying now. He was reported in The Daily Telegraph on Friday 26 November as saying:
  "We'll be clearly into a proper recovery next year, and we can then look forward to several years of above-trend growth without inflation. There is a real possibility that the underlying growth rate has improved."
  In his November review, he recommended:
  "There is no doubt that public sector borrowing is unsustainably high and that measures must be taken to reduce it … large and early tax increases to reduce the PSBR, accompanied by an offsetting relaxation in monetary policy"
  That was his prescription. That is what the Government duly delivered. What did he say about yesterday's Budget? I shall quote from The Daily Telegraph today, in which he said:
  "The two budgets of 1993 may well be seen by future economic historians as paving the way for the better phase of Mr. Major's government in much the same way that the 1981 Budget laid the foundations for the good years of the Thatcher administration."
  We may see a second golden era.
  I shall end with a question. If we can achieve the Maastricht convergence criteria as set out in the Maastricht treaty—the Red Book shows that we shall probably achieve them—one wonders why we need to think about re-entering the exchange rate mechanism. What do we need a fixed exchange rate for if we can manage all that with a floating exchange rate? If we can achieve the economic convergence criteria—they are laudable criteria
  intrinsically, although there is no target for overall public expenditure, and include low inflation, low interest rates and high levels of investment—with a floating currency, why do we need a single currency? I shall leave that one hanging in the air.
  8.22 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: As I have listened to the speeches of the past couple of days I have attempted to work out what the Budget is aimed at doing for the Conservative party. Much has been said about reducing public sector debt and something has been said, although not something explicit, about preventing the recovery from faltering, as it seems to be doing in many parts of the economy. I have concluded that the overriding aim behind the Budget is to keep Tory Back Benchers happy, and in that the Chancellor seems to have succeeded.
  I should have liked to see a Budget that got people back to work, that boosted investment in industry and that built up Britain's manufacturing base, which has been sadly depleted over the past 14 years of Conservative rule. I should have liked to see a Budget that produced a fairer
  1114
  society. I sometimes wonder what sort of society will emerge in the long term if Conservative policies continue. I have a little news for the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). He seems to think that the Conservative party is a tax-cutting party but, under the Conservative Government, taxes will have increased from 34·75 per cent. of GDP in 1979 to 35·25 per cent. in 1994. The Government have also increased the percentage of the average family budget taken by taxes.
  More serious than that, over the past 14 years society has become sharply divided. Today, the bottom one tenth is 14 per cent. worse off in real terms and the top one tenth is 62 per cent. better off in real terms. We can see the effects of that throughout our society. People are homeless and unemployed and pensioners and students live in poverty. There are great inequalities. The bottom one tenth of the population is paying 43 per cent. of its income in taxes while the top one tenth is paying 32 per cent. of its income in taxes.
  The March Budget will make that division in society worse. The micro simulation unit of Cambridge university has estimated that the March Budget will hit the poorest one tenth by a further 3 per cent. while taking only 1·5 per cent. from the richest one tenth. More people at the top end will do extremely well for themselves and benefit from the Chancellor's largesse, while at the bottom end more and more people live in dire poverty. I do not want to live in such a divided society.
  Yesterday, the Chancellor announced a package of help towards paying for VAT on fuel—a package obviously intended to keep Tory Back Benchers quiet—that will cost £1·25 billion, while the imposition of VAT on fuel will raise only £2·3 billion. Does the Chancellor really think that it is worth it, in view of the political backlash? I am glad that pensioners will have some protection, although I do not believe that the package will fully compensate the worse-off for the imposition of VAT on fuel. We have heard today that young families on income support will get 45p a week to cover an average £1·20 of extra cost. That will result in great hardship.
  One group of people on extremely low incomes will get no help on the imposition of VAT on fuel. Students will not benefit one iota from the package of help.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Lady. Does she not think that the 18 per cent. fall in the cost of fuel, primarily as a result of privatisation—that figure goes back to 1983, and the midlands has seen a cut of 5 per cent. in a year—will benefit students as well as older people?
  Mrs. Campbell: I am sorry to say that it will not benefit students. Over the past 14 years, the spending power of students' grants has been reduced by 120 per cent. of today's spending power. We have to balance any fall in costs against increases in other living expenses and the general reduction in grants. Students often live in private sector rented accommodation that is badly insulated, with draughty windows and insufficient heating systems. Often, they are in no position to do anything about that. The coins in the meter by which they keep warm will be consumed at an unsustainable rate, throwing more students into debt and poverty.
  Students are already badly hit by the fall in the value of the student grant, and an increasing reliance on loans means that students are leaving university many thousands

  1115
  of pounds in debt. That will increase sharply over the next three years. I know that it will be viewed with alarm by those students starting their courses this year, and I declare an interest in that I have a son who has started a degree at Imperial college, here in London. Because London living costs are higher than costs in the rest of the country, students in London on a full grant will receive £2,845.
  That is due to fall to £2,067 by 1996–97. That is a reduction of £778 during the next three years, and the Government are expecting students to borrow £778 to make up the shortfall. I hope that the Government have appreciated that that is not a one-for-one exchange. Those students whose parents will be able to make a full contribution—they include my son—will be able to borrow £778, as will those students who receive their grant from the state.
  As many more students will take out the full loan than students who will draw a full grant, expenditure will increase. I will benefit from that, if I choose to reduce my son's grant to the same extent that the Government are reducing the grant to students who depend on grants. That is not a fair way of financing students and, although I shall benefit from it, I shall vote against the measure if I get the opportunity to do so in Committee.
  Students will also suffer under the Budget from the increase in the council tax. Government Members will say that students do not pay the council tax, but that is not exactly true. I have received a letter from a constituent of mine, Mark Goodrich, who is the welfare officer of the Cambridge university students union. He points out that, in a household consisting of five students, no council tax is payable; similarly, in a house where five people are unemployed, no council tax has to be paid.
  However, let us consider a household in which there are four students and one unemployed person. That household becomes eligible for the single adult rebate, so that 75 per cent. of the council tax is payable. The unemployed person, it is true, can claim back 20 per cent. of his share of the bill. That is one fifth of 75 per cent. which, I can tell Government Members, is 15 per cent. of the full council tax bill. That still leaves 60 per cent. of the bill to be paid by the four students.
  It seems desperately unfair that households consisting of either all students or all unemployed people pay nothing, while those live in mixed households pay a high proportion of the bill. I am sure that the Government did not expect that to happen, and although it does not affect many people, it hits some people hard. Some of my constituents who are mature students and who live with non-students —their partners—are badly hit by that anomaly.
  I have mentioned that matter twice before in the House, and both times I received the brush-off from Ministers. I hope that, on this occasion, I will get a more sensible answer, because this issue makes a great difference to the students who are affected by it. One way in which Ministers could remove the anomaly would be to make students eligible for council tax benefits. The issue affects very few students, but that measure would wipe out the serious problem cases.
  I wish to talk briefly about women. The equalisation of the state pension age will lead to a deterioration in benefits for women aged under 44. Those women have been led to expect that they would receive those benefits from the
  1116
  state. All hon. Members are aware that the equalisation at 65 has happened because of the £5 billion savings which it will create in the national insurance fund. It is a further reduction in benefits for women, in addition to those which have been already announced.
  I remind the House that the pension was based originally on 25 per cent. of a person's earnings over the 20 best years of a career. It has been now reduced to 20 per cent. of earnings based on average earnings over an entire career. Periods of low pay are taken into account along with periods of high pay, and that will drag down the value of the pension. That will affect women primarily since, because of family commitments, they spend significant periods in low-paid, part-time employment. Women who have been penalised already by changes in the rules are to be further penalised by having to work until the age of 65 before they draw their pension.
  All hon. Members will welcome the £28 a week which has been made available as a concession for child care expenses. I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members to the case of one of my constituents, who wrote to the Prime Minister. As is normally the case, the Prime Minister sent the letter on to me for a reply.
  My constituent explained that she was a single mother, although she was not alone by choice. Her boy friend became violent and threw her out. She had a good job as a researcher and statistician, but she could not afford child care on her own. She was in a difficult position. She dared not sue her boyfriend for maintenance because she was afraid of his violence, so she gave up her job and claimed income support. That single mother costs the state more than £600 a month. However, she wants to work and does not want to stay at home and depend on state benefits.
  My constituent explained that, when she was working, she took home £800 a month after tax, national insurance contributions, and so on. The largest expense by far was child care, for which she paid £450 a month, which reduced her income to £350 a month. She got no tax relief on her child care expenses. She explained that she would now need an extra £200 a month to bring her back to the low standard of living which she experiences at present while living on state benefits.
  I am afraid that the £28 a week—welcome though it is —will not be sufficient to help my constituent and many women who are in her position.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Campbell: I have given way once, and I will not do so again because my time is fairly limited.
  The concession is too little, too late, and will not help many women who have professional skills and who could make a contribution to the national economy, let alone those women who are able to earn smaller amounts of earnings. Another problem with the Budget is that 300,000 women have been brought into the income tax net, and women can also be affected by cuts in public expenditure.
  There are 1,000 small businesses in my constituency which employ 15,000 people, so they are an important part of the local economy. Many of those small businesses are high-tech and are involved in leading edge technology, but I am concerned that they are not growing as fast as they should. There are various reasons for that, one of which is the lack of available finance.
  I welcome the enterprise investment scheme to encourage direct equity investment. We must watch

  1117
  carefully to see how that scheme works. The business expansion scheme started well and helped small businesses a great deal in its early stages. However, during the past few years the BES has been hijacked by property developers. Although the scheme has demonstrated that there is a lot of money around for investment, it has not had the effect that was intended when it was introduced.
  Another measure relates to statutory interest payments for late debt, and the consultation paper that the Government are introducing on that subject. If a measure is produced to introduce statutory interest payments, it is important that it should be payable for several years after it becomes due.
  Businesses often blackmail their customers by threatening not to provide further orders if their customers press for payment of debts that are due. It is important that we should avoid that situation.
  The Budget has not extended the capital allowances that were introduced temporarily in the March Budget. I know that that would have been a popular measure with my small businesses. There are no further tax allowances for research and development and no proper schemes to improve training and education. Many small businesses in my area will see that as a sustained attack on people who are trying to run small businesses and compete directly with companies abroad.
  Several measures in the Budget disturb me and I shall vote against some of those that I have talked about tonight.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg: Lord Wilson said that a week was a long time in politics. Less than a week ago, in the debate on the Loyal Address, I spoke about the economy. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me again this evening.
  When I spoke last week, I urged a reduction in the control totals, action on the Budget deficit and a more confident stance by the Government on economic policy. Yesterday, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented his Budget we made significant progress in all those areas. The control totals for next year were reduced by some £3 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said, many Conservative Members had argued for that throughout the summer months right up to the Budget. The reduction is sensible in that it takes into account the lower inflation which has been achieved and brings greater discipline to the Government's finances. That is particularly important, but the Government have made only a beginning.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has struggled long and hard to reduce the contingency reserve and to ensure that it is not consumed in the main estimates of departmental spending. With a sensible budgetary framework in place for the coming 12 months, it is up to Ministers to ensure that those targets are achieved.
  The overall increase in the control total allows for an increase in cash spending of 2·7 per cent. That is a not insignificant sum when inflation is at such a low level. However, it will require a cultural change for Ministers and civil servants. The Times today published photographs of Ministers who had supposedly won and those who had supposedly lost in the spending round. As usual, the press regarded those who had contained their budget and
  1118
  achieved savings as losers. There needs to be a fresh philosophy in the Government so that those who play a. part in achieving more cost-effective public services are recognised and rewarded.
  There also needs to be a change in attitude among civil servants. Tight budgetary targets have been set. Now they must be achieved. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary referred to Lord Howe's Budget of 1981 and drew comparisons between it and my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget yesterday. It should be remembered that the 1981 Budget provided for public spending to fall by 4 per cent. in real terms over the subsequent three years. Today, my right hon. Friend presented public spending projections for real increases of ·25 per cent. per annum. Despite Lord Howe's good intentions, he could not achieve the 4 per cent. reductions over the following three years and public spending increased in real terms by some 5·7 per cent.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Unemployment rose by 2 million.
  Mr. Legg: That was coming out of recession and into a period of sustained growth.
  With a firm Budget set for next year, Ministers will have to work extremely hard to ensure that those spending plans are adhered to. Comments about efficiency and lower overheads must be made into realities.
  The other welcome changes in the spending figures for next year are reflected in reductions in debt charges and in cyclical spending. That shows the merits of our overall policies. By getting down the overall level of borrowing we are driving down debt charges, and by coming out of recession we are getting a reduction in cyclical spending.
  The Budget is being well received in the markets. Today, both the equity market—[Interruption.]—and the gilt-edged market responded positively to my right hon. and learned Friend's measures. Opposition Members may not care about the equity market or the gilt market, but I am afraid that they are living in the 1970s. The gilt market is important to the Government and to every business.
  Today, long-term interest rates fell and the gilt market rose. That is good news for Government finances and for every business. Whether in the service sector or in the manufacturing sector. The long-term interest rates set by the markets determine the price at which businesses can borrow and plan for the medium and long term. That lies at the heart of our policies and is an aspect of economic policy that the Opposition choose to ignore completely.
  The strategy of balancing the books in the medium term has now been established by my right hon. and learned Friend. When I spoke in the Queen's Speech debate, I said that the concept of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement towards balance over the medium term was too vague a policy objective. Yesterday, that changed. My right hon. and learned Friend introduced plans in the Red Book to balance the books. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like that, but if they open the Red Book and look at the figures, they will see plans to reduce the PSBR to zero. That will be good for the country, for the Government's finances and for business throughout the country.
  Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend did not spend much time talking about monetary policy. Previous Chancellors have tinkered with monetary indicators, such as MO and M4. My right hon. Friend the Member for

  1119
  Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) widened the bands for both those indicators to such an extent that they had little meaning as instruments for determining monetary policy. Yesterday's statement about underfunding the deficit next year by £7 billion was, however, significant and a welcome development in terms of monetary policy. It will help the liquidity of many businesses, which is vital to their expansion.
  My right hon. and learned Friend rightly made disparaging remarks about forecasts. Many of our forecasting institutions and economists run forecasts based on models that do not reflect the matters that drive the British economy in the 1990s.
  The adjustment of £7 billion to monetary policy—that is, 1·25 per cent. of gross domestic product—will be an important stimulus to the economy, which counters any suggestion from hon. Members that this is a contractionary Budget.
  Spending plans have been reduced, but they do not result in an overall cut in expenditure—spending has been brought into better balance.
  Confidence will flow from the Budget. I mentioned the reaction of the markets today, which the Labour party seemed to pooh-pooh. Unemployment will continue to fall and my right hon. and learned Friend's estimates for GDP growth in the Red Book have been modestly set. The output gap in the United Kingdom economy is probably at a significant level. Unused facilities, resources and people exist to take up the slack in the economy. I believe that we shall see above-trend growth over the next few years.
  The overall success of the measures will not depend purely on monetary policy or on the Government being able to manage their machine more efficiently. Success will also depend on having a coherent long-term strategy for reducing the state's role, in step with people's aspirations. I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday reinforced our commitment, as a Government and a party, to reducing public spending as a proportion of GDP. That is one of our main priorities over the remaining period of the Parliament and in the run up to the end of the century.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North drew attention to the fact that many of the most successful economies in the world today have much smaller lower public sectors than the United Kingdom. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary also drew some parallels in his opening speech. Japan has a much smaller public sector as a proportion of national wealth—32 per cent. of annual GDP. The United States' public sector is about 35 per cent. of its GDP.
  Opposition Members will be interested to learn that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) seems to be a convert to the concept. In his speech on the Gracious Address last Thursday—it appears in Hansard at column 602—the hon. Gentleman gave Taiwan as an example to be followed by Britain. He said that a larger proportion of young people went into higher education in Taiwan than in the United Kingdom. He seemed to suggest that we should follow the example of Taiwan. His suggestion probably reflects his usual intellectual laziness. Taiwan has a much smaller public sector, which has something to do with its economic vitality.
  1120
  What is more, if the hon. Gentleman had bothered to do any homework, he would have found that all further education in Taiwan is financed by private loans—there is no state help for higher education students in Taiwan. I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby when we vote on issues relating to student grants. It is important to have a long-term strategy to reduce the size of the public sector as a proportion of national wealth if we want to have a successful economy.
  I welcome the changes announced in the Budget on social security payments. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor presented a generous and significant package to help with VAT compensation. The package was much more generous than any of the estimates that I saw in the press or from the Labour party. The total package is worth £1·25 billion, which is a success for grey power.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced changes in the level of retirement pensions over and above the inflation rate. He gave the House an assurance that that was a one-off measure and could not be repeated in later years, which was a wise and sensible assurance for him to give the House. Politicians must take fully into account the changing demography of British society. Demography has certainly changed enormously since Beveridge established the welfare state in 1945. At that time, those over 65 represented one in every seven of the population of working age. As we heard this afternoon from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, there is now one person over the age of 65 for every three people in the working population. Therefore, the demography has changed.
  The economics are also changing fundamentally—Opposition Members would do well to recognise that. Many elderly people retire on substantial occupational pensions which have grown significantly during the 14 years of Conservative rule. Those pensioners will have been pleased to see the developments in the markets today. They have become more wealthy and will have an opportunity to receive higher occupational pensions in future. In considering policies for the elderly and the social security budget overall, we must take into account demographic and economic changes that have occurred over the past 50 years.
  I welcome the introduction of the job seeker's allowance and the new incapacity benefits. The aim of seeking to concentrate help on those most in need is the appropriate policy for any responsible Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North said, spreading universal benefits widely across the whole population weakens the amount of resources available to direct to those most in need. A high priority for Conservatives is to ensure that those in need receive proper allowances.
  I support the proposals to equalise retirement ages announced yesterday, which was a common-sense solution to the European Court rulings. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the private sector has already taken the step of equalising retirement ages, and more than 90 per cent. of occupational pension schemes have equalised retirement ages at 65. The social security budget still shows substantial increases over the coming years. Opposition Members who suggest that Ministers are undermining the welfare state should turn to the Red Book and look at the spending figures on social security, education and health—all of which are increasing in real terms.

  1121
  The renewed commitment that we have heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to reduce public spending overall as a proportion of GDP is vital. A sound financial foundation and a sound financial example set by the Government will heighten the prospects for enterprise and initiative within the economy as a whole in coming years and produce substantial economic benefits for Britain and its people.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. John Garrett: The Chancellor's Budget judgment is that the economy needs a huge deflationary increase in taxation and an unprecedented cut in public expenditure just as we are coming out of recession. I assume that that is known as the new economics, but it is not an economic formula known to me in other circumstances.
  The tax increases that will hit the ordinary taxpayer in the spring can only be called a tax bombshell, which will fall not only when the economy is slowly recovering when it should be gathering pace, but just before the local and European elections, which will bring just retribution to the Conservative party.
  A family on average earnings will lose no less than £30 a month as a result of the action of a Government who are pledged to reduce the tax burden. By 1995-96, a married person earning £25,000 a year will lose £74 a month—£900 a year. That is also a formula for delaying recovery. But the full weight of the new tax-benefit regime will fall on invalidity beneficiaries, the unemployed and the nearly poor, who will, for example, have to pay VAT on domestic fuel without compensation.
  I welcome the £28-a-week child care allowance, although it will not go very far. It is a useful antidote to the hysterical speech on the social cleansing of single mothers and scroungers that the Secretary of State for Social Security made at the Conservative part conference. Some 200,000 low-paid workers will be pulled into taxation for the first time as a result of freezing allowances, so that the weakest will again get it in the neck.
  The increase of £1·6 billion in health spending is quite inadequate to cope with growing waiting lists and increased demand. The Secretary of State for Health said that she expects 2·25 per cent. in efficiency savings. I hope that she will tell us where those efficiency savings will come from. She really means that savings are coming from the standard of living of health workers.
  Costs in the health service are driven by new technology and drugs, which far outstrip a 1·6 per cent. funding increase. Our health service is phenomenally efficient by international standards, and it cannnot be squeezed any more. Frozen pay in the health service and other public services simply means redundancies.
  In my constituency advice surgeries, the biggest and most intractable problem is housing. In what was once an exceptionally well-housed city, there is now real housing stress and hardship. We can look forward to a substantial worsening of the situation. The cut of £300 million to the Housing Corporation, followed by another reduction of the same amount in the following year, will lead to a fall in the number of completions of some 13,000 dwellings and the loss of 30,000 improvements. It will lead to increases in housing associaton rents and a fall in work for the building industry.
  1122
  The effect on local authority housing will be worse. Local authorities will take a £860 million cut next year, and that will mean more redundancies and substantial cuts in services that have a direct impact on the less well-off. New starts by housing authorities and housing associations in the last year of a Labour Government were more than 100,000. Today, new starts are 36,000. Public investment in housing has fallen by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since the end of the 1980s, and it is now lower than for the past 30 years.
  I have never understood why the funds received from council house sales could not be used to build more rented housing. That would create jobs and provide homes. There has been a huge growth in poverty, noticeably in my formerly prosperous constituency where unemployment is now some 15 per cent., while 140,000 taxpayers on incomes of more than £80,000 a year have had an unbelievable bonanza of income tax cuts. We are heading for an American-type society, in which there is a vast gap between rich and poor. The differentials between the well-off and the poor are greater now than at any time since records were started in 1886.
  There has been a steady weakening of our productive capacity. Investment is a smaller share of national income than at any time for nearly 40 years. Britain is 23rd out of the 24 OECD countries in terms of the share of national income devoted to investment. We are not investing for the future of our industry. Investment for each manufacturing worker is half that of Germany and Japan, and a third of that in America. With private and public investment still falling, that is a recipe for continuing depression in our economy.
  All the policies embodied in the unified Budget depend for success on the eventuality of a recovery from recession over the next three years which is capable of offsetting rises in taxation and cuts in public services and infrastructure.
  I am one of the few people who take an interest in the form of national accounts. The Budget is much less unified than one might think. It is really a standard Budget with less detail than usual, and simply a presentation of public spending heads. It will be followed by departmental spending reports which set out costs but never set out the outputs or objectives of spending, and estimates which are more or less meaningless for management purposes.
  I am pleased about the shift to an accrusals basis of public spending. I remember proposing it to a Procedure Committee in 1969, but the Treasury then opposed it as impractical.
  Much more work has to be done on our national accounts, given that, as Robin Butler said in an answer to a question by me in the Treasury Committee a week or so ago; we are moving from a central Government of 30 main Departments to a Government of 30 ministerial headquarters, 150 agencies, more than 1,000 quangos, trusts and boards and countless thousands of contracts that are all managed by companies that are out to make a profit.
  Those changes make nonesense of Government accounts and wreck the accountability of Departments to, for example, the House and its Select Committees. That is worth mentioning. Public expenditure planning is simply becoming impossible as a result of those changes in the machinery of government. Unfortunately, the machinery of government has changed much faster than the machinery of scrutiny that Select Committees can bring to bear.

  1123
  To return to the Budget judgment, as I started, it seems to me to be an exceptional gamble on recovery. It is a Budget that hits the poorest hardest. It depends on massive cuts in public expenditure, which were hidden in the Budget statement and will become apparent only when the settlement with local authorities is made. It imposes taxation on the greater part of our fellow citizens, and I very much doubt that that gamble will come off.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). I agree with every word that he said.
  May I say, for the record, that I was absent from the debate earlier because I was attending a meeting of the Procedure Committee and I returned immediately after the meeting finished. One of the papers that we considered there was about the impact of a unified Budget. Although the Committee is naturally very supportive of a unified Budget, as we all are, we need to monitor the date carefully and to observe its impact, because there have been some complaints, especially by retailers, that in the run-up to Christmas it is not especially good for business to have to try to second-guess a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and consumers have the same problem. We ought to consider that carefully and perhaps think about another date if we feel that there has been some adverse impact on commerce and consumer patterns.
  In recent weeks and months we have got used to hearing the phrase about getting "back to basics". The Prime Minister is very fond of using it. Two points occurred to me about that phrase. First, the Conservatives have been in power since 1979, which is 14 years. If we are to get back to basics, therefore, we need to ask who took us away from basics in the first place. Secondly, what on earth does the phrase mean? What are basics? When did basics begin, when did they end, and when was the golden age of basics?
  I must admit that it is a very evocative phrase but, rather like its author, the Prime Minister, it defies objective definition. It can mean totally different things to different people. That is precisely the trick. Everyone can agree with it without contemplating the problem of ever having to agree with anyone else, because no one really knows what it means. It is a phrase that says it all but, at the same time, says nothing. It is vintage John Major.
  I decided to try to get into the mind of the Prime Minister, a task that some people may say does not require the abilities of a Harry Houdini, but I am a little more charitable about the Prime Minister because, in my opinion, if the Prime Minister has in mind a golden age it must mean Brixton and getting back to the basics of the 1950s.
  I can connect easily with that sort of image because I was also brought up in Brixton in the 1950s. We lived in a London county council home. The Majors, of course, lived in a privately rented mansion flat, as I understand, and we always used to envy them greatly. They were well-known nobs in the area, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can tell you. It was, however, a time of great security, I am sure, for both of us although, mercifully, we were blissfully unaware of each other's existence.
  1124
  There was little or no street crime in Brixton at the time. As kids we were able to play in the streets—I am sure that the Majors did not, because that was a working-class practice only. If anyone was unfortunate enough to be knocked over when we were playing in the streets, you could bet your bottom dollar that he would be knocked over by a car that was designed and built in Britain. It would be an Austin or a Morris Oxford; or, if he was very lucky, or perhaps unlucky, he could be knocked over by a Jowett Javelin. How I longed to be run over by a Jowett Javelin.
  There were no beggars in the streets of Brixton in the 1950s, there was no one pushing drugs. Truancy was almost inconceivable and anyone who did it found that the school inspectors or the educational welfare officers would soon come round to talk with his parents.
  To own a television in Brixton in the 1950s was a big deal. Anyone owning a black and white television was thought of as either being on the fiddle or a bit of a flash git, as my granny used to say. There was no real violence portrayed on the screen, nor were the minds of the young polluted by the obscenity of the violent sick videos and computer games that we have today.
  To complete the idyllic picture of the Prime Minister's golden age of basics, this is the clincher. During the 1950s Surrey won the cricket county championship every year for six successive years; and Chelsea recorded its only league championship in 1954-55. It must have been the golden age of basics for the Prime Minister. I was lucky; I saw every match that Chelsea played in the great year of 1954–55.
  However, when the Prime Minister recalls those times, he always manages to forget two things. First, unemployment in 1953 was 356,000 nationally—1·7 per cent. of the working population. London now has more unemployment—about 500,000—than we had nationally in the 1950s. There are now 2·8 million unemployed people in Britain—and that is the fiddled figure. If we take the 29 changes or fiddles into account, probably about 4 million people are unemployed.
  There was no homelessness in Brixton in the 1950s. Local authorities at that time were building 239,000 homes. In 1992, local authorities built just 4,600 homes. It does not take a PhD in housing administration to work out why Britain has a housing problem.
  In Brixton in the 1950s, in the Prime Minister's golden age of basics, security was based on employment. People had security, and jobs and a stake in society. When people have employment, they have something worth keeping. They have something that gives them a stake in our society. It is not surprising that street crime, truancy, single-parent families—all the things that are pointed out as problems in our society—did not exist in the same measure because people had the security of jobs.
  The Chancellor's Budget speech contained little or nothing that really addressed the problem of unemployment. The only job that the Budget addressed was the job of the Prime Minister, which the Chancellor clearly covets. There he stood, all beer belly and hush puppy shoes, playing to the one electorate that really matters, the only one he needs for the future—the electorate behind him of Tory Members of Parliament who will be voting for a new leader of the Conservative party probably some time next year, and he obviously wants to be in the frame when that happens.

  1125
  The Chancellor could have done a great deal for jobs in Britain and for London in particular. He could have done it by expanding the budget of the Department of Transport instead of reducing it by one fifth between now and 1996–97.
  Last week in London we suffered one of the worst breakdowns in the Underground system that any city in the world has experienced. It was the worst one I can ever recall in London. It led to headlines such as "Enough is enough" in the Evening Standard. On Wednesday 24 November, about 20,000 people were trapped in the tunnels in trains and people were stuck in lifts. Millions of people failed to get to work or arrived at work late.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment said that Londoners should stop whingeing. Instead of whingeing, they should storm No. 10 Downing street to do something about the calamitous state of London transport. How dare the Secretary of State tell Londoners that they should stop whingeing when we have such a crappy, clapped-out Underground system as we have today? He is lucky. If he thinks that we are whingeing, if he comes anywhere near my part of town in the east end of London, where we were without the Central line until Monday this week, Londoners are more likely to string him up than to start listening to his admonitions about whingeing.
  It is all right for Ministers in their chauffeur-driven cars, with their red boxes and their civil servants brushing dandruff off their shoulders, moving around in the luxury that surrounds them while millions of Londoners struggle every day to make sense of an Underground system or a public transport system that is palpably breaking down. It ill behoves Ministers such as the Secretary of State for the Environment to say that Londoners should stop whingeing.
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that £700 million to £750 million a year is needed to produce an acceptable modern metro system. The previous Secretary of State for Transport promised £700 million a year for London Underground by 1993–94. However, one year later, that funding was cut by about 30 per cent. in the Budget. We are talking about cutting a budget that was estimated only to be able to keep things going and then make some improvements. To cut the budget by 30 per cent. means that so much work cannot be done now.
  That is why London Underground broke down so badly. It turned out that the electrical fault lay in cabling that was 70 years old in some cases. We should not have a system that has 70-year-old cabling. We have rolling stock which badly needs replacing—
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Banks: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he spoke for ages and bored hon. Members rigid, especially me. I know the hon. Gentleman's father well. To show family values, the old man goes to the House of Lords and the son comes to the House of Commons. The Tories know all about family values. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should sit there and take it because I can tell him about this place. There is no more unreceptive an audience than when it is made up of people who are simply waiting for the hon. Gentleman to shut up and sit down so that they can get up and speak. I have three minutes and I shall relish them, and the hon. Gentleman will sit there and listen.
  The Chancellor could have said something about the Northern line. It is called the misery line [Interruption.] If
  1126
  the Chief Secretary, with the bouffant hair, travelled on the Northern line instead of in his swish car, he might push forward the proposals to modernise the Northern line. Crossrail is now uncertain in London, and the Jubilee line extension is not the highest priority.
  It is nothing to do with the transportation needs of Londoners—it is all to do with saving the bacon of Canary wharf and the developments of the London Docklands development corporation. It is developer-led; it is not consumer-led in terms of the transport needs of London. When will we get the channel tunnel rail link? The Chancellor could have talked about that. That has been pushed back.
  Transport investment means jobs in the construction industry and in rolling stock manufacturing outside London. It saves billions of pounds in terms of congestion. If we had a modern metro system, people would use it instead of private cars. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that congestion costs London £10 billion a year.
  A good public transport system brings environmental improvements. No economy can prosper without an efficient transportation system. Investing in London and national transport systems makes a great deal of economic, social and business sense. Anyone in the House who travels on London transport knows that its infrastructure is a disgrace.
  The Government had a wonderful opportunity to say something positive in the Budget about investment in London transport's infrastructure and they failed. They have betrayed Londoners, and Londoners will get an opportunity to show what they think about the Conservative party and the Government when we get round to smashing the Conservative party in the local elections in May.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: I had a fleeting hope that the elusive Secretary of State for Health would turn up this evening to give us the benefit of her wisdom.
  Mr. McCartney: She is out partying.
  Mr. Blunkett: No, she is not out partying. She will be out doing a bit of late-night Christmas shopping, taking advantage of especially late opening hours in the build-up to Christmas. Instead, we have the Paymaster General and my old sparring partner, the bouffant boy, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am delighted that the Chief Secretary is here tonight because his hand is on the tiller in terms of the ideology that is being followed.
  Mr. McCartney: The "Portiller".
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, his hand is on the tiller as the "Portiller" and potentate of what is likely to happen to this country. A clear ideological thrust is hidden by how the "beer-swilling Chancellor" manages to freeze duty on beer and spirits, but places the duty on others to meet the Budget deficit.
  Those who are unemployed through no fault of their own now find that their benefits and the time in which they can expect to receive back their own money are reduced. Six months is a poor return for people who have paid for years, through national insurance contributions, for the benefit to which they are entitled.

  1127
  Conservative Members have undermined the Beveridge principle that people who pay in should have a right to benefits—not a benevolence, something handed down by others or something passed across because they happen to be in distress. They have undermined the key principle of full employment and the ability of those who have a job to contribute back into the Exchequer as well as look after themselves and their families. They have undermined individuals' responsibility for themselves and their families to earn a living through hard, rewarding work in order to contribute to themselves and their loved ones, but also to put back into the community, through contributing to tax and national insurance, money that can then sustain decent public services.
  The crunch of the ideological difference between us is that Conservative Members, led by the Chief Secretary, believe that public expenditure is bad and undermines the fabric and backbone of society. They believe that a free-for-all, free-market economy in which people "do it yourself' in terms of gaining benefits and buying insurance is the direction in which this country should go. That mirrors in part the United States' experience, with insecure work, insecure prospects and a lack of stake in a community that values itself—a society in which people are threatened and their stability is undermined to ensure that they are willing to take lower and lower wages to manage to survive on the breadline.
  If that is the sort of society we want, we shall continue with the policies that were enunciated yesterday. But if we want to build a society that believes in itself and can use its intelligence, rational thinking and experience of history to build up public services, the community and a sense of belonging so that people value those around them and understand their interdependence with others, we shall turn instead to the policies enunciated by the leader of the Labour party and the shadow Chancellor today.
  The Budget deficit is entirely of the Government's making. It is their policy that has deliberately thrown away the receipts from North sea oil, the gains that were made through the hard work of the people in the pits, the steelworks and the engineering industry. The engineering industry is clinging on by its fingertips in the city part of which I have the proud pleasure to represent.
  When reporters from the BBC ask people for their opinion on the Budget, do they ask the engineering industrialists of the north and Scotland; or the people who produce wealth by manufacturing products that can be sold overseas; or the people whose livelihoods depend on key public expenditure on essential services; or the people who produce equipment and materials—not rubber ducks, plastic gnomes or somebody else's champagne corks, but real things that people want to buy and can be sold abroad? Of course they do not. They ask what the City of London thinks about it, what happened to the index and whether people are confident. They do not ask the people who produce the real wealth of the country. We have lost touch with the reality of what is taking place on the ground.
  The Government's claim yesterday that the health service had received a boost from the Budget was fraudulent. The Government knew perfectly well that what they were expecting from those working in the service, and those receiving its services, was a sacrifice to keep it going. If we take out the inflation figure, using the GDP deflator,
  1128
  the actual increase is 0·9 per cent. If we take from that the amount that is being asked for in savings, £450 million —the same amount that was asked for in the current financial year, and mirrored savings of a similar amount that were requested in the previous financial year—we get a totally different picture.
  Mr. Portillo: Savings produce more.
  Mr. Blunkett: The Chief Secretary says that savings produce more. In other words, it is necessary to cut the service to reinvest in it. The Government produce saving targets, which the service can have back if it makes the savings.
  The savings are not on senior managers' salaries, which have gone up by 211 per cent., or on those who have awarded themselves an average pay increase of 9 per cent. this year—ranging up to 137 per cent. in the case of one very favoured Conservative friend, who was the chief executive of Guy's hospital until it was merged.
  It is not the people at the top who are being asked to save, but the people who will have their pay frozen in the coming year. It is those people who will be asked to save to fund the service. If the Chief Secretary strongly believes in what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is doing, perhaps he will do us the honour of telling us so tonight.
  What will be the increased charges and tax on the sick, through increased charges for prescriptions and dental treatment, and the withdrawal of exemption for certain groups in those categories? Perhaps the Chief Secretary or the Paymaster General will stand up and tell us when the announcement about the increased charges to those using the health service will be made, and how much the increase will be.
  Mr. Portillo: We are not standing. We are listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech; we will be talking about Labour's policy later.
  Mr. Blunkett: The Chief Secretary wants to talk about Labour party policies. He wants to talk about anything except Conservative party policies. He does not want to talk about the fact that there will be a reduction of £175 million in real spending on the health service in the coming year. By the Government's own statistical records, 1·5 per cent. of the health budget will be taken up by demographic change and changes in medical technology.
  We are talking about a £175 million cut in the amount available for spending on the health service. That is not counting the £290 million for every 1 per cent. saved by freezing pay for the average nurse or doctor, and not counting the fact that the Government are virtually doing away with the pay review bodies. Evidence given to the Department of Health suggests that national pay bargaining should be replaced by local productivity agreements based not on what we understand to be fair remuneration for the average decent day's work by a nurse or doctor, but on what the evidence now describes as performance-related pay.
  Mr. Portillo: I am driven to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech by the old relationship between us. I know that he wishes to conclude this part of his speech and to deal with Labour party policy. Before he does so, however, let me tell him that the amounts that we have added to the health service budget for the coming year will enable the service to treat 4 per cent. more patients. That

  1129
  is in addition to a 60 per cent. increase in the number of acute patients receiving treatment since 1979, when the Conservatives came to power. Those are the facts. The hon. Gentleman should be concerned with the treatment of patients£with output rather than input.
  Mr. Blunkett: I agree that it is a scandal that the Conservatives have lengthened the waiting list by 100,000 since the general election alone; that it has exceeded the 1 million mark in England alone for the first time; that waiting times went up by 25 per cent. in the first six months of the current financial year; and that the number of complaints rose by 37 per cent. last year.
  The Secretary of State for Wales would take issue with the Chief Secretary on whether the Government could judge whether there would be a 4 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated. He rightly pointed out that the Government do not refer to patients as patients nowadays; they call them "episodes of care". They do not count patients. An "episode of care" may mean someone changing from one ward to another, or returning from theatre to a different bed in the same ward. The Government do not know whether there will be a 4 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated, because there are no indicators to provide the information.
  The Government speak of "episodes of care", and of "provider units" rather than hospitals. They speak of "job seekers" rather than the unemployed. We are given everything except the truth. As the Secretary of State for Wales rightly pointed out in Monday's Times, we hear of "down-sizing" rather than mass redundancy. The Government engage in doublespeak; they speak with forked tongue; they say one thing and mean another.
  The Government are cutting public spending, having promised that they would increase it. They have increased taxes, having promised that they would cut them. 'They are fraudulent, they mislead, and they have bamboozled the electorate; but they will do so no more. The electorate are wised up: they understand what is happening. A £1,000 million cut in housing provision will take its toll. That 8 per cent. cut will have an impact not only on those who are poorly housed or have no homes, but on all who want others to be decently treated£who believe in a health service which, as well as merely treating patients, prevents ill health from occurring in the first place.
  We are against the Government's Budget because it imposes spending reductions on those least able to bear them. That is why we have continued to oppose the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel bills. The low-paid families—mothers at home with their children, for instance —will be hit by it, and there is no compensation for those who are just above the benefit level. They are earning and struggling: they get up at 6 am to go and do a lousy job that they would rather not be doing.
  Those are the people to whom we shall be appealing. They are our natural constituents now. They are the people whom the Government have targeted with a tax on insuring their homes and their futures, and with a tax demanding that they should not expect—through national insurance—the comfort and security of the surrounding community when things go wrong. They should not expect support when the Government's policies make them unemployed; instead, they should take out private insurance. They should have to look after number one, if they can. That is
  1130
  the united state vision of the future from a Chief Secretary to the Treasury who is obsessed with cutting public spending.
  The Chief Secretary said that he would ring me on election day and he did. He was confident while he sat in an Italian restaurant. Next time, I shall ring him and I shall have a different message—that £16 a week on the budget of every family in the country will have spelt doom for the Conservative party's election chances. The cuts in education at school level—not what was announced yesterday, but what will be in the revenue support grant—the reductions in real spending, in real people's lives, in libraries, in schools, in care of the elderly, in social services and, as I have already mentioned, in housing will have spelt doom. The cuts will have to fall in local government. The cuts will fall in the day-to-day budget of every man and woman who know that the increase in taxes will bear on them.
  The Labour party was honest and said that it would take from the national insurance contributions that the very rich avoid once their incomes exceed £22,000. The Government said that they would not raise national insurance contributions and instead levied them on those below the £22,000 level and thereby protected those above. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government have done it on every occasion—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I ought to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is now Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair.
  Mr. Blunkett: I only wish that I could tell the difference, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I wish that I could tell the difference between the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health, but I do not get close enough to either of them to be able to do so. In fact, it is now almost a year since the Secretary of State for Health had the temerity to debate with me over the Dispatch Box. Considering the catalogue of disaster that is hitting the health service, it is no wonder that she has been afraid to come to the Chamber since 26 January.
  Take the announcement yesterday of a private sector investment in the Fazakerley hospital in Liverpool by SAS, the Scandinavian airline. It was fitted up by the previous regional chairman, who told the local trust to get ready for a £15 million investment through the health service, and, at the last minute, pulled the plug. He then came along with, guess what, a scheme, not a tender or a contract or an open bid for a 100-bed hospital, but a private deal—just like the appointment of the chairman of the Scarborough trust.
  Nepotism, corruption, fiddling and fixing are rife—from the west midlands, where £10 million was squandered on a golden handshake and a "thank you" letter to the chairman of the region, to the squandering of £63 million in Wessex, to the £600,000 squandered by St. Thomas's hospital, whose director of finance and business manager flew to America to investigate the First Response company run by Richard Saig—since arrested—and failed to discover that the company was simply an answerphone. It is funny that he managed to travel first class to Grand Rapids, but never managed to discover that the company was an answerphone only. No action was taken. Nor was action taken when the estates division of the South 'West Thames region was sold off and one man made a £900,000 killing.

  1131
  It is not the patients, the citizens, the low-paid or those who struggle to pay taxes who are the benefactors of yesterday's announcements in the Budget; it is the fixers, the friends of the Conservative party, the better-off, the people who do not need the health or education services or public housing or decent public transport, because they can buy their way out of the public squalor with the temporary and narrow private affluence that some people have gained from the past few years of Conservative government.
  We have a different vision of the future, which is fairness in tax, fairness in the distribution of wealth and investment in public services. It is restoring confidence in people's right to a job and to decent treatment at work. It is ensuring that those who are unemployed do not have national insurance snatched away from them and that they do not have their rights taken away by a Budget that targets those who can ill afford to pay and protects those who can best afford to pay.
  9.39 pm
  The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): It hardly seems fair to intervene in the dialogue between my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside, (Mr. Blunkett), but that is what I am supposed to do. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to secure an Opposition day for so long to raise the matters that he wanted to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I shall come back to what he said later in my remarks.
  I want first to respond to some of the comments made earlier in the debate yesterday and today, especially about the matters for which I have responsibility under my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who spoke yesterday, was disappointed that there was not a cut in beer duty to compensate for the cross-border effects. I noticed that the hon. Member for Brightside had the opposite opinion and believed that beer duty should be increased, but never mind.
  Others also said that the effect of excise duties on the cross-border price of alcohol and tobacco in the single market was something that we ought to take into account. It is, indeed, something that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor took into account in the Budget for the first time in a major way. He will have to give consideration to it in every future Budget.
  There is a considerable difference in duty between the United Kingdom and some of our neighbours on the continent. The issue tends to be seen only in terms of our continental neighbours across the channel. Yet we also have quite a long land border with the Irish Republic. Land borders are, by their nature, much more susceptible to cross-border shopping than sea borders. Irish excise duties are basically higher than ours and the problem there is one for the Irish Republic rather than us. It is part of the whole picture of alcohol and tobacco duties, and our traders in Northern Ireland benefit from the present position.
  The main attention has been on the opportunities for buying alcohol and tobacco across the channel. As the House will have realised, that is and will be a feature of Budgets, as my right hon. and learned Friend said in his Budget speech. There have been well-publicised stories in the press about firms just across the channel selling drink
  1132
  and tobacco to British visitors. Of course we understand the attraction of that, but it is important to keep the whole thing in perspective.
  In many cases, the goods can be purchased at considerably lower commercial prices, irrespective of the duty across the channel. That has been reognised and has been acted on by some firms in Britain to improve their position. That trade was to be expected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said in 1992 that the Exchequer might lose a total of about £250 million a year in revenue as a result of the single market. There have been claims that the volume of cross-border shopping has been dramatically greater than that which is implied by that estimated revenue loss. However, I have monitored the receipts of duty extremely carefully month by month, as the House would expect me to do. The fact remains that, if anything, those estimates look as if they were on the high side rather than the low side.
  Various surveys suggest different increases in the legitimate trade but there is nothing to suggest that the loss is anything like as drmatic as some of the newspapers have suggested. It is nothing like enough to justify people saying, as they occasionally do in the newspapers, that we need to reduce the rate of duty in order to preserve the revenue. Even if the revenue loss from increased cross-border shopping were more than £250 million, if one considers that we get £5 billion on alcohol and £7 billion on tobacco from those duties, the House will realise that it is not something that enters into the calculations much.
  There have also been references during the debate to the proposed air passenger duty that the Chancellor introduced in his Budget. That fits the Government's strategy of shifting at least some of the burden from direct taxation by broadening the indirect tax base, and it makes a contribution to tackling the budget deficit, which has been discussed so much in the past two days.
  The tax addresses a sector where expenditure is currently subject to very little indirect taxation because of the VAT zero-rating and the use of duty free fuel by international aircraft and most domestic services. If that is compared with some of the areas of expenditure that we tax already, it can be seen that my right hon. and learned Friend was correct to say that that sector is lightly taxed.
  Such a tax has therefore been suggested to us from time to time. People do not always understand why some other countries have had such a tax for so long while we have not. The fact that others have similar taxes means that we can organise the duty in such a way that there will not be a major compliance burdens on the businesses involved.
  The new tax will be raised through the ticketing system and we attach particular importance to designing the mechanism that will account for the duty to fit in with the airlines' existing systems as closely as possible. It is proposed that the tax will apply to passengers departing from United Kingdom airports from 1 October onwards. It includes domestic flights and flights to the European Community, on which the duty will be £5. That covers rather than more than 60 per cent. of all passengers who fly from United Kingdom airports.
  To protect the position of the United Kingdom's international hub airports, there will be an exemption for transfer and transit passengers. There is also a provision that those coming from, for example, Edinburgh through

  1133
  Heathrow to another destination will pay only a single charge, which will depend on the final destination to which they are heading.
  Mr. Blunkett: The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us all that yesterday afternoon. I remember him specifically talking about internal flights. Will the Paymaster General tell us instead why the Government have clearly broken their promise not to increase taxes?
  Sir John Cope: I shall come to Labour's policies, our own policies and the election in a few moments. I was asked about details of the tax, and I think that it is important to put them on the record.
  The other new tax that was proposed—insurance premium tax—goes on a sector that has been lightly taxed because of the exemption from VAT that it enjoys. My right hon. and learned Friend also spelt out some of the particulars of that yesterday, but the impact on households and industry of the insurance premium tax is important.
  My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned some of the ways in which it would affect people. It would be about £35 a week for the average household. I can give more particulars to the House. The average tax on contents insurance, which about three quarters of households have, will come to about 6p a week, although obviously it depends on how large is the house and how elaborate are the contents.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Did I hear the Minister correctly? Did he say that the cost per household of the tax on insurance was to be £35 a week?
  Sir John Cope: No, it will be 35p a week. I hope that that is what I said. It is what I intended to say and it is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor told us yesterday. [Interruption]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. People might hear better if there were not private conversations going on.
  Sir John Cope: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The tax will be due on all payments made on or after 1 October 1994. For policies that span that date, the tax will not be due if the premium has been fully paid before 1 October but will be due on any payments made after that date. The Finance Bill will also include specific measures to combat forestalling. It will not be possible to avoid the tax by making payments in advance of 1 October 1994 if insurance commences on or after that date. We also attach considerable importance to ensuring that the implementation of the tax is done in a way that gives rise to the minimum compliance costs either for the industry or for the Government.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the principle that the right hon. Gentleman has just enunciated, that advance payments will still be subject to VAT, also be true about advance payments for gas and electricity? In other words, will advance payments for fuel made before the date of the introduction of VAT on fuel be exempt from VAT? If that is the position, people who can afford to pay a year in advance will get a tax rebate at the expense of others who have to pay quarterly bills in the normal way.
  Sir John Cope: It is not on precisely the same lines as the insurance premium tax, but nevertheless the hon. Gentleman is right in principle. The normal VAT rules
  1134
  apply. The tax point is when somebody pays, if they pay in advance, and that applies to VAT on fuel as well as to other matters in the VAT—
  Mr. McCartney: That is the opposite.
  Sir John Cope: On the contrary, it is similar to what I have just outlined with regard to the insurance premium tax. The tax point is when one pays but one cannot pay in advance for insurance that does not commence until after 1 October.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the matter precisely? Is it right that one cannot pay in advance to avoid VAT, whether on fuel or on anything else?
  Sir John Cope: Yes, if one pays in advance for VAT for any purpose, and that includes for fuel, the rate of VAT that applies is the rate that applies at the time that one pays, as opposed to when the service is delivered. That is the normal VAT rule and it applies equally to fuel as to other matters eligible for VAT.
  We are anxious to ensure that the compliance arrangements for the insurance premium tax are of the minimum possible cost and are designed with the fullest co-operation of the industry, to ensure that the burden is as small as possible. That is part of another of the themes of the Budget and of the Government—to ensure, through deregulation, that all taxation provisions are as user-friendly as we can make them. That includes VAT, and we have several proposals on that.
  Mrs. Wise: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that to impose a tax on people insuring their homes and the contents of them is oppressive? He said that three quarters of the population have insurance policies. Should not the Government, especially this Government who are always talking about people standing on their own feet, do something to encourage those who have not been able to insure their homes and the contents of them rather than penalising those who have?
  Sir John Cope: The hon. Lady must make her own judgment about whether it is right that a large amount of expenditure for all people should be left out of the tax system in the way that insurance is. She knows that our philosophy has been to extend, and to some degree accelerate, taxation on indirect tax rather than taxation on income. The hon. Lady knows that, and the proposal is in line with that. I understand all that she says, and I understand also those who say that we should never extend taxes of any sort. At the same time, it is the duty of the Chancellor to look across the board and to see areas where taxation can be best raised. He must make his judgment on that, and whether that judgment is the same as the hon. Lady's is a matter for her also.
  I was talking about deregulation, and the House knows that we have increased the registation threshold of VAT. We are also making proposals in connection with those businesses which are struggling to survive, and which have difficulties in paying their VAT. At the moment, those businesses which are in administrative receivership or are heading for being wound up have not been able to set off any of the VAT refund which they were due to receive against their VAT bills. We propose in future that they should be able to do so, as is the case under an ordinary voluntary arrangement under bankruptcy or liquidation.

  1135
  Businesses which trade in that way but which are in difficulty have been able to offset the VAT under the extra statutory concession. We propose to write that into law to extend it as I have described. We are also proposing to complete the package of VAT reforms in the March Budget which deal with repayment supplement. I announced the other day some further improvements which will make it easier for businesses to qualify for the cash accounting scheme.
  In the excise field, we have made a series of proposals. The first of those concerns gaming machine licence duty, a matter of considerable interest to some hon. Members. As those hon. Members will know, we are proposing to improve the administration of the tax and we published a consultation document about that earlier in the year.
  There were some reservations about the proposals to abolish seasonal licences and the facility to surrender licences and to obtain a refund. Seasonal licences were introduced in the early 1980s. In fact, we have taken note of the reservations and we propose to continue both seasonal licences and the surrender provisions.
  We propose also to reform excise law to make tax enforcement more effective. At the same time, some safeguards will be introduced in the form of the decriminalisation of minor breaches of the excise rules. The trader will be given the right of an appeal to a tribunal in the case of both excise and customs law. We are extending the power of the VAT tribunals to allow them to take on appeals from those areas as well. That is part of the modernisation of the customs procedure to bring it more in line with modern business methods.
  I was interested in what the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) had to say about resource accounting and accruals. Speaking as a chartered accountant—
  1136
  although one who has not practised in a long time—I believe that that is a most important sea change in Government finances, and that it has profound long-term significance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) seemed to touch on a similar point in his speech when he drew attention to the references to human capital in the Red Book. We propose to publish a document about resource accounting next year. In the meantime, studies have been set in hand on the matter under the new chief accountancy adviser. One important aspect of that—to which the House will have to pay great attention in due course—is the interaction with voting and the way in which accounts are presented to Parliament. We are drawing both the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Select Committee into the discussion on that subject.
  Much else has been said, but I should return to the main theme of today's debate and, indeed, of the days of debate on the Budget. Yesterday was devoted to spelling out the Government's view of what should be done and the plans for doing it. The day following the Budget is usually the opportunity for Opposition parties to set out their alternatives. Neither the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) who spoke for the Liberal Democratic party nor the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who spoke for the Labour party took that opportunity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newbury said that the Liberal Democrats would abolish mortgage interest tax relief. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have spoken before about seated interventions. I expect the Front Bench at least to set some sort of example.
  Sir John Cope: The Labour party—
  It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  PETITION

    Child Support Agency
    10 pm
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg leave to present a petition
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The humble petition of the residents of Halifax sheweth that they regard the Child Support Act 1991 as a failure, and believe that its effect upon single mothers on income support and on second families is injurious, that many women on income support have been left worse off through loss of passported benefits and that single mothers have been intimidated to authorise the
    Child Support
    Agency to pursue fathers of second families. This is grossly unfair and a serious poverty trap and the petition therefore calls on this House to abolish the Child Support Act and the agency.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Young Offenders
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Warren Hawksley: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity of raising an issue which is of great importance nationally as well as in west midlands constituencies. A debate on the subject of young offenders could range over many days. I intend to specialise in particular in cases in the west midlands which show that public concern is legitimate.
  There has been a massive increase in the number of persistent young offenders in particular. That has led to the public outcry, which is fully justified, and to the courts and the police maintaining that they are powerless. They have joined the public in calling on the Government to take action soon and speedily.
  Too many young offenders are going into court and leaving court laughing, not just at the judiciary but at society. They think that we are fools to let them get away with what they do. They appear persistently, time after time. I shall cite at length one case in Birmingham a few months ago.
  In September, a 13-year-old appeared in court charged with 225 offences, mainly of breaking into cars, stealing cars or burglary of a comparatively minor nature, although the cost of the items that he stole totalled £23,000. The frightening thing is that, of the 225 offences, 175 were committed while he was awaiting trial at a so-called social services secure accommodation abode. He managed to leave the accommodation and commit many offences. Indeed, on one occasion he was re-arrested only three hours after being sent back there by the court.
  The chief superintendent, John Jasper, who is in charge of the city of Birmingham centre area, said:
  "If I could lock up my hard core of six, I could reduce city centre crime by 18 per cent. and car crime by 30 or even 40 per cent."
  He also commented that the magistrates were unable to help him to deal with the problem.
  When the youngster eventually got to court, he was given 12 months' probation. Shortly afterwards, he was due to appear on a television programme that I was appearing on for Central Television. I arrived at the studio to be informed that, unfortunately, the youngster could not make it—he had been detained yet again by the police. I should think that the police were sick of spending their time chasing someone who was committing that number of offences.
  I am not critical of the Government. The Home Secretary has responded to the problem. Following discussions, his speech to the Conservative party conference contained 27 points covering many of the issues that I had raised, including cautioning.
  In my district of Dudley, the chief superintendent, contrary to what the chief constable had thought could be done, suspended cautioning. The chief superintendent said that the small print stated that cautioning could be suspended in cases of extreme need. The number of house burglaries, car burglaries and joy-riding in his area led the chief superintendent to believe that he had the right to suspend cautioning. The results were interesting: in

  1139
  Dudley, joy-riding fell in the first four months from 248 cases a month to 97—a success for the suspension of cautioning.
  The Government are right to look at bail-breaking. Too many offences are committed by those on bail. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies tonight, I hope that he will be able to give a guideline not just on whether serious offenders who are likely to reoffend will be denied bail. I hope that he will also consider more persistent and perhaps minor offenders, because they waste a lot of police time and cause a lot of inconvenience and concern to society.
  I also hope that the Minister will be able to give us some idea of when he hopes the secure accommodation for such youngsters will be available. It is important that society knows that it will not have to wait much longer for those people to be denied the way of life that they are pursuing.
  It is also important that the age of criminal responsibility is considered again, because I believe that many eight-year-olds know the difference between right and wrong. At that age, if they are persistent offenders, they should be treated as young criminals, and they should be prosecuted for offences that they commit.
  One issue involves social services more than the Home Office. It is the most important aspect of the issue of young offenders. I served in the early 1970s as a member of Shropshire county council's social services committee when it first became responsible for dealing with young offenders. We took over the running of homes that had formerly been Home Office-approved schools. In the past 20 years or so that social services have been responsible for the way that young offenders and young children are looked after, they have failed. The time has come for the Home Office to be given responsibility for the treatment of those youngsters.
  From my files, I have taken out some newspaper headlines from around the September period. They read:
  "Ram-raid boy on safari",
  "Yobbo sent on sailing jaunt",
  "Bailed youth sent to Jamaica"—
  he was on five counts of arson at the time—
  "Car thief was sent on £20,000 holiday",
  "Yobs taken on £34,000 hols by care workers",
  "11-week camping trip to Portugal"
  and
  "2 months rambling through France".
  Are those punishments? the law-abiding youngsters in my constituency wonder why they stay law-abiding.
  I coined a phrase which seems to apply today—nick a car, grab a social worker and go on holiday at our, the taxpayers', expense. That must stop. It is essential that the sort of holidays given to those youngsters are seen as undesirable. The director of social services for Shropshire told me that money was being saved by sending youngsters on such trips.
  I asked how much was being spent. The answer that I was given was that £1,600 per child per week was being spent. When I asked whether that was saving money, he said yes. I confirmed with Dudley social services that to keep a child in care costs about £2,200 a week. That is unacceptable, when we consider that a person can be kept in prison for about £260 to £270 a week. I cannot understand why it is necessary to spend so much on these children.
  1140
  I am concerned that social services are using these private homes. The Bryn Melyn home at Bala has been involved in many of the cases that I have quoted. People have been sent to Portugal, and a girl was sent swimming with dolphins. I am not sure whether that was in Ireland or Israel: it may have been both. They have sent people to France and Eire. I asked, "Do these trips succeed?"
  Mr. Christopher Gill: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the mother of a youngster who was sent to Portugal said that it was a total waste of time and money. Who should know better about the effect of that so-called punishment on the young person than the mother?
  Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful comment. The mother was right, and, yet again, social services were wrong.
  The youngster has returned. When he was there he was, I was told, doing a computer studies programme. I am advised that, unfortunately, they sent the wrong programme, so he spent most of his time scuba diving and, apparently, getting badly sunburned. I was worried that Shropshire county council might be sued because of the sunburn that he suffered.
  After his return the Express and Star reported:
  "A Midland teenager car thief has admitted going on a crime spree only weeks after returning from a £20,000 trip to Portugal designed to reform his behaviour."
  He was back in Telford court with a list of charges against him. As well as that, he managed to escape from the court, and had to be arrested yet again. Surely such people should be locked up for some time.
  I hope that social services will look at the way establishments in which such as Bryn Melyn are run. Are qualified social workers sent on these trips, and if so, what interest do they take in what happens? The director of Shropshire social services department said, "Well, it is up to Gwynedd. It has approval for running the establishment."
  The Home Office should take over the responsibility of running these establishments and for the care of young offenders. The madness of holidays and the rampaging of persistent offenders must stop quickly. Over the 20 years that social services have had responsibility, they have failed badly. Let us treat these persistent offenders as young criminals and stop their holidays. Lock them up quickly, so that the property of our constituents is safer.
  10.12 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) for giving me the opportunity to hear the views of hon. Members on juvenile offenders and for giving me the chance to state plainly Government policy in this area. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for being present throughout the debate, and for similarly pressing me on these matters. Their constituents have exactly the same concerns as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge.
  The Government's first duty is to protect the public: that must always come before anything else. From that perspective, there is no doubt that there are currently gaps in courts' powers for dealing with juvenile offenders, particularly those who are under 15. My right hon. and

  1141
  learned Friend the Home Secretary recently announced that the Government intend to give the courts the powers they need to deal properly with alleged and convicted offenders of all ages, and that includes juveniles. If that means custodial sentences, so be it.
  Critics of these options often talk of secure institutions as colleges of crime. But at present, persistent juvenile offenders are at large committing crimes openly on our streets in front of other children, giving them hands-on experience.
  In my view, street corners must be more efficient universities of crime than any prison, because the prisons contain only those criminals who are unsuccessful enough to have been caught. The best teachers are still at large.
  Let it be made clear: on those street corners children are not learning to steal Smarties or to scrump a farmer's apples. Those children are embarking on serious crimes, often with serious implications for their victims, who are often other children. Stealing a car, driving it dangerously, putting the lives of other people at risk, is a serious crime. Burgling a home, often one that is lived in by a defenceless older person, is a serious crime. What should we do with the juvenile who commits such a crime not once, not twice, but over and over again?
  We could relate stories of such offenders; the 15-year-old in Sunderland who already has 55 convictions and who the police believe is responsible for almost 50 per cent. of crime in the city centre; or the 15-year-old in Bexleyheath who has already been convicted of 18 burglaries, two thefts, three criminal damage charges, an assault and riding in a stolen car. Tonight we heard another frightening example from my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, of a juvenile offender, a youngster, with an horrendous record of criminality at that young age.
  We do not need to be guided, however, by those individual stories, because the same message is coming out loud and clear from throughout the country. There is a hard core of offenders—not thousands, but only hundreds—with whom the system is quite unable to cope, but that small number of offenders just do not respond to what is currently available.
  For those young people who continue to offend in spite of high-quality community schemes, there needs to be a custodial option. For 12 to 14-year-olds, the secure training order will be that option. For 15 to 17-year-olds, detention in a young offender institution is already the custodial option, thanks to changes that were made to the criteria for custodial sentences by this Government in the Criminal Justice Act 1993. So the courts will get real powers to deal with those juveniles whose offending has got completely out of control.
  I remind my hon. Friends that we intend to introduce proposals for a secure training order. That will be a new sentence for 12 to 14-year-olds who have persistently offended and failed to comply with supervision in the community, and whose offending is so serious that only custody will do.
  It is intended to be a determinate sentence for between six months and two years, one half of which will be served in a secure training centre and the final half under supervision in the community. We want the new sentence to provide good-quality regimes that are designed to educate the young people, to tackle their criminal behaviour and to equip them to lead a law-abiding life in the community.
  1142
  For the older age group, the 15 to 17-year-olds, the sentence of detention is already available, but the maximum length of that sentence, detention in a young offender institution, is currently limited to 12 months. We believe that that places an unnecessary restriction on the courts, and the Government believe that they should have greater powers to pass longer sentences where necessary. We therefore intend to double the maximum sentence from 12 months to two years.
  I intend to put firmly on the record the fact that, for many juvenile offenders, custodial responses will not be necessary. The figures demonstrate that plainly. One hundred and forty-two thousand 10 to 16-year-olds were known to have committed offences in 1992, of which 80 per cent. were cautioned, 8 per cent. were given a community sentence, 3 per cent. were fined and 1 per cent. only were detained in young offender institutions.
  The same picture, I might add, is true in relation to adult offenders. Of all the adults who were convicted last year, 73 per cent. were fined, 10 per cent. were cautioned, 4 per cent. were given a community sentence and 3 per cent. only were sent to prison. It is therefore nonsense for the Government's critics to claim that "Lock them up" is our only policy either for adult offenders or for juvenile offenders.
  Protecting the public, of course, requires consideration of the long term as well as the immediate future. Many youngsters commit crime, and most grow out of it. That is why the Government have developed over the past 10 years measures which deal with juvenile offenders without automatic recourse to the courts or to custodial penalties.
  The response to the first offence is often a caution. That is fair, and it works for a large number of offenders. Cautioning has been successful in most cases. Recent evidence shows that 87 per cent. of those cautioned are not reconvicted within two years. A caution gives a clear warning to the youngster that his behaviour is not acceptable. It gives him a chance to stop that behaviour.
  However, there has been far too much repeat cautioning and cautioning for serious offences, and that is not acceptable either. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has issued new draft guidelines on cautioning.
  Many offences are committed while the youngster is already on bail for previous alleged offences. In the next criminal justice Bill, we intend to introduce measures to reverse the presumption of those who are charged with an offence while out on bail for a previous offence.
  To be effective in stopping offending, the punishment needs to follow the crime as quickly as possible. Delays in the justice system must be minimised. Inter-agency arrangements to reduce delays are already in place. The pre-trial issues steering group comprises representatives from the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Justices' Clerks Society and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and it has set time limits for the various stages of criminal proceedings.
  The targets for juvenile offenders are more demanding that for adult offenders, and there are already areas in the system where delays for all cases are being reduced. For example, in 1992, the period from first listing in magistrates courts to completion was 67 days. By June 1993, it had fallen to 53 days. It is important that we get juveniles to court as soon as possible to be tried for the offences they have committed.

  1143
  We have also enhanced the range and efficiency of community penalties by extending attendance centres, introducing a wide range of requirements to supervision orders, and developing tough national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community.
  We continue to support effective supervision in the community. Only last week, I opened a centre in Wandsworth which provides supervision and support in the community for alleged juvenile offenders on bail and convicted juvenile offenders subject to community sentences.
  Many community approaches have been developed in recent years, and many of them work well with juvenile offenders. However, community-based schemes have sometimes sought to keep young people out of custodial establishments as if it were an end in itself rather than a means to the more important end of reducing crime.
  Successful community schemes must provide an individualised and intensive programme for the offender. The programme must get to the heart of the individual's offending by addressing particular difficulties, whether it is drinking too much, lack of self-control, trouble managing money or whatever.
  Community penalties must be just that—penalties. They will not have the confidence of the public or of my hon. Friends or myself unless they make the necessary impact on the offender. They must not be perceived as a soft option, or even as a holiday. Supervision in the community must not send out the wrong signals. Children must not be allowed to think that, if they embark on a life of crime, all they will get is tea, sympathy or holidays abroad.
  Although a cushy foreign holiday is clearly an unacceptable and wrong response to offending, in some cases physically demanding activities can be a most effective way of instilling much-needed discipline into the lives of young offenders. I can see some merit in the kind of outdoor pursuits which could provide some young offenders with character-building opportunities, and I should be interested to hear from organisation with ideas on appropriately tough and demanding schemes. Links with private enterprise would be vital for the offenders concerned, to take the gains of their outdoor experiences into the world of work.
  Community schemes must reflect the disciplines of working life. They must place responsibilities on the offender to attend and participate, with failure to do so leading to a speedy return to the courts.
  The Government have already started the work of improving community penalties by setting national standards. These standards are now being reviewed, so that offenders ordered to serve community sentences receive proper punishment. Those improvements are crucial to the success of community penalties. Without them, the support of the police, clerks, magistrates, judges and, above all, the public will not be sustained. All those people must have faith in the penalties.
  There is now more than ever a need for community penalties to be based on creative partnerships between statutory agencies and voluntary organisations. Local authorities, the probation service and the voluntary sector
  1144
  must pool their skills, traditions and resources to ensure that projects comprising community penalties are of the highest possible quality.
  I am keen that the business world should be involved in skill training and other work with offenders to forge the links with employers which will be crucial in determining the success of an ex-offender's return to the job market.
  I must tell my hon. Friends who did not manage to participate in the debate that the Government are not relying on those measures alone to deal with juvenile offenders. Action must be taken at all stages of the cycle of offending juvenile behaviour.
  The most important responsibility for ensuring that children grow up to respect the law rests with their parents. Some families need help in achieving that, and the Government have already acted in the Children Act 1989 to require local authorities to provide facilities for children and their families to receive guidance.
  In that context, the Government have helped the voluntary sector to develop family support services such as home-start, the family services unit and the family centre network, and we are now encouraging local authorities to use those services.
  Those parents who do not take their responsibilities seriously must be required to face the consequences of their children's behaviour. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 increased parental responsibility in a number of ways. First, it strengthened the power of the courts to make parents attend court in cases involving offenders up to 17 years of age; secondly, it made parents pay fines and compensation arising from the young person's offending. We consider making reparation and compensation to the victim of great importance.
  Thirdly, the Act contained greater power for the courts to bind over parents to control their children if that will stop further offences. Fourthly, it allowed bind-over orders to be imposed for up to three years or to the offender's 18th birthday. Fifthly, it provided fines of up to £1,000 for parents who refuse to be bound over without good reason. But more may be able to be done. Therefore, the review of community-based sentences, which my right hon. and learned Friend announced in his speech on 6 October 1993, will include an assessment of how to strengthen parental involvement in such sentences passed on their children.
  Offending often begins while children are truanting from school. The Department for Education has taken steps to ensure that schools get to grips with truancy, keeping proper, published records of the problem. Poor behaviour in schools can often be a sign of offending to come. Schools will be inspected on their standards of discipline and behaviour. Those children who are excluded from school will not then be allowed to slip through the education net. Education authorities will be required to develop comprehensive plans to educate pupils who are not attending school.
  As my hon. Friend told us, some offending occurs while the juveniles concerned are absconding from children's homes. In April this year, the Department of Health issued guidance on permissible forms of control of young people in children's homes. This makes it clear that staff in all children's homes are expected to control the children in their care; to take positive action to prevent children who are detained by order of the courts from running away; and to take appropriate action, which may involve the use of physical restraint, to prevent the child injuring itself or others, or damaging property.

  1145
  Of course, offending can also begin when a young person finds nothing constructive to do. Crime prevention is of prime importance. Crime concern, which was set up by the Government five years ago with annual Government funding, has created and developed a number of schemes to divert young people from crime.
  They include projects to give children on high-crime estates some supervised activity outside school hours, and schemes to keep young people out of trouble during the long summer holidays. In Bristol, a programme of summer activities for young people led to a drop in crime of 29 per cent. on a particular estate and savings of £9,000 to the local authority housing department on petty damage. Crime concern is now beginning to work with young people in their schools to address crime issues.
  The Government also set up the safer cities programme. Since it began, the programme has supported more than 3,000 local crime prevention schemes, with funding in excess of £20 million. For example, a motor education project in Bradford led to a reduction of 60 per cent. in the number of new juvenile car crime offenders coming to the notice of the police.
  The Salford safer cities project gave grant aid of about £1 million to 200 local crime prevention and community
  1146
  safety initiatives, to the benefit of all sections of the community: 47 of those schemes involved assistance in providing constructive activities for young people at risk of involvement in crime.
  I appreciate the attention of my hon. Friends who are present for this debate, and I hope that they agree that the Government's action to deal with juvenile offenders, which I have briefly outlined, represents a sensible and balanced response to the problem. We welcome new approaches where they can be shown to be effective, but we do not shrink from using custodial powers where they have, sadly, proved to be necessary with young offenders.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge can warn the hooligans he mentioned that their days of thumbing their noses at the courts are coming to an end, their days of rampaging through the streets are numbered, and the days of more peace and quiet for his constituents—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  GATT
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the current proposals on the Multilateral Trade Organisation being negotiated at the GATT talks.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Yes.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the Government's position on the current proposals for the Multilateral Trade Organisation being discussed at the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Government support the establishment of the proposed Multilateral Trade Organisation (MTO). This is intended to provide a vehicle for the effective implementation of the results of the Uruguay round, and an institutional framework for the conduct of future trade negotiations. The Government have consistently endorsed the idea that the round should be a single package, with participants required to accept the results of the negotiations in their entirety. The proposed MTO agreement will be the means to implement the total package.

  Belize
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantee has been provided to the Government of Belize that Britain will safeguard Belize's territorial integrity in the event of external aggression.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have made it clear to the Belize Government that we are fully prepared to play our part in any consultations leading to an appropriate response should the security of Belize be threatened in the future.

  Arms Embargo
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries which are subject to a United Kingdom arms embargo(a) as part of or (b) independently of (i) United Nations or (ii) EC policy.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We observe arms embargoes imposed by the United Nations on the following countries: Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Liberia, Haiti, South Africa and the former Republic of Yugoslavia. We also observe arms embargoes imposed by the European Union on China, Syria, Burma and Zaire and by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on Armenia and Azerbaijan. In addition, as a matter of declared national policy we refuse to supply arms to Argentina, Iran and Israel.
  530
  We consider applications for the export of arms to other countries on a case-by-case basis. We refuse applications for exports which in our view would not be consistent with our established criteria, including the common criteria for arms transfers agreed with EU partners at Luxembourg in 1991 and at Lisbon in 1992 and the guidelines agreed by the permanent five in London in 1991.

  Security (Visits)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list by year and by date for the last 10 years and for the current year to date the occasions when a Minister from his Department has visited(a) the headquarters of MI6 and (b) GCHQ, Cheltenham; and what were the subjects discussed on each occasion;

  (2) when he next expects to make a visit to (a) the headquarters of MI6 and (b) GCHQ, Cheltenham.

  Mr. Hurd
  Contacts with the agencies are close and frequent and Ministers visit periodically. I do not propose to provide full details of dates or subjects discussed or to give advance notice of such visits. I last visited the headquarters of GCHQ on 25 January 1991 and of SIS on 1 July 1993. The most recent FCO ministerial visit to GCHQ was by my right hon. and noble Friend the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey on 28 September 1993 and to SIS by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 21 October 1993.

  Bomb-proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Mr. Goodlad
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  Israel
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the arms embargo against Israel was defined; what items it included; and if he will set out the precise terms and date of each change in his policy on applying the embargo since 1982.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We announced in June 1982, following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, that we would withhold approval of licences for the export to Israel of all British military equipment until further notice. In 1983 it was decided to allow the export of electronic and other small non-lethal components, provided that they did not form part of equipment due to be put into immediate service with the Israeli forces in Lebanon.

  Entry Clearance Applications
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to the list of posts abroad designated to accept entry clearance applications.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are three significant changes to the list. Since 17 November the consulate-general in St. Petersburg has provided an entry clearance service, for
  531
  the present to residents of its consular district only. In early December, the embassy in Tallinn will accept applications from residents in Estonia. In Cameroon we have centralised our visa operation in Yaounde; Douala no longer accepts applications.

  I am placing copies of the revised list in the Library of the House.

  Coastal Pollution
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the United Kingdom is to contribute to the cost of sewage treatment and other anti-beach pollution measures in other European Union member states; what contribution it is to receive from the EU towards the cost of similar measures in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The cohesion fund assists the poorest member states to improve their transport and environment infrastructure including sewerage systems. We contribute only 5 per cent. of the cohesion fund, substantially less than France, Germany or Spain. We benefit from the EC structural funds and expect to receive about £10 billion from 1994–99. Investments in sewerage improvements can be supported by these funds.

  Civil and Political Rights
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list policy and legislative changes which have been introduced by successive British Governments to comply with the international covenant on civil and political rights since it came into force on 23 March 1976; whether the Government intend to allow citizens of the United Kingdom to petition the United Nations Human Rights Committee by ratifying the optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights; and what are the reasons for his decision.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Comprehensive accounts of the action taken by successive Governments to comply with the international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR) are provided in the periodic reports which are submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Committee every five years, copies of which are in the Library.

  The United Kingdom has accepted the right of individual petition under the European convention on human rights since 1966. The Government do not believe that becoming a party to the optional protocol to the ICCPR would enhance the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes Her Majesty's Government have made in its policy regarding arms and military sales to Nigeria following the recent military coup.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All aspects of our policy towards Nigeria are currently under review. We shall announce the outcome shortly.
  532
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Chad.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our relations with Chad are cordial, but not substantial. United Kingdom exports to Chad in 1992 were £1·36 million. There is no bilateral aid programme, but we contribute to European Community aid programmes, which amount to over 10 million ECU this year. Diplomatic relations are covered by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Yaoundé, Cameroon, on a non-resident basis.

  South Africa
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Britain's role in the monitoring of elections in South Africa in 1994; and in what ways the Government are contributing to a fair and democratic transition in that country.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We intend to play a full part in helping to ensure that the South African elections are free and fair. We are discussing with the European Community, Commonwealth and United Nations the best ways in which to assist. The precise details of South Africa's election monitoring needs are unlikely to become clear until the Independent Election Commission has been established. This is expected shortly.

  Our entire aid programme which is currently over E11·5 million a year plus a similar sum as a share of EC aid, is designed to support the transition to a democratic and non-racial society in South Africa.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Stonemasonry and Woodcarving
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to encourage the use of British stonemasons and woodcarvers in the restoration of Windsor castle.

  Mr. Brooke
  Management of the restoration of Windsor castle is the responsibility of the Royal household and so, therefore, is the selection of craftsmen. However, there is no reason to suppose that the craftsmen used will not be British.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will seek to provide funds to the National Trust, the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish Heritages and the Churches to recruit and train apprentices in stonemasonary and woodcarving and to employ them subsequently.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no plans to provide specific funding on the lines proposed. English Heritage has recently established its own training centre for conservation skills at Fort Brockhurst, Hampshire. My Department also part-funds the conference on training in architectural conservation (COTAC), which aims to ensure that formal training and practical experience in conservation skills is available to all sectors of the construction industry, and works through a national network of training institutions to achieve this. Funding for such activities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Chief Justices' Clerks
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations the Lord Chancellor has received concerning the appointment of chief justices' clerks.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  One hundred and twenty responses were received to a consultation paper on the role of chief justices' clerks, issued in February 1993. In addition, 10 magistrates and other interested persons have made written representations directly to the Lord Chancellor or his Department on the subject of chief justices' clerks, and 62 hon. Members have received representations which have been conveyed to me on behalf of the Lord Chancellor.

  The Lord Chancellor attended the annual general meeting of the Magistrates' Association on 9 October where he discussed various aspects of the White Paper. He also received written representations from the association following this meeting.

  Crown Courts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list, for the last 12 months and by individual Crown court,(a) the occasions of scheduled individual sittings of separate courts within a Crown court complex that have been unable to sit due to the absence of a judge or recorder, (b) the specific reason for each cancellation (c) the date of the maximum number of cancellations occurring on any single day and (d) the estimated cost to public funds on that day.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sittings of the House
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to put proposals before the House to implement the report of the Select Committees on Sittings of the House.

  Mr. Newton
  As I indicated in the debate on the Address on 25 November, I am continuing to seek agreement on a balanced package of measures that can be brought before the House.

TRANSPORT

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the modernisation of the west coast main line infrastructure.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement that the Government have decided that the modernisation of the west main line will be taken forward as a privately managed and financed investment as part of the private 534
  finance initiative. The investment made by the private sector will be additional to the investment which Railtrack will be able to fund under the public expenditure plans announced in the Budget.

  Principles for using private sector management and finance have been agreed between the Department of Transport and Railtrack following a study carried out by Hambros Bank Ltd. Under these:

  Railtrack will be responsible for project definition and will draw up performance standards for the line in association with the private sector. Railtrack will be inviting expressions of interest in the next few days.

  Once the new performance standards have been set, a competition will be held in late 1994 to select a private sector consortium to modernise the line and to maintain it for a defined period. The responsibility for project management and design will also rest with the successful consortium.

  The successful consortium will be remunerated by service payments from Railtrack during the contract period. These payments will be subject to penalties and bonuses linked to the performance of the consortium in meeting the new performance standards and the consequential impact this will have on revenue losses and gains on the line.

  The new standards will stipulate minimum performance criteria. Where commercially justified, the InterCity west coast franchisee (and, possibly, other train operators) will be able to contract for linespeed and other improvements in exchange for increased access payments.

  To facilitate this the InterCity west coast franchise will be let at the earliest practicable date.

  The principles have been devised to transfer risks out of the public sector to those who can control them best. The risk that the infrastructure fails to perform to specification will be transferred to the private sector consortium. That consortium will also bear revenue risk insofar as it is affected by the performance of the infrastructure. The bulk of the remainder of the revenue risk will be transferred to the train operating companies and the providers of private sector funds.

  This approach will bring together private and public sector expertise to modernise the line in a way which will ensure that its full potential is realised without the capital cost coming out of public funds.

  M11 Link
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost to his Department in respect of the demonstration on 6 November opposing the M11 link at George Green, Wanstead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Cost will arise directly from the destruction of a fence and damage to other works and from the need to reinstate them and prevent recurrence of the damage. Indirectly costs will arise from delay to the contractor's programme. The works have yet to be reinstated. No claims have been received from the contractor, and so the amount of cost which may be borne by the Department is unknown. We intend to make further progress with the work as soon as possible.
  535
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the advantages he expects to arise from the M11 link at George Green, Wanstead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The link road will relieve existing unsuitable roads of through traffic between the M11/North Circular road at Redbridge and the A102(M) Eastway approach to Blackwall tunnel at Hackney Marsh. The amenities of George Green, Wanstead, will be improved by the removal of this traffic from adjacent local roads and maintained by the provision of a tunnel for the link road. Some disruption is, however, unavoidable while the tunnel is constructed by the cut-and-cover method. The works have begun on site and are programmed to take four years to complete.

  Railway Stations (Violence)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of violent crime and sexual assault were recorded at British Rail stations in each year since 1990; what were the figures for Network SouthEast; and how many of these incidents occurred when a station was unstaffed.

  Mr. Freeman
  The tables show the recorded incidents of violent crime and sexual assault at British Rail stations since 1990. Figures for incidents occurring at unstaffed stations are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  All British Rail stations

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Crimes of violence

  1,630

  1,584

  1,586

  1,212

  Sexual offences (excluding indecent exposure)

  556

  474

  437

  352

  1 January to September 1993.

  Network SouthEast

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Crimes of violence

  n/a

  713

  692

  502

  Sexual offences (excluding indecent exposure)

  n/a

  269

  219

  205

  1 January to September 1993.

  n/a—not available

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated net cost to public funds of railway privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is impossible to estimate the net effect of privatisation at this stage because the process will take some years to complete. Nevertheless, for any given level of public funding key factors such as investment and quality of service are expected to improve as a result of greater efficiency from increasing private sector management and competition.

  Concessionary Travel Schemes
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authority areas by political control which operate concessionary travel schemes for pensioners.
  536
  Mr. Freeman
  According to a survey of local authorities done by the Department of Transport in 1992, there were concessionary fare schemes for pensioners in 96 per cent. of districts in Great Britain, some operated by district councils and some by county councils or passenger transport executives. In London the scheme is funded by the boroughs.

  It is therefore less cumbersome to list the small number of local authorities that had no schemes for pensioners. These were: Caradon, Carrick, Eden, Hambleton, Kennet, Kerrier, North Cornwall, Orkney Islands, Penwith, Rhuddlan, Salisbury, Scarborough, South Holland, Stratford-on-Avon, West Somerset, Woodspring.

  Of the 16 authorities listed, most of those in England and Wales not covered by a scheme were rural areas served by little public transport. Some of those authorities do support voluntary organisations which provide community transport or social car schemes. In Scotland, Orkney Island Council does not provide a formal concessionary fare scheme, but a subsidy is provided for inter-island air and sea travel.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications were received annually for exemption from vehicle excise duty on the ground of disability, from 1988 to 1992 inclusive; and how many of these were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful.

  Mr. Key
  The Benefits Agency deals with applications for certificates of entitlement for exemption from vehicle excise duty (VED), because exemption is linked to certain Benefits Agency allowances, chiefly the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance. In 1988, 320,000 people received exemption from VED on the grounds of disability, in 1989 350,000, in 1990 375,000, in 1991 420,000,and in 1992 465,000. No figures for unsuccessful applications for exemption certificates are available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of exemptions from vehicle excise duty in 1992.

  Mr. Key
  In 1992, 465,000 people were issued with exempt vehicle excise duty (VED) discs on the grounds of disability. The value of those discs was £57 million. 425,000 other vehicles (such as emergency vehicles) were also exempt from VED in 1992. Had they been required to pay VED, the revenue raised would have been at least £47 million.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he will take to compensate disabled persons, following the abolition of exemption from vehicle excise duty for persons with mobility problems.

  Mr. Key
  There are no plans to introduce compensation. The Government introduced provisions to ensure that those disabled people benefiting from the exemption at the time of its repeal on 13 October 1993 (approximately 20,000) will continue to benefit from the exemption for as long as their disability remains. The repeal does not affect entitlement to exemption from vehicle excise duty granted under the war pensioners mobility supplement or the higher rate mobility component of DLA. Some 400,000 people currently benefit from exemption through this route.

  M20 Widening
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what penalties have been incurred by Balfour Beatty, the contractors, for the widening of the M20 at Maidstone, for late completion of the contract; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the reasons so far published for delays in completion of the M20 widening contract around Maidstone are complete; and if he will carry out an investigation into them.

  Mr. Key
  The contract contains provisions for payment of liquidated damages if the contractor overruns the final contract completion date, This will be determined by the engineer to the contract when all the relevant facts of this complex issue are known to him and have been fully assessed. It is too early to say what penalties will be imposed.

  Goods Vehicles (Mirrors)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements to large goods vehicles' mirrors he plans to reduce the risk of accident to cyclists and others caused by left turning lorries' blind spot.

  Mr. Key
  None. The Government have already amended national regulations to require close proximity mirrors on goods vehicles weighing over 12 tonnes and first used from 1 October 1988. These mirrors are specifically designed to provide the drivers of such lorries with improved vision to the side of their vehicles and make them more aware of cyclists and other road users.

  Tachographs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the types of vehicle required to have tachographs; what information such equipment records; and what is the penalty for operating such vehicles with the equipment disconnected or non operational.

  Mr. Key
  EC regulations require the fitment of tachographs to most heavy goods vehicles over 3½ tonnes, to domestic passenger carrying vehicles with more than 17 seats unless on regular scheduled services and to vehicles with 10 or more seats on international journeys within the European Community.

  The tachograph records the driver's activities (driving, rest and periods of other work) as well as vehicle speed and time. The resultant records allow retrospective checking by enforcement authorities. The maximum penalties for producing a false tachograph chart by tampering with the device are, on summary indictment, a fine of £5,000 and, on conviction on indictment, two years imprisonment. Convictions may be taken into account by Licensing Authorities in deciding whether to grant or renew an operator's licence or an HGV/PCV driver's licence.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require all heavy goods vehicles to display the name, address and telephone number of the user of the vehicle for each journey; and if he will apply the same requirements to hired vehicles.

  Mr. Key
  I do not propose to extend the requirements already laid down in the goods vehicle operator licensing 538
  provisions. These apply to users of heavy goods vehicles, including hired vehicles, over 3·5 tonnes and require that a vehicle specified on an operator licence display a disc showing the name of the licensed operator, a trading name if applicable, the registration number of the vehicle and the type of licence held by the operator.

  A361
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1)if he will review his Department's policy regarding 60 mph repeater speed limit signs on the A361 north Devon link road;

  (2) if he will review the overtaking arrangements on the A361 north Devon link road;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the upgrading of parts or all of the A361 north Devon link road to dual carriageway;

  (4) if he will review the lighting arrangements at, and layout of, junctions on the A361 north Devon link road;

  (5) if he will arrange for an official from his Department to visit north Devon and meet representatives of the local county, district and parish councils, and other concerned parties, to discuss safety of the A361 north Devon link road.

  Mr. Key
  A number of accident reduction measures have already been implemented. Officials of the Department's South West regional office have arranged urgent discussions with our agent authority, Devon county council, and the police on possible further measures. This will include consideration of some of the suggestions put forward by the hon. Member.

  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I have the outcome of the discussions.

  Great Western Network
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been made to him about the successors to 125 diesel locomotives for operating the InterCity service of the Great Western network; and if he will make a statement on the implications of the Railways Act 1993 for this particular service.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received a number of representations about replacing the fleet of 125 diesel locomotives currently in use on the Great Western main line with electric traction. There are no plans to electrify the line at present, but this does not rule it out as an option when the existing diesel fleet reaches the end of its economic life.

  Under the franchising proposals in the Railways Act, services on the Great Western main line will be among the first to be transferred to private sector operators. To this end, British Rail will begin shadow running from next April.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed restrictions apply to the Great Western railway network west of Reading; what stretches of line they apply to; whether they are caused by deficiencies in track maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held by the Department. These are operational matters for British Rail.

  London Underground
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding London Underground has received over the past 10 years; what assessment he has made of the amount of money which will need to be invested in the underground to bring its services to a reasonable standard; and what assessment he has made of whether safety work on the Underground is being delayed because of lack of investment.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government do not fund London Underground Ltd. (LUL) directly, but makes an annual grant to LUL's parent body, London Transport (LT). London Transport's grant settlement for the three years from 1994–95 was announced on 30 November, and it is currently in the process of allocating this settlement between its subsidiaries. Decisions on the need for and the timing of investment projects are for LUL to make, but safety remains a key priority, and there is no question of it being jeopardised. The amounts LUL has spent on investment over the last 10 years are shown in the table.

  LUL investment 1984–85—1993–94

  £ million 1993–94 prices

  Year

  LUL (CORE)

  JLE

  Crossrail

  Total

  1984–85

  188

  0

  0

  188

  1985–86

  206

  0

  0

  206

  1986–87

  253

  0

  0

  253

  1987–88

  298

  0

  0

  298

  1988–89

  269

  0

  0

  269

  1989–90

  376

  0

  0

  376

  1990–91

  470

  45

  6

  521

  Pay

  Non-pay

  Accommodation

  Administrative capital

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Construction programme division OUs

  18·255

  2·567

  3·712

  0·392

  Network management and maintenance OUs

  16·588

  3·822

  4·290

  0·380

  London regional office

  6·756

  0·333

  1·648

  0·052

  HQ directorates

  23·492

  3·971

  6·064

  11·800

  1 The administrative capital figure for HQ directorates includes the IT budget of El·5 million which is held centrally for use throughout highways safety and traffic command.

  Budgets for individual operating units (OUs) are not now monitored centrally as the directors in charge of the construction programme divisions, network management divisions, London regional office and HQ directorates have discretion to switch funds between OUs in the interests of efficient administration. The figures shown vary during the course of the year as directors switch funding into or out of other budgets.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the reports produced by Coopers and Lybrand and other consultants on access charging prices for Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The reports contain commercially confidential information.
  540

  Year

  LUL (CORE)

  JLE

  Crossrail

  Total

  1991–92

  317

  64

  13

  394

  1992–93

  649

  65

  27

  741

  1 1993–94

  465

  200

  50

  715

  Source of figures (for all years up to 1992–93)—LT annual reports.

  1 Latest forecast figures.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Northern line on the London Underground is due to be modernised.

  Mr. Norris
  Decisions on the implementation of capital investment projects, such as the modernisation of the Northern line, are for London Transport and London Underground Ltd. to make. However, I understand that the Northern line is the next line due to be modernised after the Central line, which is on schedule for completion in 1995.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the current year's contribution to site costs and overheads at each operating unit of(a) the construction programme, (b) the network management and maintenance units, (c) the London regional office and (d) the headquarters directorates of his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures below relate to the highways safety and traffic command of the Department of Transport, excluding the traffic area offices. The current pay, non-pay, accommodation and administrative capital budgets are:

  Trains (WC Facilities)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail about its finance and the running of trains without WC facilities; and what provisions of the passengers charter apply to these facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: The provision and cleaning of toilet facilities on trains is an operational matter for the board. Although the passengers charter does not refer specifically to this aspect of service, the provision of clean toilets on longer distance services is an important aspect of BR's commitment to provide a high quality of service. For this reason, BR regularly monitors customer satisfaction with this aspect of its service.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue new guidance to the Local Government Commission for its work on reorganising the structure of local government in England.
  541
  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued revised policy guidance to the Local Government Commission on 2 November. We published revised procedure guidance on 22 November and directed the commission to begin on 13 December all its remaining shire reviews, including that of Cumbria.

  Copies of both sets of guidance have been placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the cost to local authorities in England of preparing for local government reforms.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have made no such estimate.

  Eco-Labelling
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board.

  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board awarded the first European Community ecolabels to a British manufacturer, Hoover Ltd, for three washing machines in its New Wave Range on 25 November.

  The board, which has recently been strengthened by the appointment of two environmental experts, continues to play a leading role within Europe in the development of ecolabelling.

  Contaminated Land
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends taking to help the construction industry counter the problems posed by the present regulations on contaminated land.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no regulations. The Government are reviewing policy and contributing about £1·5 million a year towards research into decontamination and building on contaminated land.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve energy efficiency standards in buildings.

  Mr. Yeo
  In recent years the budget for my Department's Energy Efficiency Office (EEO) has substantially increased, and for 1994–95 will be over £100 million, over 17 times the real level of expenditure in 1979–80. Much of this will relate to buildings.

  THORP
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will convene a full and independent public inquiry into the commissioning of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Responses to the consultation are still being assessed. When they have all been carefully considered, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I will decide whether to afford a hearing or inquiry and, if we decide not to do so, will take final decisions on the authorisations.

  Solent
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the criteria that will be used for the classification of the Solent in respect of estuarine status for use under the urban waste water treatment directive.

  Mr. Yeo
  The two different bases used for defining the outer limits of estuaries in the United Kingdom were set out in draft guidance to accompany draft implementing regulations for the directive. Both drafts were issued for public consultation in April of this year.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he expects a change in the classification of the Solent for the purposes of water quality.

  Mr. Yeo
  I shall be announcing my decision on the classification of the Solent for the purposes of the UWWTD in due course.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to help council tenants to buy their houses.

  Sir George Young
  We introduced our new rent to mortgage scheme on 11 October. This will extend new opportunity of home ownership to council tenants who are financially secure, but cannot quite afford to buy their homes outright. My right hon. Friend also announced yesterday a £30 million boost to the cash incentive scheme, which helps council tenants to buy their own home in the private sector. Similar grants are also available to housing association tenants.

  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been sold under right-to-buy legislation.

  Sir George Young
  In England, a total of 1·17 million homes have been sold under the right to buy. The figure for Great Britain as a whole is almost 1·5 million.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local councils which charged the highest rate of council tax this year.

  Mr. Baldry
  The 10 local councils in England with the highest headline band C council taxes are:

  Authority

  £

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  704

  Greenwich

  696

  Manchester

  656

  Haringey

  646

  Liverpool

  645

  Harlow

  644

  Camden

  638

  North Tynside

  628

  Salford

  628

  Derwentside

  626

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against council tax
  543
  valuation there have been since the original council tax valuations took place, (a) in total (b) by local authority and (c) by standard region; and what was the average cost of processing those appeals in the financial year in which they occurred.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave her on 25 November, at columns 190–205.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce changes to, and the level of, standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House shortly on the provisional revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95, including details of proposals for standard spending assessments.

  Local Government (Suffolk)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he is taking into account local opinion in determining the future of local government in Suffolk.

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Government Commission will begin its review of local government in Suffolk on 13 December. The commission must take into consideration all relevant representations made to it. We shall take local views fully into account when considering the commission's recommendations.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to strengthen the regulations for the importation of hazardous waste.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the need for additional provisions to implement the EC Waste Shipments Regulation.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have sold off all of their council housing stock.

  Sir George Young
  The following 23 councils have transferred all or most of their housing stock to housing associations:

  Breckland DC

  Broadland DC

  London Borough of Bromley

  Chiltern DC

  Christchurch BC

  East Cambridgeshire DC

  East Dorset DC

  Hambleton DC

  Medina BC

  Mid Sussex DC

  Newbury DC

  North Bedfordshire DC

  Rochester upon Medway City C

  Ryedale DC

  Sevenoaks DC

  South Buckinghamshire DC

  South Wight BC

  Suffolk Coastal DC

  Surrey Heath BC

  544

  Swale BC

  Tonbridge and Mailing BC

  Tunbridge Wells BC

  West Dorset DC

  A further eight councils on the 1993–94 disposals programme have won tenant support for transfer and are expected to submit applications for permission to transfer by March next year.

  I am also pleased that the public expenditure provision for housing announced yesterday will enable the programme to be expanded in future. Fourteen authorities have applied for inclusion in next year's programme and I hope to announce the successful applicants in the next couple of weeks.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of homeless families in the west midlands.

  Sir George Young
  In the 12 months ending June 1993 the number of households for which local authorities in the west midlands accepted responsibility for securing permanent accommodation under the provisions of part III of the Housing Act 1985 was 17,570. This is some 300 (1·7 per cent.) less than the number accepted in the previous year ending June 1992.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the total number of households(a) applying and (b) accepted by each of the London boroughs as homeless under the provisions of part III of the Housing Act 1985 in each year from 1979; and how many homeless households were accommodated in (i) bed and breakfast hotels and (ii) other temporary accommodation at the end of each of those years.

  Sir George Young
  I have today placed in the Library a table giving the numbers of households which each local authority in England reported as having accepted responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 in the years 1979 to 1992.

  Information on applications, for 1991 and 1992 only (this was not collected prior to 1991), and the numbers of households in the various types of temporary accommodation at the end of the year reported by London boroughs can be found in the following editions of "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales".

  Year

  Table number

  Edition number

  1979

  14

  54

  1980

  13

  62

  1981

  7

  63

  1982

  9

  66

  1983

  12

  70

  1984

  12

  74

  1985

  9(b)

  78

  1986

  9(b)

  82

  1987

  9(b)

  86

  1988

  9(b)

  90

  1989

  9(b)

  94

  1990

  9(b)

  98

  1991

  9(b)

  102

  1992

  8(b)

  106

  Copies of all these publications are in the Library.

  Social Security Spending
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution he is making to the Government's review of social security spending.

  Mr. Gummer
  Ministers and officials in the Departments of the Environment and of Social Security are in regular contact about issues of mutual interest. A formal working group has been established to discuss matters relating to housing and benefits policy.

  Local Government (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to the Local Government Commission about the review of local government in North Yorkshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  The review of local government in Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire is being conducted in accordance with the original policy and procedure guidance which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued to the commission in July 1992. Copies are in the Library of the House.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken within his Department to support his sponsorship of the construction industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  A new construction sponsorship directorate has been set up within the Department of the Environment with the aim of helping all sectors of the United Kingdom construction industry to succeed in their domestic, European and world markets. It is the advocate within Government and the European Union for the industry.

  Derelict Land Grants
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss derelict land grants.

  Sir George Young
  I have no immediate plans to meet the AMA but if it has specific concerns about derelict land grants, I am happy to take note of them.

  Responsibility for the derelict land grant programme will pass next spring to English Partnerships, about which the AMA has been fully consulted.

  Conservation Areas (Protection of Premises)
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the use of powers of local authorities to restrict traders' rights to protect their premises in conservation areas.

  Mr. Curry
  Installation of shutters or other security devices which would materially affect the external appearance of a commercial building in a conservation area requires planning permission. In considering applications for planning permission, local planning authorities—or on appeal the Secretary of State—must take into account appropriate local plan policies and other material considerations. In the case of applications relating to a546
  building in a conservation area, security considerations have to be balanced against the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

  My Department's draft circular "Planning and Crime Prevention", currently subject to public consultation, encourages planning authorities to adopt a sympathetic approach where the security of listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas is concerned and to explore with applicants the scope for a mutually acceptable solution to their requirements. A copy of the draft circular is available in the Library.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet Sir John Banham to discuss the progress of the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am next scheduled to meet Sir John Banham on Tuesday 18 January.

  Concessionary Fares (London)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the provision made in calculating standard spending assessments and grant distribution to London authorities to reflect expenditure on concessionary fare schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  As part of the review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95 we have considered carefully the case for including specific provision for spending on concessionary fares in London. My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals for SSAs shortly.

  Bury Metro
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in relation to the calculation of the standard spending assessment for Bury Metro; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received representations from the metropolitan borough of Bury on a number of standard spending assessment issues and on the assessment for education in particular. My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals for SSAs for 1994–95 shortly.

  Private Rented Sector
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to boost the private rented sector.

  Sir George Young
  We have already taken action to boost the private rented sector by introducing deregulation measures in the Housing Act 1988 to encourage landlords to bring their property on to the market. Landlords are now able to let property under assured and assured shorthold tenancies and charge market rents.

  Specific initiatives launched last year include the rent-a-room scheme, under which householders no longer have to pay tax on rent from a lodger in their home if the gross amount of the rent is no more than £3,250, the flats-over-shops scheme, under which £25 million is being

  547
  made available through local authorities over three years to bring flats over shops back into residential use, and, the housing associations as managing agents scheme, which allows housing associations to act as an intermediary between potential private landlords and tenants in order to encourage more empty property to be let.

  Rents
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the average rent for(a) council tenancies, (b) housing association assured tenancies, (c) housing association fair rent tenancies and (d) other regulated tenancies in each of the London boroughs in each appropriate year since 1979; and if he will express the increases as an index, taking 1979 as 100, to compare with the increase in (i) average earnings and (ii) the retail prices index over the same period.

  Sir George Young
  I have placed today in the Library tables showing for each London borough(a) the average local authority weekly unrebated rent, (b) the mean housing association annual registered fair rent, and (c) the mean annual registered fair rent for private tenancies, for each financial year from 1988–89 to 1992–93. The rents are also expressed as an index with 1988–89 equal to 100. The tables include a comparison between average rent indices for Greater London, male earnings, and retail prices. The information for London boroughs could be provided for the years before 1988–89 only at disproportionate cost.

  Reliable information on average rents for housing association assured tenancies is not held centrally.

  Information on local authority rents for Greater London from 1979 to 1989 is available in the publication "Housing and Construction Statistics 1979–89". Information on rents for housing association fair rent and other regulated tenancies for the same period can be found in the publication "Statistical Note for Rent Officers: Statistics of Rent Registrations by Rent Registration Area and Rent Assessment Committee Determinations by Panel Area".

  From 1990, information on registered fair rents can be found in the publication "Rent Officer Statistics". Information on new lettings by registered housing associations can be found in the National Federation of Housing Associations quarterly bulletin; and information on rents for the whole housing association stock can be found in the report "Housing Associations in 1992" published by the Housing Corporation.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Planning Applications
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake a review of the fees structure relating to planning applications for agricultural buildings to bring the fees charged more closely into line with the overall cost of each project.

  Mr. Curry
  No. The purpose of planning application fees is to cover local authorities' costs in determining planning applications. They are not related to project costs. There is no evidence that the fees payable in respect of agricultural buildings are too high.

  Trans-European Route Network (Wing Bypass)
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether the public inquiry into the Wing bypass will now be reopened;

  (2) what information was given to the public inquiry into the Wing bypass regarding the full implications of the TERN decision for the route;

  (3) what assessment he has made regarding the adequacy of the information about the adoption of the A418 as a trans-European route by TERN that was made available to the public in the course of consultations about this route.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are currently considering the inspector's report on the planning applications by Buckinghamshire county council for the Wing bypass. Those applications were called in by the Secretary of State for his own determination and a public local inquiry held. A post-inquiry statement on behalf of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild has been received, which raises, inter alia, the proposed inclusion of the Wing bypass as a route within the Trans-European Route Network (TERN). We have referred that statement to the parties involved with the inquiry into the Wing bypass to give them an opportunity to comment.

  We have no proposals to reopen the inquiry into the Wing bypass at the present time. We will consider, in the light of the comments received on the statement made on behalf of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, both whether the status of the Wing bypass within TERN is material, and, if so, whether we have sufficient information on it to reach a conclusion.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list by valuation tribunal the targets set for(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93; and whether they were short of or exceeded their targets;

  (2) if he will list by valuation tribunal the targets set for 1994–95;

  (3) if he will list by valuation tribunal the targets set for 1993–94; and whether they are currently (a) on target, (b) below target or (c) above their target.

  Mr. Baldry
  Valuation tribunals are independent judicial bodies. The president of each tribunal has the statutory responsibility for making the necessary arrangements for the hearing of appeals or their disposal by written representations. There is no requirement on tribunals to seek to decide specified numbers of cases within given periods, and the numbers actually decided depend on a range of factors, many of which are outside presidents' control. My Department now discusses each year with national representatives of the tribunal service and with the Valuation Office Agency the number of cases in each major category which could realistically be expected to be settled nationally over the coming year, and the resources that would be required to bring this about. Indicative figures are issued to each tribunal office to show the rate of progress locally that would be consistent with these national expectations, and staff complements for each office are determined in the light of these. The figures do not, however, have the status of formal targets. This process has not yet been completed for 1994–95.

  For 1992–93, the first year of this procedure, the number of non-domestic rating appeals resolved nationally by the

  549
  Valuation Office Agency and the tribunal service in England was 336,900, compared with an expected 290,000. Progress in 1993–94 has been encouraging to date.

  Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the housing investment programme bids his Department has authorised in respect of each local authority in England over the last three years in relation to their bid; and what is the cash figure in each case.

  Sir George Young
  A table setting out information on housing investment programme (HIP) bids, allocations, and allocations expressed as a percentage of bids, for each authority in England over the last three years, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The levels of local authorities' bids for housing investment programme resources reflect, in part, the competition for these resources and therefore often exceed the amount of resources likely to be available.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on(a) the homeless figure, (b) the general waiting list figures and (c) the sheltered housing waiting list figures for each local authority in England over the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) earlier today for the numbers of households reported by individual local authorities in England as accepted for permanent rehousing under the homeless provisions of the Housing Act 1985.

  Capital receipts from the sale of council dwellings in London (excluding lending for council house purchase)

  £ thousand

  Local authority

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Barking and Dagenham

  41,176

  29,829

  12,251

  10,062

  6,298

  Barnet

  21,183

  16,156

  8,934

  6,122

  4,153

  Bexley

  10,313

  8,866

  4,931

  3,203

  3,705

  Brent

  7,868

  17,699

  19,991

  7,437

  6,024

  Bromley

  28,091

  14,778

  6,556

  7,491

  110,805

  Camden

  0

  0

  31

  13,293

  n/a

  City of London

  2,599

  2,492

  872

  615

  410

  Croydon

  27,012

  18,405

  8,726

  16,250

  5,249

  Ealing

  17,150

  21,958

  16,746

  12,270

  9,032

  Enfield

  31,648

  26,928

  13,222

  8,419

  5,011

  Greenwich

  22,951

  31,780

  15,500

  10,007

  8,487

  Hackney

  9,349

  28,210

  0

  14,917

  7,900

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  15,838

  10,681

  13,706

  6,357

  3,670

  Haringey

  19,816

  26,695

  16,715

  10,070

  6,913

  Harrow

  11,876

  7,396

  4,471

  4,272

  3,562

  Havering

  17,136

  15,366

  6,971

  3,565

  3,926

  Hillingdon

  23,116

  16,440

  14,279

  9,783

  13,393

  Hounslow

  16,869

  20,164

  19,981

  0

  8,194

  Islington

  24,239

  0

  29,546

  15,934

  11,384

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,369

  8,012

  7,208

  4,419

  3,545

  Kingston upon Thames

  6,196

  7,247

  3,650

  3,153

  2,310

  Lambeth

  12,774

  13,956

  30,247

  20,376

  10,656

  Lewisham

  21,312

  40,300

  25,563

  12,887

  10,437

  Merton

  16,124

  15,705

  8,091

  4,969

  4,130

  Newham

  20,850

  24,694

  17,414

  8,506

  4,745

  Redbridge

  6,930

  12,272

  9,364

  3,999

  3,357

  Richmond upon Thames

  12,516

  8,729

  5,230

  5,171

  3,395

  Southwark

  31,354

  37,644

  0

  12,706

  8,801

  Sutton

  13,164

  9,266

  6,297

  4,170

  3,029

  Tower Hamlets

  25,536

  54,597

  ,496

  12,783

  12,002

  Waltham Forest

  13,801

  17,002

  7,706

  5,195

  3,659

  550
  Information on the numbers of households on council housing waiting lists on 1 April are collected on the annual housing investment programme (HIP1) return. Figures for each authority in England for the years 1991 to 1993 can be found in the "HIP1 All Items Print" for these years, copies of which are in the Library—column B5 gives the overall size of the waiting list and column B6B gives the numbers of households requiring specialised dwellings.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the value of the capital receipts accumulated by each local authority in England(a) for the last three years and (b) the total of such resources available in each local authority for use if such use were to be permitted.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have arranged for information on the value of usable capital receipts held by each local authority at 31 March in each of the last three years to be placed in the Library of the House. Local authorities may use all of these receipts.

  Local authorities are not required separately to identify the reserved part of capital receipts from other amounts set aside as provision for credit liabilities (PCL). No separate figures are available for the unapplied balance of PCL which has originated from set aside capital receipts.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the capital receipts income for each of the London borough councils from the sale of council housing in each of the last five years.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested, as reported by each of the London borough councils, is as follows. The figures exclude the element of lending by he local authorities for council house purchase.
  551

  Local authority

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Wandsworth

  63,531

  70,671

  36,457

  24,874

  21,375

  Westminster

  41,973

  60,771

  19,178

  14,376

  11,531

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase home insulation schemes.

  Mr. Yeo
  I am delighted to announce that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was able to announce on 30 November an extra £35 million per year for the home energy efficiency scheme. This will be targeted on pensioners and disabled people and will provide grants for more than 200,000 extra households per year throughout the United Kingdom, bringing the total number of households receiving grants to almost half a million a year.

  Local Authorities (Debt)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities in England and Wales which are debt-free for the purposes of the capital control system.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information received from local authorities indicates that the English authorities listed below were debt-free for capital control purposes at 30 September 1993. Information from Welsh authorities is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Barking and Dagenham

  Bedford

  Bracknell

  Breckland

  Broadland

  City of London

  Chiltern

  Christchurch

  Corby

  Devon and Cornwall Police Authority

  Dorset CC

  East Cambridgeshire

  Lincolnshire CC

  Medina

  Mid Sussex

  Newbury

  Ryedale

  Sevenoaks

  South Bucks

  South Wight

  St Edmundsbury

  Suffolk Coastal

  Swale

  Tunbridge Wells

  West Sussex CC

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the findings of MORI polls carried out during the Local Government Commission's public consultation exercise on proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the Local Government Commission. However, I understand that it will be publishing the results of the MORI polls in Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset shortly.
  552
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the Local Government Commission's final recommendations for Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset, following the public consultation exercise carried out earlier this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission is currently drawing up its final recommendations to my right hon. Friend on local government structure in Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset. It is due to complete this final report by 23 January 1994.

  Smokeless Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the United Kingdom will conform to the EC conditions on the use of domestic smokeless coal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  There are no EC conditions on the use of domestic smokeless coal.

  Sewage Works, Braunston
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will a statement on the proposals to erect a multi-screen cinema on the old sewage works at Braunston, Leicestershire; and if he will call in the proposals.

  Mr. Baldry
  These proposals form an application for planning consent for reserved matters made to Blaby district council. The council resolved to grant outline planning permission in 1991, subject to the completion of a planning agreement covering highway works. An acceptable use of the land has therefore been established and the circumstances do not justify the unusual step of calling in this application.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average unrebated rate-community charge-council tax in(a) local authority and (b) housing association tenancies in each year since 1978 at current prices, at constant April 1993 prices, and using an index with 1978=100.

  Mr. Curry
  This answer can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Construction Products Directive
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is calling to enforce the construction products directive.

  Mr. Baldry
  The directive was implemented by the Construction Products Regulations in December 1991. In Great Britain enforcement of the legislation is the responsibility of trading standards officers and in Northern Ireland of environmental health officers. Provision for the additional costs falling on local authorities has been made
  553
  in the appropriate local authority spending assessments since 1991–92. The Department is working with the European Commission and other member states to complete the technical development of the directive as soon as possible.

  Notting Hill Housing Trust
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to improve the administration of the Notting Hill housing trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The statutory responsibility for the regulation of registered housing associations rests with the Housing Corporation, which monitors associations' performance to ensure they are effectively managed. If my hon. Friend has specific concerns about the management of an individual association, it would be appropriate for these to be referred to the Housing Corporation to consider.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to pass the proceeds from the sale of county hall and other ex-GLC property and assets to the London boroughs; how much money is expected to be involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The distribution of such proceeds is a matter not for my right hon. Friend but for the London residuary body. The riverside building has been sold to the Shirayama Corporation, but the residuary body is still seeking to dispose of the remaining buildings on the county hall site. Certain moneys are to be distributed by 31 December 1993 to the City of London and the London boroughs under the terms of an order which my right hon. Friend has laid before Parliament. The total sum involved will become clear when the distribution is made.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to strengthen the Department's building regulations advisory committee with a technical and commercial expert in thermal insulation to keep under close specialist review carbon dioxide emissions.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. Expertise on thermal insulation matters was increased earlier this year with the appointment to the committee of Professor Pat O'Sullivan of University College, London.

  Drainage Boards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration his Department is giving in respect of the council tax valuation category for internal drainage boards in respect of intensive livestock units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following representations from the National Farmers Union and the British Poultry Federation, the Ministry issued a consultation paper on 15 October seeking views from a range of interested parties on proposals to abate the drainage rates payable by certain intensive livestock and glasshouse enterprises. Responses were requested by
  554
  22 November and a decision as to whether to proceed with the proposals will be made shortly in the light of those responses.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration his Department is giving in respect of the council tax valuation category for internal drainage boards to changing intensive livestock units from paying the internal drainage boards' valuation rate to a business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply. The Government has no plans to do this.

  City Pride
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many additional resources will be made available for city pride.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on Thursday 25 November at column 187.

  Bathing Water Quality
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the results of this year's bathing water quality monitoring; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The monitoring carried out during the 1993 season shows that 80 per cent. of the 457 identified bathing waters in the United Kingdom met the mandatory coliform bacteria standards of the EC bathing water directive. This compares with 79 per cent. in 1992 and 76 per cent. in 1991.

  Rain influences results, but in spite of poor weather in many places during the bathing season this year overall compliance has improved.

  This slow but steady increase is a satisfying indication that the works being undertaken to improve bathing water quality are having the desired effect. Some waters which invariably failed in previous seasons are now up to standard.

  The main results for the United Kingdom are summarised with details for English and Welsh bathing waters. This information will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today and will be supplemented by a report with more detailed results in due course.

  Bathing waters survey 1993 results for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Compliance with Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC): Coliform Standards)

  Pass

  Fail

  Total

  1993

  1992

  1993

  1992

  1993

  1992

  England and Wales

  NRA Regions

  Northumbrian1

  25

  20

  9

  14

  34

  34

  Yorkshire1

  21

  20

  1

  2

  22

  22

  Anglian

  28

  31

  5

  2

  33

  33

  Thames

  3

  3

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Southern

  58

  51

  9

  16

  67

  67

  Wessex1

  35

  36

  7

  3

  42

  39

  South West1

  107

  117

  26

  17

  133

  134

  North West

  13

  I1

  20

  22

  33

  33

  Welsh

  42

  39

  9

  12

  51

  51

  Total

  332

  328

  86

  88

  418

  416

  555

  Pass

  Fail

  Total

  1993

  1992

  1993

  1992

  1993

  1992

  Scotland

  18

  15

  5

  8

  23

  23

  Northern Ireland

  15

  15

  1

  1

  16

  16

  Grand Total

  365

  358

  92

  97

  457

  455

  1 Northumbrian and Yorkshire, and South West and Wessex NRA regions have amalgamated, but results are recorded separately here for the purposes of comparison.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Heavy Electrical Products
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further action he intends to take to improve exports of heavy electrical products.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Substantial new measures to help exporters have already been introduced this year. ECGD support has been extended and premia reduced. The Overseas Projects Board has set up a number of sectoral working groups, including one on power, to help improve the United Kingdom's share of major products overseas. The Department is already supporting exporters of heavy electrical products through its export services. Sixty additional staff have been assigned to export promotion and 100 export promoters are being seconded from the private sector. There are no plans to introduce further help, but, as always, we would be happy to consider any requests from the industry for such help.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints the Insolvency Service agency received about its work in 1991, 1992 and so far in 1993.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Insolvency Service's chief executive has received four complaints following introduction by the agency in February 1993 of a formal procedure under this Government's citizens charter initiative. The agency does not keep any other record specifically relating to complaints, but receives a range of correspondence relating to official receivers and insolvency practitioners. This correspondence should be considered in the context of the 8,368 companies wound up compulsorily and 22,632 individuals entering bankruptcy in 1991, 9,734 liquidations and 32,106 bankruptcies in 1992, and 7,004 liquidations and 26,627 bankruptcies to 31 October 1993.

  Mr. Peter Joyce, the agency's chief executive, answered letters about the administration of insolvencies which did
  556
  not arise out of the published standard but sometimes contained criticism of the service, totalling 26 in 1991, 85 in 1992 and 49 to 31 October 1993.

  In addition, I and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have responded to letters from hon. Members concerning specific insolvencies totalling 399 in 1991, 355 in 1992 and 314 to 31 October 1993. Officials have answered on our behalf 207 letters in 1992 and 147 to 31 October 1993. Information on how many of these letters contained criticism of the service could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  No central record is kept of complaints made direct to official receivers.

  Colliery Equipment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give details of all machinery and equipment currently earmarked for removal from Silverdale colliery, North Staffordshire, to the Nottinghamshire coalfield; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the machinery and equipment at Silverdale colliery on 20 November.

  Mr. Eggar
  The deployment of machinery and equipment is a matter for British Coal.

  Postage Stamps
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the future use of royal emblems on postage stamps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand that the Post Office has no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Bomb-proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Mr. Eggar
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  Ships
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether launch aid support is available in respect of the construction of novel ship designs or ship engines.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. Launch aid is available, under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, to assist specifically the design, development and production of civil aircraft.

  Post Boxes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reasons underline the absence of the royal cipher from the new Post Office postal boxes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that all cast iron post boxes installed by Royal Mail continue to bear the royal cipher or Scottish crown. Royal Mail has, however, introduced a range of polypropylene boxes without these emblems. These boxes are installed in street locations to assist postal delivery staff and are not normally intended to have any public posting function. On occasions, however, these boxes have been installed on a temporary trial basis to assess particular posting needs. Where it is subsequently decided to introduce a permanent facility a cast iron box is installed.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual cost of the car service for Ministers is about £380,000, including VAT, for seven cars.

  British Gas
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to respond to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into British Gas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is currently considering the representations which he has received as part of the consultation process on the MMC's report on gas. He recognises the need to avoid delay; but it is also important not to take precipitate decisions on the important matters raised by the report.

  Electricity
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding proposals to harmonise electrical plugs and sockets throughout the European Community; and what response he has made to the Commission regarding such proposals.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Several trade associations and other bodies have expressed their respective points of view on the harmonisation work currently being carried out by CENELEC. My Department has commissioned an independent analysis of the costs and benefits for the United Kingdom, and the results of this study will be published in the new year; written evidence has also been submitted by the Department to the Trade and Industry Committee. We have assured the European Commission that the United Kingdom will continue to participate actively in the work of the various technical committees and working groups that have been established by CENELEC.

  Concessionary Coal
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those individuals and organisations who replied to his consultative document on concessionary coal; and if he will place copies of their submissions in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following have submitted views on the Government's consultation paper on the concessionary fuel entitlements of past and present British Coal employees and their dependants following privatisation of the corporation:

  British Association of Colliery Managers

  British Coal Retired Staff Association (Cannock and District)

  British Coal Retired Staff Association (North Staffordshire District)

  Bruce Lindsay Coal Ltd

  R J Budge (Mining) Limited

  The Chamber of Coal Traders Limited

  Currell, Lewis & Martin Limited

  Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain

  D J Freeman—Solicitors

  Legal and Venture Joint Ventures Limited

  The Miller Group Limited

  National Association of Colliery Overmen Deputies and Shotfirers

  The National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators

  National Union of Mineworkers

  National Union of Mineworkers (COSA)—The Ex-COSA Section—Region 3

  Pascoe Fuels Limited

  Ryan Mining Limited

  Small Mines Association of Wales

  Southampton Institute of Higher Education—Law Research Centre

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers (Nottinghamshire Section)

  I have also received a number of responses from individuals.

  It is a matter for the organisations and individuals concerned whether they wish their correspondence to be made public.

  British Coal (Pension Funds)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those individuals and organisations who replied to his consultive document on the future of British Coal's pension funds; and if he will place copies of their submissions in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following have submitted views on the Government's consultation paper on British Coal pensions following privatisation of the corporation:

  British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Committee of Management

  Mineworkers' Pension Scheme Committee of Management British Coal Corporation

  British Association of Colliery Management

  GMB/APEX Partnership

  National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers (NACODS)

  National Union of Mineworkers

  National Union of Mineworkers (COSA)

  National Union of Mineworkers (COSA)—The Ex-COSA Section—Region 3

  Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain

  Small Mines Association (South Wales)

  British Coal Retired Staff Association (North Staffordshire District)

  British Coal Retired Staff Association (Cannock and District)

  I have also received some 1,400 responses from individuals.
  559
  It is a matter for the organisations and individuals concerned whether they wish their correspondence to be made public.

  Offshore Installations
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proposals he has to modify the Petroleum Act 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the offshore installations and pipeline networks which have been dismantled and removed in the past six years and those scheduled to be demolished and withdrawn from the United Kingdom continental shelf; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many programmes involving the abandonment of (a) offshore installations and (b) submarine pipeline networks he has approved over the past five years; if he will outline the maintenance and inspection regulations concerning such abandoned structures and pipelines; what advice is given to commercial fishermen associations and other users of the maritime environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his predecessor the Secretary of State for Energy have approved the following abandonment programmes for offshore installations and pipelines:

  Year

  Facilities

  1988

  Piper Alpha

  1991

  Crawford

  1992

  Argyll, Duncan & Innes Blair

  1993

  Angus

  Forbes

  Part of Staffa—Ninian pipeline

  In each case, except Piper Alpha and the Blair pipeline, the abandonment programme provided for complete removal of the facilities.

  Maintenance and inspection requirements are decided on a case by case basis in the light of the circumstances of each abandonment proposal and after consultation with other Government Departments. In each case, the President of the Board of Trade has required consultations to be carried out with interested parties, including representatives of fishermen's organisations, and that the results of the consultations be reported in the abandonment programme. My officials meet representatives of fishermen's organisations at regular intervals for discussions on a range of subjects, including abandonment.

  I have no proposals at present to modify the Petroleum Act 1987.

  Nuclear Industry
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current status of the terms of reference for the pending review of the nuclear industry; and what consultations are taking place.

  Mr. Eggar
  Options for the scope and format of the nuclear review are under consideration within Government. I cannot prejudge the terms of reference. It remains the Government's intention to make a further announcement as soon as possible.

  Energy Demand
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the disaggregated breakdown of energy demand by sector and region; and if he will indicate the current energy supply availability in Wales by fuel type.

  Mr. Eggar
  Figures for energy demand are not available in the detail requested. Energy consumption by final user for the United Kingdom in 1992 was:

  Billion therms

  Industry

  15·0

  Transport

  19·5

  Domestic

  17·4

  Other final users

  8·2

  Total final users

  60·2

  Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.

  The latest available figures for energy supply in Wales are as follows:

  Million tonnes

  Coal (available for home consumption, 1992)

  8·3

  Petroleum (inland deliveries, 1991)

  4·0

  Terrawatt hours

  Gas (total available 1991)

  31·8

  Electricity (net supplied, 1992)

  18·3

  Sources: Digest of Welsh Statistics, 1993 and Welsh Economic Trends, 1993.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to require fuel and power companies to use the interest accrued on VAT payments collected from customers for energy conservation within customers' properties.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: Both the Director General of Gas Supply and the Director General of Electricity Supply have a duty to promote energy efficiency. This is primarily a matter for the Energy Efficiency Office.

  Fireworks
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to keep a record of the countries which export fireworks to Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am replying as the Minister with responsibility for controls on importation of fireworks. The Health and Safety Executive already keeps records of countries which export fireworks to Britain and will continue to do so.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Budget Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) of 19 November,Official Report, columns 4–6,

  561
  what were the voting figures on (a) the revised expenditure ceilings for 1994 and (b) the letter of amendment to the draft supplementary and amending budget for 1993 recorded in the meeting of the European Community's Budget Council held on 15 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The Council agreed unanimously to the adjustment of the expenditure ceilings for 1994 which had been determined in the context of the new inter-institutional agreement.

  The presidency concluded that the necessary majority existed to establish the letter of amendment to the draft supplementary and amending budget for 1993; and no formal vote was therefore taken.

  Financial Services Act 1986
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the practical benefits to the private investor of the Financial Services Act 1986 and the regulatory regime which it created.

  Mr. Nelson
  The implementation of the Act in 1988 has brought significant benefits for the private investor. For example, firms carrying on investment business must be properly authorised. The regulators have taken action against firms not complying with their rules of conduct. A sizeable number have been found unfit to deal with private investors and prevented from doing so. A further example is the establishment of the investors compensation scheme, from which some 5,000 private investors have benefited to date.

  State Pension
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of national average earnings the basic state pension will be in(a) 2000, (b) 2010, (c) 2020, (d) 2030, (e) 2040 and (f) 2050 if earnings rise faster than prices by (i) 1·5 per cent. and (ii) 2·5 per cent.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  1·5 per cent. real earnings growth

  2·5 per cent. real earnings growth

  1993

  17·7

  17·7

  2000

  16·0

  14·9

  2010

  13·7

  11·6

  Net privatisation proceeds

  £ billion

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Amersham International

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Associated British Ports

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  BAA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·5

  0·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Aerospace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Airways

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·4

  0·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Gas

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·6

  1·8

  1·8

  0·8

  0·5

  —

  0·4

  —

  British Petroleum

  0·3

  —

  —

  —

  0·5

  —

  —

  —

  0·9

  3·0

  1·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Steel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·1

  1·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  British Telecommunications

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·4

  1·3

  1·4

  0·3

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  1·8

  3·7

  —

  Britoil

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  0·3

  —

  0·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cable and Wireless

  —

  —

  0·2

  —

  0·3

  —

  0·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·1

  3·4

  1·5

  —

  Electricity (Northern Ireland)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·4

  —

  Electricity (Scotland)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·1

  1·0

  —

  Enterprise Oil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GPFC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  562

  Year

  1·5 per cent. real earnings growth

  2·5 per cent. real earnings growth

  2020

  11·8

  9·1

  2030

  10·2

  7·1

  2040

  8·8

  5·6

  2050

  7·6

  4·3

  Notes: The baseline for the calculation is April 1993. The basic retirement pension was uprated to £56·10 per week on 1 April 1993. National average earnings in April 1993 were £316·90 (Source: the Department of Employment's new earnings survey).

  National Debt
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the national debt of each EC country, Japan and the United States of America in local currency; what proportion such debt is of gross national product; and whether such debt for each country includes public sector pension liabilities where those pension liabilities are not provided by private sector funds.

  Mr. Nelson
  Data on Government debt in local currencies are available in the IMF's Government finance statistics yearbook and on gross national product in he OECD's national accounts, copies of which are available in the House Library. Contingent liabilities arising from public sector pensions are not included in the Government debt figures in the IMF's Government finance statistics yearbook.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are(a) the total receipts from the privatisation of Government assets for each year since 1979, (b) the percentage shares of total Government income this represents for each year and (c) the total sums raised by each separate sale.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the privatisation proceeds received by the Government for each year since 1979–80 and their scale relative to general Government receipts. Privatisations and secondary sales of shares with net proceeds of less than £50 million in any year have not been shown individually.
  563

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  NTL

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  National Seed Development Organisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rolls-Royce

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rover Group

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Ordnance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Water Companies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·5

  1·5

  1·5

  —

  —

  Miscellaneous1

  0·1

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  -0·1

  0·1

  -0·1

  0·1

  0

  1.·2

  —

  TOTAL

  0·4

  0·2

  0·5

  0·5

  1·1

  2·0

  2·7

  4·5

  5·1

  7·1

  4·2

  5·3

  7·9

  8·2

  25·5

  Relative to GGR (per cent.)

  0·5

  0·2

  0·4

  0·4

  0·9

  1·4

  1·8

  2·8

  2·9

  3·7

  2·0

  2·5

  3·6

  3·7

  22·4

  1 Includes, in any year, sales with net proceeds of less than £50 million, expenses which could not be netted off the associated sale because they arose in a financial year in which there were no proceeds from that sale and (in 1992–93) the proceeds of the Treasury's auction of privatised companies' debt.

  2 March FSBR forecast.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to the annual extent of tax avoidance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No reliable estimate can be made, but it remains the Government's policy to ensure that opportunities for tax avoidance are minimised. My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget contains a number of anti-avoidance measures which will increase revenue by £1·8 billion over three years.

  VAT
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if VAT on fuel bills will be inclusive, or exclusive, of any standing charge levied; what arrangements are available to Her Majesty's Government to vary positive rates of VAT downwards; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Standing charges are regarded as part of the payment for the supply of fuel and power and will therefore be subject to the VAT changes introduced by section 42 of the Finance Act 1993.

  Only those goods and services specified in a list annexed to EC directive 92/77/EEC can be moved from the standard rate of VAT to a reduced VAT rate. The reduced rate cannot be lower than 5 per cent. and there are no provisions for the introduction of zero rates of VAT.

  Bomb-proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Sir John Cope
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  First-time Home Buyers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to give increased support to first-time buyers.

  Mr. Nelson
  Housing is now more affordable than for a number of years, due to lower interest rates and house prices. The Government's taxation and expenditure plans are set out fully in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Income Tax
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax a married man on an income of(a) £900,000 per annum and (b) £15,000 per annum would have been required to pay in each of the last 10 years assuming no additional tax allowances.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is in the table.

  Tax liability for a married man with total income1of

  Year

  £900,000 £

  £15,000 £

  1983–84

  531,668

  3,662

  1984–85

  531,067

  3,554

  1985–86

  530,502

  3,464

  1986–87

  529,910

  3,290

  1987–88

  529,381

  3,025

  1988–89

  355,467

  2,726

  1989–90

  355,145

  2,656

  1990–91

  355,005

  2,569

  1991–92

  354,439

  2,496

  1992–93

  354,279

  2,359

  1993–94

  354,254

  2,334

  1 Assuming all income is earned and that the only allowances and reliefs available are the married man's allowance for years up to 1989–90 and the personal allowance and married couple's allowance for subsequent years.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Pakistan on the policy the Pakistan Government intend to follow regarding Kashmir.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]: I discussed Kashmir with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus in October. I reaffirmed the United Kingdom Government's view that the issue of Kashmir can be resolved only by bilateral negotiation between Pakistan and India. I therefore welcome the joint announcement by the Indian and Pakistani Governments that they will be conducting bilateral talks at senior official level in January.

EDUCATION

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will give the names of those who currently advise his Department about the national curriculum and associated matters, and in each case the body they represent;

  (2) how many people drawn from the primary school sector of education are on his Department's advisory team; and what percentage they represent.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has the main responsibility for advising my right hon. Friend on the national curriculum and associated matters. The authority was established on 1 October under the chairmanship of Sir Ron Dearing. Its 14 members, announced on 14 September, are:

  Mr. Roy Blatchford—Headmaster, Bicester Community College, Oxfordshire (an LEA maintained secondary school).

  Mr. John Burn—Principal, Emmanuel College, Gateshead (Tyneside City Technology College).

  Mrs. Judith Conway—Teacher, Christ Church School, Chorleywood, Hertfordshire (a self-governing GM primary school).

  Mr. Paul Dick—Headmaster, Kennet School, Thatcham, Berkshire (an LEA maintained secondary school).

  Mrs. Heather Du Quesnay—Director of Education, Hertfordshire County Council.

  Dr. Philip Evans—Headmaster, Bedford School (an independent 7–18 school).

  Mrs. Yvonne Hargreaves-Pizer—Headteacher, Hague Primary School, Tower Hamlets, London (an LEA maintained school).

  Mr. Graham Mackenzie—Group Chief Executive, UES Holdings Limited

  Dr. John Marks—Open University Tutor in Physics and History and Philosophy of Science, and Director of the Educational Research Trust

  Professor Leonard Marsh—Principal, Bishop Grosseteste College, Lincoln

  Professor Anthony O' Hear—Professor of Philosophy, University of Bradford

  Mr. David Quarmby—Joint Managing Director, J. Sainsbury plc.

  Mrs. Shahwar Sadeque—Director of Art of Intelligence (a computer software company), Governor of the BBC, and former researcher and school teacher

  Mr. Martyn Worrall—Headmaster, Hawksworth Hall School, Leeds (an independent special school owned by the Spastics Society).

  The members were selected on the basis of their individual expertise and experience and not as representatives of any particular body.

  Three of the authority's seven teachers are involved in primary education and much of Professor Marsh's professional work has been concerned with the primary sector.

  Bomb-proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Mr. Boswell
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  Standard Numbers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for the last 12 months, and by local education authority, the number of occasions where he has(a) declined and (b) approved an application in respect of standard numbers.
  566
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Over the last 12 months my right hon. Friend approved 636 requests from local education authorities for changes in school standard numbers. In 171 of these cases the order implementing the change modified the original proposals. Over the same period my right hon. Friend declined to approve a change on 76 occasions. The figures by local education authority are as follows:

  Application for change

  Local education authority

  Approved

  Refused

  Modified

  City

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  1

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith

  1

  1

  —

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  2

  2

  —

  Lewisham

  1

  —

  —

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  1

  Westminster

  1

  —

  1

  Barking

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  —

  —

  —

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  2

  —

  —

  Bromley

  1

  —

  —

  Croydon

  2

  —

  5

  Ealing

  3

  —

  —

  Enfield

  1

  —

  —

  Haringey

  7

  2

  —

  Harrow

  —

  8

  —

  Havering

  2

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  Hounslow

  3

  8

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  1

  —

  —

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  1

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  —

  —

  1

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  2

  Coventry

  9

  7

  1

  Dudley

  —

  3

  2

  Sandwell

  3

  3

  3

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  Walsall

  3

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  4

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  —

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  1

  Sefton

  4

  —

  —

  Wirral

  2

  4

  1

  Bolton

  —

  —

  —

  Bury

  3

  1

  —

  Manchester

  1

  —

  —

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  —

  Salford

  2

  —

  —

  Stockport

  2

  —

  —

  Thameside

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  —

  —

  —

  Wigan

  —

  —

  —

  Barnsley

  3

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  1

  Bradford

  3

  —

  3

  Calderdale

  7

  1

  2

  Kirklees

  15

  —

  1

  Leeds

  2

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  1

  Gateshead

  1

  —

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3

  1

  1

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  567

  Application for change

  Local education authority

  Approved

  Refused

  Modified

  Sunderland

  —

  1

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  Avon

  54

  13

  11

  Bedfordshire

  6

  —

  1

  Berkshire

  29

  —

  5

  Buckinghamshire

  5

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  3

  —

  1

  Cleveland

  1

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  2

  —

  1

  Cumbria

  7

  1

  1

  Derbyshire

  4

  1

  —

  Devon

  6

  —

  —

  Dorset

  2

  —

  8

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  1

  Essex

  4

  3

  17

  Gloucestershire

  1

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  12

  1

  10

  Hereford and Worcester

  2

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  8

  —

  2

  Humberside

  6

  5

  3

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  36

  1

  35

  Lancashire

  29

  1

  13

  Leicestershire

  7

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  7

  1

  —

  Norfolk

  2

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  30

  1

  2

  Northamptonshire

  10

  —

  4

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  —

  2

  Oxfordshire

  50

  2

  2

  Shropshire

  4

  —

  —

  Somerset

  —

  —

  2

  Staffordshire

  5

  —

  1

  Suffolk

  5

  —

  1

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  6

  —

  2

  West Sussex

  7

  —

  6

  Wiltshire

  16

  3

  7

  Total

  465

  76

  171

  Car Crime
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what response his Department has made to the proposals by the National Crime Prevention Organisation for an educational initiative to cut car crime.

  Mr. Forth
  The National Crime Prevention Organisation has not made any specific proposals to my right hon. Friend for an educational initiative to cut car crime.

  Musical Instruments (VAT)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will ensure that sixth form college students receive an entitlement to a refund on value added tax on musical instruments comparable to that applicable to sixth formers in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Sixth formers in schools have no such entitlement. Under a special scheme, local authorities are eligible for VAT refunds. Such refunds may be claimed where local education authorities buy musical instruments from retailers. Sixth form colleges and FE ceges are not similarly eligible, but the Government take account of
  568
  VAT costs in determining funding for this sector; the supply of goods and services incidental to the supply of education by such colleges is, however, exempt from VAT.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  India (Dam)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he took before deciding to fund the upgrading of the Hirakud hydro-electric dam at Orissa in India formally to appraise and meet the needs of the families displaced by the original dam.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The appraisal mission took account of the arrangements made for resettlement of people displaced by the original dam in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which are well documented. The upgrading project will not have any significant social impact for these resettled groups or any other groups, and no appropriate action was identifed in respect of the people affected by the original scheme. ODA considers that the needs of this group are best addressed through projects targeting poor and tribal people in Orissa more generally, such as the Orissa health and family welfare project which we are financing.

  Brazil
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which organisations in Brazil the Government have worked to help Brazilian street children.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Overseas Development Administration, through its joint funding scheme, currently supports projects for Brazilian street children with the National Movement of Street Boys and Girls, and the Brazilian Centre for Poor Girls and Adolescents. This assistance has been channelled through the British NGOs childhope, Womankind, CAFOD, Oxfam and Christian Aid. In addition, funds have been made available from the British ambassador's small projects fund to support the Sao Martinho shelter for street children in Rio de Janeiro.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds the Government have currently committed to(a) Cambodia mines action centre and (b) any other grouping for de-mining in Cambodia; and what further funds will be made available.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Government have committed $200,000 to the Cambodia Mines Action Centre. Since October 1991 the Government have also provided nearly £500,000 to other de-mining operations in Cambodia, including the Halo Trust, a British non-governmental organisation. We hope that agreement on longer-term international support will be reached by early 1994.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the companies with whom the Government are working in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to aid these countries in their development.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The know-how fund, Britain's programme of bilateral technical assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, is working with numerous partners.

  A list has been placed in the Library. It will be updated regularly.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given to Indonesia to date in 1993–94; and what form the aid has taken.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We expect to spend about £24 million in the full year 1993–94. This will be mainly technical co-operation and financial aid as part of aid and trade provision allocations. Our funds are spent mainly on projects that promote educational development, forestry conservation, energy efficiency and improved public administration and help with provision of infrastructure in the transport and other sectors.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects a decision to be made upon which recommendations of the report, "Heritage in St. Helena", will be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  This report was commissioned by the St. Helena Heritage Society and the Government of St. Helena, not by Her Majesty's Government, and decisions on the report are for them. We understand that some recommendations have already been implemented, whilst the others are under active consideration.

  Evaluation Reports
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the evaluation report on the pilot phase of the global environment facility commissioned by the World bank, United Nations environment programme and the United Nations development programme;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the findings of the independent evaluation of the pilot phase of the global environment facility commissioned by the World bank, United Nations environment programme and the United Nations development programme;

  (3) who were the members of the independent panel of experts that was formed by the World bank, United Nations environment programme and the United Nations development programme to evaluate the pilot phase of the global environment facility.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The independent evaluation of the global environment facility (GEF) was carried out by three teams and a co-ordinator, Mr. Haven North, under the direction of 570
  the evaluation managers of the World bank, the United Nations development programme, and the United Nations environment programme, and with the guidance of an independent panel of experts, whose members were Ms Monique Barbut, Mr. Rudolf Hoegger, the Hon. Mathias B. Keah, Dr. Ashok Khosla, Mr. Jean Quesnel and Ms Erna Witoelar.

  The report focuses on institutional issues, and is intended to inform the meeting of GEF participants in Cartagena from 6-10 December to discuss the restructuring of the GEF. It is a well-written report which contains many important recommendations. I have placed a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the outside evaluators used to study the effectiveness of particular aspects of the United Kingdom's aid programme in the last three years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The ODA's evaluation department's reports are available and are listed in our "Catalogue of Evaluation Studies", an updated copy of which will shortly be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Each report lists the outside evaluators used.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criticism he has received over the past three years from outside evaluators used to study the overall effectiveness of the United Kingdom aid programme; and what was the action taken.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The ODA's evaluation department undertakes its regular evaluation programme on a project-by-project basis, by sector or theme, rather than attempting to study overall effectiveness. Specific action taken in response to recent reports includes the preparation of a guidance paper on forestry projects in response to the findings of six forestry evaluations; and the convening of a seminar by the Aga Khan Foundation on Promoting Quality Education in the Third World as a result of a joint evaluation of the schools improvement programme which had been co-funded by ODA.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was paid in each of the last two years to outside evaluators of the United Kingdom's aid programme.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In 1991–92 and 1992–93, the ODA's evaluation department paid £333,944 and £511,404 respectively to external evaluators.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which 20 companies have been the leading indirect beneficiaries of spending within the aid and trade provision since its inception in 1978; and what percentage of total ATP spending each has attracted.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The 20 leading main contractors gaining business under the aid and trade provision since its inception in 1978 are as follows:
  571

  Company

  Percentage of total ATP commitments since 1978

  1 Balfour Beatty

  120·95

  2 GEC

  7·64

  3 Davy

  5·89

  4 Biwater

  4·02

  5 Amec International

  4·02

  6 Foster Wheeler

  3·69

  7 Snamprogetti

  3·23

  8 Northern Engineering Industries

  3·16

  9 John Brown Engineering

  2·56

  10 Siemens-Plessey

  2·36

  11 Phillips Radio

  2·33

  12 Marconi

  1·84

  13 Babcock

  1·76

  14 TecQuipment International

  1·59

  15 Coppee UK

  1·50

  16 John Laing

  1·50

  17 STC

  1·25

  18 Boving

  1·17

  19 AWD

  1·16

  20 Communication Supplies Ltd.

  1·05

  1 76 per cent. of Balfour Beatty's share (i.e. 16·01 per cent. to total ATP commitments since 1978) are accounted for by a joint venture with Cementation Ltd.

  Much work under these contractors is carried out by numerous subcontractors. Information on the allocation of total ATP spending by subcontractor would be disproportionately time consuming to collect centrally.

  Global Environment Facility
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much funding is given to the global environment facility per annum by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom has committed £40·3 million to the global environment facility (GEF). Of this, we contributed £4·4 million in financial year 1991–92 and £5·4 million in financial year 1992–93 as requested by the GEF. Our contributions in 1993–94 onwards will continue to depend on the requirements of the GEF for the year in question.

  Know-how funds
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in full the current disbursements under the know-how funds.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Disbursements for 1992–93 were as follows:

  £

  Albania

  40,000

  Bulgaria

  1,921,000

  Estonia

  359,000

  Former Czechoslovakia

  7,093,000

  GDR

  2,000

  Hungary

  5,741,000

  Kazakhstan

  136,000

  Latvia

  350,000

  Lithuania

  471,000

  Poland

  10,553,000

  Romania

  3,041,000

  Eastern Europe and Pan Baltic regional

  2,803,000

  Azerbaijan

  81,000

  Belarus

  26,000

  Georgia

  26,000

  572

  £

  Russian Federation

  11,201,000

  Ukraine

  3,093,000

  Uzbekistan

  267,000

  Former Yugoslavia

  45,000

  The public expenditure provision for know-how fund countries for 1993–4 is approximately £53 million, of which approximately £23 million has been spent to date.

  World Bank Information
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance was given to the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank in respect of the vote on expanding access to World bank information; and how he voted.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: We welcome the measures approved by the World bank's board of executive directors in August to increase substantially the information which the bank makes publicly available. We consider that this will help to promote a more participatory approach and thus strengthen the developmental effectiveness of bank-funded operations, as well as enhancing public awareness and understanding of the bank's role.

  It is not our practice to reveal instructions to our executive director nor to disclose what position he takes in board discussions, the proceedings of which remain confidential.

HEALTH

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list, for each local authority for each year since 1988, in homes for elderly, elderly mentally infirm and younger physically handicapped people the number of(a) wardens and deputies, (b) other care staff and care assistants and (c) other staff;

  (2) if she will list for each local authority, for each year since 1988, (a) the number of organisers and assistant organisers in the home help service and (b) the number of home helps;

  (3) if she will list by local authority the number of social work assistants for each year since 1988;

  (4) if she will list by local authority for each year since 1989, for day centres for mentally ill, elderly and physically handicapped people the number of (a) officers in charge, deputies, leaders and assistants, (b) instructors and (c) other staff;

  (5) if she will list by local authority the number of trainee social workers for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Bowis
  For the numbers of whole time equivalent staff directly employed by local authority social services departments in the categories requested, I refer the hon. Member to "Local Authority Social Services Statistics: Staff of Local Authority Social Services Departments", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Psychiatric Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for hospital psychiatric services the number of beds available and patient activity per 1,000 population for 1992–93.

  Mr. Bowls
  In the year ending 31 March 1993, there was an average of 47,294 beds available for use in wards caring for mentally ill patients, providing 1·0 beds per thousand population. The number of patients treated as ordinary admissions and day cases in these wards during 1992–93 was 234,000 representing 4·8 patients per thousand population. These figures are exclusive of beds available in other residential facilities.

  Community Nurses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for 1992–93 for home community nursing services the number of first contacts by all community nurses by(a) the age group and (b) the number of whole-time equivalent community nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  We expect the information requested for the number of first contacts by all community nurses by age group for 1992–93 to be available in April 1994. The data on the number of whole time equivalent community nurses will be available in the summer of 1994.

  Zemaphyte
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether zemaphyte may be privately prescribed to NHS patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  "Zemaphyte" Chinese herbal eczema remedy was added to the list of drugs and other substances which cannot be prescribed on national health service prescription from 1 November 1993. Zemaphyte may be prescribed on a private prescription by a general practitioner. The costs of dispensing a private prescription would have to be met by the patient.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each local authority for each year since 1987 for community homes for children and young persons in care the number of(a) child care staff, (b) teachers and instructors and (c) other staff.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have arranged for information on community homes for children and young persons in care for 1988 to be placed in the Library.

  Occupational Health Service
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which regional health authorities and district health authorities, and which district general hospitals and NHS trusts, have their own occupational health service for their own staff.

  (2) how many NHS staff, and what percentage of NHS staff, in each region, have access to an occupational health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the conclusions of the research to establish the infective dose of cryptosporidium.

  Mr. Sackville
  Studies in animals referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend on 2 July at columns 647-48, have now been completed. They have failed to establish the infective dose of cryptosporidium. Further studies are being carried out in the United States of America but will take at least two years to produce any results.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice and guidance her Department gives to medical officers and environmental health officers regarding the issue of notices to water suppliers requiring them to advise customers to boil drinking water which contains low levels of cryptosporidium oocyst contamination.

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice to boil water is given to protect public health. This is the responsibility of district health authorities and is issued by their consultants in communicable disease control.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments are contained within NHS hospitals in England.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in the form requested. Data are collected for national health service trusts and directly managed hospitals with accident and emergency departments. An NHS trust comprising two or more hospitals, each with its own accident and emergency service, is recorded as having one accident and emergency department.

  On this basis, in 1991–92, there were a total of 238 NHS trusts and directly managed hospitals with accident and emergency departments.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments in NHS hospitals in England have been closed in the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Workplace Health
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the membership, and what are the terms of reference, of the task force established to examine activity on health promotion in the workplace.

  Mr. Sackville
  The task force's membership was as follows:

  Mr. T. M. Hogg (Chairman)—Director of Production Control for Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd.

  Mr. T. Astill—Group Director, National Pharmaceutical Association.

  Dr. M. Baxendine—Director of Medical Services, United Biscuits.

  Dr. P. Davies—Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. J. Cridland—Director, Environmental Affairs, CBI.

  Miss S. Dymott—Head of Occupational Health Nursing Services, Esso.

  Ms S. Gooch—Chair of National Standing Committee on Health and Social Policy, Royal College of Nursing.

  575

  Ms J. Greenoak—Director, Health Education Authority.

  Dr. D. Miller—Consultant Occupational Physician.

  Dr. M. O'Brien—President of Faculty of Public Health Medicine.

  Mrs. R. Pengelly—Federation of Small Businesses.

  Ms I. Sharp—Director, National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention.

  Ms S. Veale—Assistant Secretary, Equality and Social Policy TUC

  Dr. D. Wright—Chief Medical Officer, British Petroleum plc and

  Dean of the Faculty of Occupational Health Medicine.

  The Departments of Health and Employment were represented. Dr. R. Smith, chairman of the Wellness Forum, participated as an observer.

  The task force's terms of reference were:
  "To review and assess past and current workplace activity and to advise on the development of health promotion in the workplace covering the five key areas of 'The Health of the Nation' White Paper, including health promotion campaigns and materials which can be used in the workplace, to provide regular reports to the Wider Health Working Group, including good practice, gaps in provision, and matters requiring attention."

  The task force reported to the wider health working group in September, and copies of its report are available in the library. As recommended, a small steering group is being convened to take forward further work in this area.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list in rank order the district health authorities which are currently running at(a) a deficit and (b) a surplus.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is collected only by regional health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the regional health authorities for details.

  Hospital Parking
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she intends to issue to hospitals on charging(a) visitors and patients and (b) staff, for parking within hospital grounds.

  Mr. Sackville
  The question of charging for parking within hospitals grounds is for local determination in the light of local circumstances. We have no plans to issue guidance.

  Royal Sussex County Hospital
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the review which enabled the Brighton health commissioners to determine a zero growth rate in health care demands for the Royal Sussex county hospital when redevelopment is completed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The allocation of funds to East Sussex health authority is a matter for South East Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Barker, chairman of the regional health authority for details.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide current staffing figures for the Brighton Health Care NHS trust and projected staffing figures at the Royal Sussex County hospital when reconstruction is complete.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Brighton health care national health service trust currently employs approximately 4,500 staff. Future employment plans at the trust is a matter for the board, the chairman of which is Mr. John Spiers.
  576
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what part the planned expansion of the Nuffield Sussex trust hospital has played in the revision of bed space demands at the Royal Sussex county hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  The planned provision of health services from the Royal Sussex county hospital is a matter for Brighton health care national health service trust and East Sussex health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Spiers, chairman of the trust for details.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide details of the present pattern of bed usage within the Brighton health care NHS trust and the proposed pattern of use when the reconstruction of the Royal Sussex county hospital is complete.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount raised from all charges on NHS dental services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1992–93 patient charge income from the general dental services was £394·8 million, net of refunds to patients. Information is not available centrally on the small amount of income raised by the limited range of patient charges applicable in the community and hospital dental services.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much would be raised if the amount paid for a course of NHS dental treatment by a patient not exempt from charges was raised from 80 per cent. of the cost of treatment to(a) 85 per cent., (b) 90 per cent., (c) 95 per cent. and (d) 100 per cent.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Each additional 5 per cent. increase in the rate of the proportional charge would raise between £20 million and £25 million. This estimate is made on the assumption that there is no change in the demand for or supply of dental treatment under the general dental services.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the total annual saving to the Exchequer of removing the exemption for pregnant women and nursing mothers from dental examination and treatment charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Some £23 million in 1992–93.

  Abortions
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women having terminations of pregnancies in non-NHS hospitals were charged for the procedure in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the average charge levied.

  Mr. Sackville
  Of the total 179,522 abortions in 1991, 84,442—47 per cent—were carried out under the national health service, either directly in NHS hospitals or under arrangements between certain NHS authorities and the private sector. A total of 95,080 were performed on a private fee paying basis.

  Information on fees charged by private clinics is supplied to the Department on an in confidence basis. The hon. Member may wish to approach individual approved places direct about the level of their fees.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for each year since 1988 the change in numbers of items prescribed resulting from changes to the limited list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total number of prescriptions dispensed in each of the years from 1988 is shown in the table. It is not possible to isolate the effect of the selected list scheme from the other factors which have an influence on the number of national health service prescriptions dispensed each year.

  Number of prescriptions—England

  Year

  Number (million)

  1988

  375·5

  1989

  383·5

  1990

  394·8

  11991

  413·9

  21991

  406·5

  1992

  425·1

  1 1988 to 1991 (a) are based on fees. They cover prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and personal administration.

  2 1991 (b) to 1992 data are from the new prescription cost analysis system based on items and have the same coverage as above.

  Health Service Reform
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role was played by the Royal College of Nursing and other royal colleges in establishing the clinical standards advisory group; and what assessment he has made of the contribution of this group to the debate on health service reform.

  Mr. Sackville
  The medical and nursing royal colleges were consulted on and fully supported the establishment of the clinical standards advisory group—CSAG—in 1991. All of the group's appointed members are nominated by the medical and nursing royal colleges in the manner prescribed by the CSAG Regulations (1991 No. 578). The group's first reports, on access to and availability of specialist services published in July, copies of which are available in the Library, made a positive and constructive contribution to discussions on how best to maintain and raise standards of clinical care for national health service patients. The group has just submitted its second report, on services for people with diabetes, which the United Kingdom Health Ministers will consider carefully and publish with their response early next year.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the latest estimated figures of her Department for the numbers of children involved in child prostitution;

  (2) what measures are being taken by her Department to deal with the problems of child prostitution.

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department does not have central figures to estimate the numbers of children involved in child prostitution. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department collects figures on the number of children cautioned or proceeded against for soliciting offences.578
  Local authorities social services have a duty under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to investigate where they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering from or is likely to suffer significant harm and this would include information received suggesting a child may need protection from child prostitution. The Government's guidance, "Working Together", emphasises that the investigative process should involve gathering information from other key professionals and liaising with other investigating agencies such as the police. Any action taken to protect the child should be taken in collaboration with all the other agencies involved.

  Royal Free Hospital
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to make a decision about the future of the renal transplant unit at the Royal Free hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government are taking the important advice of the specialty reviews into account in their review of hospital services in London.

  The issues are complex but it is our intention to make some initial announcements shortly.

  Surgery Costs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of NHS procedures for(a) total hip replacement, (b) total knee replacement, (c) coronary artery bypass grafting, (d) mitral-aortic valve replacement, (e) hernia repair, (f) stripping of varicose veins, (g) hysterectomy, (h) tonsillectomy, (i) cataract extraction and lens implant, (j) knee replacement, (k) heart transplant, (l) heart/lung transplant and (m) surgery for an enlarged prostate.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table. All estimates of average cost are at 1991–92 prices and inclusive of an allowance for capital charges. Estimates are not available for total knee replacement, stripping of varicose veins, knee replacement, heart/lung transplant and surgery for an enlarged prostate.

  NHS procedure

  Estimated average cost in £s (1991–92 prices)

  Total hip replacement

  3,810

  Coronary artery bypass grafting

  5,870

  Heart valve replacement

  8,800

  Inguinal hernia

  1,140

  Hysterectomy

  2,050

  Tonsillectomy

  590

  Cataract extraction

  1,230

  Heart transplant

  26,400

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners in England received gross payments in excess of £200,000 in each year since 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether travel expenses for employees of national health service trusts, incurred through attending training sessions, should be paid by the employing trust.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the employing trust.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total accumulated receipts of the NHS trusts that have achieved a 6 per cent. return on assets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts do not have accumulated receipts. They do, however, have accumulated reserves which represent the surpluses retained in the trusts after interest and dividends. The total net accumulated income and expenditure reserves of all NHS trusts at 31 March 1993 was £134,510,000.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what connections the outgoing chairman of the Royal Cornwall hospital trust had with any political party;

  (2) what are the party political affiliations of chairs of trusts and regional health authorities and district health authorities at present.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We do not seek details on political affiliation. People are appointed for their personal qualities, and for the skills they bring to the leadership and strategic direction of the national health service.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to dismiss the chairman and chief executives of(a) health authorities and (b) NHS trusts whose authorities fail regularly to meet the standards of the patients charter.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  We expect the corporate governance task force to set out new definitions of the functions of chairmen and non-executive directors and it will be against these definitions that their performance will be judged. The performance of chief executives of national health service authorities and trusts is a matter for the chairman and non-executive directors working together.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the salary of the chairman of the Royal Cornwall hospital trust.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The remuneration of the chairman of the Royal Cornwall hospital trust is £19,285 per year.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the grounds for not renewing the contract from 30 November of the chairman of the Royal Cornwall hospital trust; when he was informed that his contract would not be renewed; and on what basis he was appointed as chairman of the trust two years ago.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chairman of the Royal Cornwall hospital trust was appointed for a two year term of office which expired on 30 November 1993.

  In considering whether to offer a further term, we sought advice from the national health service management executive outpost director and the regional health authority chairman. We decided, after very careful consideration of a variety of factors which govern these matters, that a change in the leadership of the trust was necessary.
  580
  I wrote to the chairman of the Royal Cornwall hospital trust on 5 November informing him of my decision.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the current official listed business addresses of each(a) NHS hospital trust and (b) general practitioner fund holding practice within (i) the Trent regional health authority and (ii) Yorkshire regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A list of addresses of national health service trusts in Trent and Yorkshire regions will be placed in the Library. The information on general practitioner fundholding practices is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle and Sir Bryan Askew, the chairmen of the Trent and Yorkshire regional health authorities for details.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ask all existing chairmen and non-executive directors of health authorities and NHS trusts if they would be willing to continue in office without payment other than loss of earnings and expenses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reasons were given for the chief executive of the Royal Cornwall hospital trust leaving in February 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the board chairman and non-executive directors of the Royal Cornwall hospital trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Williams, vice chairman of the trust and acting chairman, for details.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue advice to NHS trusts to prevent trusts seeking contracts by offering faster treatment for patients covered by these contracts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance has already been issued jointly by the Department and the Joint Consultants Committee which clearly states that provider units should not offer contracts to one purchaser which would disadvantage the patients of another purchaser.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if Sir James Ackers(a) resigned, (b) was asked to resign or (c) was dismissed from the chairmanship of West Midlands regional health authority;

  (2) what were her reasons for paying Sir James Ackers £10,000 under paragraph 9(3) of schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act 1977.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir James Ackers resigned from the position of chairman of West Midlands regional health authority on 8 January 1993.

  The decision to offer a compensation payment took account of the fact that Sir James Ackers resigned from the position of chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority 18 months before his term of office was due to expire; and that in his 10 years of service considerable progress was made, particularly in carrying out many major hospital developments; waiting lists had fallen dramatically and a record number of patients had been treated.

  Ambulances
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients were recorded as dead on arrival by each ambulance trust in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many patients were recorded as dead on arrival by ambulance by region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Bomb-proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Mr. Sackville
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  Referrals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to hold centrally records in respect of(a) regional health authorities and (b) district health authorities on the number of extra-contractual referrals that they have refused; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans to collect this information centrally.

  Cancer
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of male and female adult cancer patients have been included in clinical treatment trials in the NHS in the last available year;

  (2) if she will give the percentage of male and female child cancer patients who have been included in clinical treatment trials in the NHS in the last available year.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Coronary Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were turned away from coronary care units, in the last recorded year, through lack of space.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Any hospital that takes acute admissions will have coronary care facilities, and if a patient needing those facilities cannot be accommodated in a coronary care unit for any reason they will normally be accommodated in an acute medical ward where they will receive the same treatment and care as they would in a coronary care unit.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many coronary care unit beds there were in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not routinely collected centrally. Figures based on the latest information available indicated that in 1991 there were at least 879 coronary care beds and 356 high dependency beds in England.

  GPs (Night Visits)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current fee payable to a general practitioner when making a night visit between the hours of 10 pm and 8 am.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The higher night visit fee, payable where a visit is made by the patient's own general practitioner, a GP from the patient's practice, or by a GP from a small rota of not more than 10 GPs, is £46·65; the lower night visit fee, payable for all other visits, is £15·55.

  Smoking
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the effect on the level of cigarette consumption of the price of cigarettes.

  Mr. Sackville
  Increases in price have been shown to decrease consumption, though by a proportionately smaller amount. A 10 per cent. increase in price, for example, would be expected to lead to a reduction in consumption in the range of 3 per cent. to 6 per cent.

  General Practitioner Fundholders
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has given to regions concerning their plans for the funding allocations for general practitioner fundholders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance on setting general practitioner fundholder budgets is given in EL(93)93, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with North West Thames regional health authority over its proposed adjustment to the funding allocation for fundholding general practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All regional health authorities set general practitioner fund-holder budgets within the framework set out in EL(93)93, which requires them to take account of significant local factors. Copies of EL(93)93 are available in the Library.

  Private Ambulance Operators
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue a code of practice for private ambulance operators.

  Mr. Sackville
  A code of practice for private ambulance operators has been published today. Copies will be placed in the Library. The code sets out minimum standards in a range of important operational areas including staff selection and training, vehicles, equipment and telecommunications. It will provide valuable guidance for purchasers in judging the quality of potential providers against the high standards set by national health service ambulance services, as well as giving private providers clear indicators of the standard of service acceptable to the national health service.

  National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish a task force of senior civil servants to consider the workings of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  No.

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per day for each patient in(a) health authority-run hospitals and (b) national health service trust hospitals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost per day for each patient in directy managed units and national health service trust hospitals in 1991–92 was £149·87 and £168·89 respectively. The figures are based on patients using a bed and include day cases. Direct comparisons are not meaningful since a large proportion of first wave trust hospitals were acute units whose costs would be greater than directly managed units with long-stay facilities.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to public funds of each person of pensionable age cared for in(a) a NHS hospital, (b) a registered nursing home and (c) a registered residential care home; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information relating to the costs of hospital care is not available by age group. Information concerning financial support for residents who entered registered nursing and residential care homes prior to April 1993 is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. No information is as yet available centrally on the situation since April 1993 under the new community care arrangements.

  Asthma (Pollution)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Government's assessment of the relationship between air pollution and asthma.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is advised on the effects on health of air pollutants by two independent expert committees, the Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes—MAAPE—and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants—COMEAP. Asthma is an ill-understood disease. The role of the interactions of genetic and environmental factors, such as exposure to vehicle exhaust emissions and allergens, in triggering off asthma attacks remains unclear. Earlier this year, therefore, a sub-group of COMEAP was established, specifically to advise on the link between exposure to air pollutants and asthma. The first meeting of this sub-group took place in June. A report of its findings will be published and placed in the Library.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were recorded with a reference to hypothermia in each year since 1985.
  584
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths with hypothermia as the underlying cause of death and with any mention of hypothermia on the death certificate, England and Wales, 1985–1992

  Underlying cause

  Mentions

  1985

  440

  827

  1986

  437

  837

  1987

  269

  559

  1988

  194

  440

  1989

  166

  372

  1990

  152

  368

  1991

  249

  534

  1992

  149

  362

  Note:

  Neonatal deaths for 1986 to 1992 are included in the mentions but not in the underlying cause of death (neonatal deaths were not given an underlying cause of death from 1 January 1986 onwards).

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she has undertaken to establish the impact of unemployment on health.

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of recent research are included in the Office of Health Economics briefing number 29 published in July 1993, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Suicides
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of adult suicides in 1992; and how many of these were unemployed.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of people who have committed suicide and who were unemployed is not available centrally. At death registration informants are asked for last occupation rather than employment status of the deceased.

  The table shows adult suicide deaths—ICD1 E950-E959—by sex for England and Wales for 1992.

  Data for 1992 are provisional.

  1992

  18+

  Males

  3,026

  Females

  895

  1 International Classification of Disease code ninth revision.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Products
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of places on the Codex Alimentarius Commission are currently occupied by representatives of commercial companies operating businesses related to the supply, processing and sale of agricultural products and derivatives; and what measures are proposed to limit the influence of companies operating businesses related to the supply, processing and sales of agricultural products and derivatives on the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

  Mr. Soames
  The Codex Alimentarius is an inter-governmental body and thus the decisions reached
  585
  are those reached by Governments. Generally speaking, official representation at meetings is thus by Government officials. There are, however, no rules on the composition of delegations from countries. Normally trade and consumer representatives are present at Codex meetings either as advisers in national delegations, at the invitation of the Government concerned, or as observers representing international trade or consumer organisations that have been recognised by Codex.

  I see no need to limit the influence of trade, or consumer representation on matters considered at Codex meetings.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are proposed to ensure an increased representation by independent consumer, environment and public health representatives at full meetings of the Codex Alimentarius Commission; and if she will list those matters which are currently directly determined by(a) the Government of the United Kingdom and (b) the official institutions of the European Union which will no longer be determined by these institutions under the terms of the sanitary and hypto-sanitary measures in the current draft of the GATT agreement.

  Mr. Soames
  Representation at Codex meetings by independent consumer, environment and public health representatives is already possible, at their own expense, and I know of no measures intended to increase this.

  The GATT agreement will bring with it a subsidiary agreement—the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—whereby the standards agreed by Codex will be regarded as the international norm in cases of trade disputes that come forward for adjudication under GATT dispute settlement procedures. Nevertheless, individual countries, and the European Union, would still be free to set their own standards. In the event of a trade dispute, countries imposing more rigorous standards would have to demonstrate that they were justified scientifically.

  Association of Drainage Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether her Department's officials who attended the annual conference of the Association of Drainage Authorities on 10 November will pass on the information they gained to the Department of the Environment; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  There is no need to do so as the matters raised at the annual conference come within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the current designated disposal sites for sewage sludge dumping off the Yorkshire coast; how often these sites are reviewed; and if a map showing these sites can be(a) placed in the Library and (b) sent to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Jack
  The designated site off the Yorkshire coast for the dumping of sewage sludge is some 12 miles east of Spurn Head in an area bounded by the co-ordinates:

  53°

  35·00' N

  0°

  30·00' E

  53°

  35·00' N

  0°

  35·00' E

  53°

  30·00' N

  0°

  35·35' E

  53°

  30·00' N

  0°

  30·00' E

  586
  The site is located in deep water and its suitability for sewage sludge disposal is kept under continuous review in the light of the results of the regular monitoring programme. The monitoring results are published in the Ministry's aquatic environment monitoring report series. In March 1990 the Government announced that the disposal of sewage sludge at sea would cease at the end of 1998.

  I have arranged for a chart showing the location of the disposal site to be placed in the Library and for a copy of this chart and the fourth report of the Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group's Co-ordinating Group on Monitoring of Sewage Sludge Disposal Sites to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Bomb Proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Mr. Jack
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many visits abroad she has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Jack
  During 1993, the Minister and her predecessor made a total of 19 visits abroad. Their total travel and hotel costs amount to £24,758. Eleven visits were to EC Councils of Ministers; the remaining eight were in support of bilateral relations and trade promotion.

  Cattle Imports
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she is taking to ensure the maintenance of the highest health controls on the importation of cattle from abroad; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry is taking a number of measures designed to help prevent the introduction and spread of disease by imported cattle:

  we have instigated 24-hour periods of blanket surveillance at all south and east coast ports which cover exports as well as imports;

  we are targeting consignments where there is a particular animal health disease risk with up to 100 per cent. checks;

  we gave stepped up checks at points of destination to between 50 and 60 per cent. on average.

  Where concerns have been greatest the following measures have been taken:

  following imports earlier this year of warbled cattle from France we have introduced a 100 per cent. check on all imported cattle from France. Diseased animals will be re-exported at the owner's expense;

  following imports last year of foot and mouth disease sero-positive cattle from eastern Europe, the European Community has not instituted a pre-export testing requirement on all cattle originating from eastern Europe; as an additional safeguard we are conducting 100 per cent. testing of all cattle imported from these countries;
  587
  it is possible but not yet proven that the recent outbreak of brucellosis in Wales was associated with an imported animal. Our investigations are continuing. In the meantime, we are stepping up our checking at destination on cattle from France and the Netherlands.

  We are taking other steps which should cut down the risk of importing diseases in the future.

  we raise with the member states concerned and the Commission disease problems on each occasion they arise. We also monitor very closely the Commission's role in enforcing proper implementation of Community animal health rules in other member states;

  we are urging the Community to harmonise standards of veterinary certification based on the principles drawn up by the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe and in particular that vets should certify only where they have personal knowledge of the relevant facts.

  Dumping at Sea
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps she envisages to tackle nuclear waste dumping at sea arising out of the London convention meeting in November of the International Maritime Organisation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The consultative meeting of the London convention held on 8-12 November agreed to introduce a ban on the disposal of radioactive waste at sea. The United Kingdom abstained from the vote. We are currently considering the implications of the convention's decision on this matter, but we have no immediate plans to carry out sea dumping of radioactive waste.

  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements she has for obtaining independent expert advice on the safety of animal feedingstuffs.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have been giving further thought to the present arrangements following the recommendation last year from the expert group on animal feedingstuffs for a standing advisory committee to have an overview of feedingstuffs safety issues.

  Existing committees—the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee, the advisory committee on the microbiological safety of food, and the veterinary products committee—are clearly well equipped to advise on major aspects of the subject. Beyond this, however, there is a need, identified by the expert group, to consider new developments concerning feed materials, manufacturing processes and feeding practices insofar as these might pose risks for human and animal health.

  We have concluded that the best way of ensuring that new developments in these fields are properly assessed will be for the responsible Departments to hold regular reviews to identify any matters that may require an independent appraisal and then to obtain whatever specialist advice is needed to evaluate the specific isue. Flexible arrangements on these lines will bring the most relevant expertise to bear in the least burdensome way.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received on the subject of the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the National Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Ulster Farmers Union on 26 October to discuss economic conditions in the hills and uplands. Ministry officials have also had meetings with these bodies, the Farmers Union of Wales and the Country Landowners Association. In addition, my right hon. Friend and I have had correspondence with a number of hon. Members representing hill farming constituencies.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what published scientific information is available concerning natural scrapie in Suffolk sheep.

  Mr. Soames
  I shall write to the hon. Member with a list of the information.

  Offals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why specified offals excluded from the food chain in 1989 did not include bone marrow, liver and kidney.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 1 November at column 34.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list, for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire(a) its name and (b) its area in hectares; and whether she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire:

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Derbyshire

  3,339

  Leicestershire

  669

  Lincolnshire

  5,627

  Northamptonshire

  4,090

  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  The more detailed information requested on the individual areas is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fishiers and Food what is the most recent advise she has received from the Veterinary Products Committee on the continued use of organophosphorous sheep dips.
  589
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The VPC has carefully and thoroughly examined all issues surrounding the use of OP dips. It has found that there is no evidence to support either a ban or suspension on the use of OP dips when used correctly. Nevertheless the Government and the VPC have to treat with the utmost seriousness any suggestion of potential harm to human health. We are therefore taking clear and positive steps, in a carefully planned and organised way, to restrict their availability. A useful analogy to our approach is that used with regard to pesticides.

  The Veterinary Products Committee gave further considertion to the future licensing of organophosphorous sheep dip products at its meeting on 21 October 1993 and confirmed its report at its meeting on 25 November.

  Organophosphorous sheep dips are highly effective weapons in our fight to ensure that the United Kingdom's 40 million sheep are properly protected from harmful disease, and I welcome the Veterinary Products Committee's clear advice following their meetings that the marketing of these dips can continue. Over the last eight years, there have been 529 cases of reported human ill health associated with sheep dip exposure. The Committee found that in the majority of cases where information was available the full recommended protective clothing had not been worn or properly used.

  The number of reported adverse reactions must be seen in the context of over a million occasions when flocks—involving hundreds of millions of sheep—were dipped during that eight-year period. I am disappointed that, notwithstanding the publicity drive we have carried out since the Committee's report in April, many sheep dippers are still failing to take the necessary precaustions. The Committee has therefore recommended the introduction of a new certificate of competence, which would mean in future that only dippers who hold such certificates would be allowed to buy these dips.

  The Government fully support this proposal. We have already begun discussions with the National Proficiency Test Council and the Agricultural Training Board about arrangements to bring in a statutory certification scheme before the next dipping season. We will be consulting interested parties shortly about plans to require dippers wishing to buy OP sheep dips to have enrolled for the NPTC certificate by 1 April 1994, and to have obtained certificates by 1 April 1995. Meanwhile, the training that would be required to obtain a certificate will be available on a voluntary basis at NPTC—approved courses from early January 1994 onwards.

  I have also agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that a panel of medical and scientific experts should be set up, as a sub-committee of the Veterinary Products Committee, to address the question of co-ordinating research into reports of long term health effects aising from exposure. Terms of reference and composition of the panel are currently being drawn up, and a further announcement giving full details will be made shortly.

  The Government will also be undertaking a review to ensure that sheep dips are disposed of safely.

  I am very grateful to Professor Armour for the care and depth with which he and his Committee has considered the issues and all the information put to it, and for its clear advice.

  The report setting out the Veterinary Products Committee's recommendations to the Licensing Authority
  590
  (Agriculture and Health Ministers), and the measures through which the Government intend to implement them, is today beikng placed in the Library of the House.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of employees, by grade, in the Intervention Board executive agency; how many at each grade are women; what steps the Intervention Board Executive Agency has taken to implement the programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity for women in the civil service, announced by the Minister for the Civil Service in 1992; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the action plan drawn up by the Intervention Board for implementing the programme in that agency.

  Mrs. Shephard
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the Intervention Board executive agency and I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of employees, by grade, in the Intervention Board executive agency; how many at each grade are of ethnic minority origin; what steps the Intervention Board executive agency has taken to implement the programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity for people of ethnic minority origin, announced by the Minister for the Civil Service on 22 May 1990; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the action plan drawn up by the intervention board for implementing the programme in that agency.

  Mrs. Shephard
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the Intervention Board executive agency and I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from G. Stapleton to Mr. Frank Field, dated 1 December 1993:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to the Parliamentary Questions on the Equal Opportunities Programmes for Action which appeared under your name on the Notice of Questions given on 23 November. The information you requested is set out below and in the enclosed annexes, together with explanations of the general background.

  Women in the Civil Service
  Enclosed at Annex I is a list of the total number of employees in the Agency, by grade, showing separately the number of women in each grade. Following the introduction of the Programme for Action in 1992 the Agency drew up its Action Plan, a copy of which is at Annex II. We are fully committed to equal opportunities with the aim of implementing those recommendations within the Programme for Action which are Applicable to the agency.
  The Intervention Board has a policy on flexible working patterns which includes staff who work part-time but only during school term time, as well as the more usual part-time arrangements which apply throughout the year. Currently about 15% of the staff of the Agency are part-time employees. There are also some examples of job sharing within the Agency and the arrangements are being examined to identify other posts to which this flexibility could apply. Career breaks are granted to staff in appropriate circumstances to meet their domestic commitments and proposals have been put to our Trade Union Side to formalise this scheme. The Agency has agreed to take the lead on Child Care on the co-ordinating body for Civil Service departments and agencies within the Reading area and is liaising with the Thames Valley Training and Enterprise Council in order to provide a child

  591
  care information service. For the 1993 summer holiday, places were offered for the children of staff on a local play scheme. Opportunities for the provision of future schemes is being examined.
  Recruitment and promotion boards wherever possible include at least one woman member and the Agency's Equal Opportunities Policy is publicised to job applicants and staff. Sexual Harassment Contact Officers have received specialist training and are available to counsel staff. The Agency's training strategy takes account of the needs of women and includes courses directed specifically towards women. In-house training courses have also been re-organised on a flexible basis to suit the needs of part-time members of staff.
  It is encouraging to see that the proportion of women in the management grades has steadily increased in recent years; at Executive Officer level women now represent just under 50% of the grade total; at Higher Executive Officer level women account for just under 40%; and at Senior Executive Officer level just over 20%. If this trend continues, as we are confident it will with the assistance of our Equal Opportunities Policy, it augurs well for the achievement of the Agency's aims. However, more needs to be done and the Agency team dealing with Equal Opportunities Policy is being strengthened.

  Ethnic Minority Issues in the Civil Service
  Attached at Annex III is a list containing the total number of employees by grade with an estimation of those of ethnic minority origin. The details given in Annex III were obtained from an exercise undertaken solely for the purpose of this reply. However, dicussions have been under way over the last 2-3 months with the local Trades Union Side on the details of an ethnic monitoring survey of all staff in the Agency. This survey will be underpinned by a Code of Practice governing access to the data and its confidentiality.
  Since the Programme for Action for People of Ethnic Minority Origin was announced in 1990 steps have been taken to ensure that all staff are aware of the Agency's commitment to equality of opportunity. Managers in particular are made aware of the requirement to operate equal opportunities in such matters as staff reporting and promotion, and of their responsibilities to develop all staff. All training avoids the use of racial stereotypes. Once the Code of Practice has been agreed and the questionnaires issued and returned we will be able to monitor more closely the effectiveness of the Agency's commitment to the Programme of Action including the publication of its Action Plan on race which is currently under preparation.
  Since the publication of the Programme for Action the Agency has not had any grievance raised concerning discrimination or harassment on the grounds of race and has aimed to ensure that all personnel policies seek to prevent discrimination on these grounds. The publication of the Agency's Departmental Action Plan will help to reinforce these policies and we are confident that they will improve the Ethnic Minority representation more widely throughout the Agency's management grades. The strengthening of the Agency's Equal Opportunities team will enable the Agency to press ahead with the implementation of the Departmental Action Plan.

  Annex I

  Total number of employees within the agency as at 31 October 1993 indicating number of women by grade

  Grade

  Grade Total1

  Number of women by grade1

  3

  1

  —

  5

  5

  —

  6

  4

  —

  7

  21

  1

  SEO

  48

  10

  HEO

  116

  45

  EO

  207

  100

  AO

  453

  302

  AA

  112

  71

  SGB1

  9

  6

  SGB2

  26

  12

  SUTLX

  1

  1

  SPTLX

  5

  3

  CTM

  1

  1

  TM

  2

  2

  592

  Grade

  Grade Total1

  Number of women by grade1

  TYP

  22

  22

  PS

  14

  14

  ADAS1

  1

  —

  ADAS2

  1

  —

  Total

  1,049

  590

  1 Includes permanent and casual employees.

  ANNEX II

  Intervention Board—Executive Agency:

  1993 Departmental Action Plan for Women

  Introduction

  1. The Intervention Board is a medium size Agency, firmly committed to a strong, sound policy of equal opportunity for women, covering current staff, potential recruits and future employees.

  2. The Agency's basic aim is to operate the Common Agricultural Policy Guarantee Section within the United Kingdom, as efficiently and effectively as possible in accordance with policies laid down by Agriculture Ministers.

  3. The Agency has no responsibility for public appointments and the activities, other than direct appointment of staff, do not offer the opportunity of influencing women's issues. The activities set out in this plan therefore relate solely to the employment of women by the Agency and their career development.

  Issues for Women

  4. The Agency's approach is based on central guide-lines issued by the Cabinet Office's (OPSS) 'A Programme for Action to Achieve Equality of Opportunity for Women in the Civil Service', (first introduced in 1984 and revised in 1992).

  5. The Agency has reviewed its progress in meeting aims of the 1984 programme and has now set out challenging but achievable targets for future years in line with the methodology suggested by the Opportunity 2000 Campaign which is supported by the OPSS and the revised directions issued in March 1992. The Agency, as with other smaller Government bodies, belongs to the Opportunity 2000 Campaign by virtue of the Cabinet Office "umbrella" subscription.

  6. There is already a well established framework of existing procedures in the Agency, which is being strengthened to demonstrate the Agency's commitment to equal opportunities for women on merit.

  7. Monitoring and, where appropriate, procedures will be strengthened which will:

  (a) seek to attract a greater number of women job applicants;

  (b) ensure that recruiting procedures do not discriminate against women;

  (c) encourage women to enhance their career prospects through appropriate training;

  (d) ensure that all women employees are given opportunities to develop their job and career prospects;

  (e) monitor the annual staff reporting and performance pay awards to ensure that equal opportunity practices are followed for women;

  (f) ensure that there is no discrimination against women at the Agency's promotion boards;

  (g) run pro-active policies to retain women staff and to encourage their return after career breaks.

  8. The Agency has established within the framework of these main commitments, individual targets to achieve further progress for the Agency's women staff. Some of the targets are short term to be achieved within 6 to 12 months, others intermediate within 2 to 5 years, and the balance within 5 to 8 years.

  9. The Agency is headed by a Chief Executive at Grade 3. There is currently a balance of women in posts up to and including Executive Officer level which represents the national average of women in the economically active proportion of the population. Although there is no woman officer above Grade 7 level, we have already enhanced the numbers in our middle management grades and intend to improve the balance by grade profile in future years subject to individuals' merit.

  593

  10. The computer Personnel Project, currently being developed, will, when in place, enhance monitoring and the availability of statistics on a gender basis.

  11. The Agency has for several years, pioneered and operated schemes for part time working including permanent term time only posts, with varied and flexible working patterns, including job sharing. These have enabled women staff to return to work despite family commitments as well as new staff to be attracted to its employ.

  12. Some women in the Agency have already taken advantage of the 'Women Only' training courses run by the Civil Service College, and the Industrial Society.

  13. A policy statement and complaints procedure for Sexual Harassment, was published in February 1990 and is currently being updated. A female Sexual Harassment Officer for women is already in place and a male counterpart will be appointed shortly.

  14. Wherever possible internal promotion and external recruitment boards have suitably qualified women represented.

  Priorities for action

  15. Although the Agency has a very good record as an employer of women, it considers that there is still more to achieve, in particular, in their representation at middle and senior management grades. Its intentions to meet this and other commitments are set out in the following priorities to be met by 31 March 1993:

  (a) to endorse the equal opportunities statement in all recruitment advertisements;

  (b) to set up more effect gender monitoring on recruitment;

  (c) to improve gender monitoring statistics on training (and career progression);

  16. The following have been identified as priorities to be met by 30 June 1993:

  (a) to agree a training strategy for women to enhance their career prospects;

  (b) to decide on a possible biennial conference for women in the Agency;

  (c) to agree procedures for monitoring Staff Reporting overall assessments by gender;

  (d) to implement a Career Break Scheme;

  (e) to take a decision on whether child care facilities can be provided.

  17. The Agency has continuing commitments:

  (a) to review separate internal training schemes for part-time and term-time staff where appropriate and to enhance the availability generally of all training in the Agency for these staff;

  (b) to promote, where appropriate, "positive action" training for women only on both internal and external courses;

  (c) to establish career progression statistics by gender;

  (d) to keep under consideration with its line managers all posts that may prove suitable for varied work patterns;

  (e) to ensure that its "in house" magazines encourage articles and features from women.

  Review and publication of results

  18. Progress toward the set targets on equal opportunities will be continuously monitored, and existing procedures will be reviewed and updated. The staff will be notified by means of Office Notices.

  21 December 1992.

  Annex III

  Total number of employees within the agency as at 31 October 1993 with estimated number of ethnic minority staff by grade

  Grade

  Grade total1

  Estimated number of ethnic minority staffby grade1

  3

  1

  —

  5

  5

  —

  6

  4

  —

  7

  21

  —

  SEO

  48

  —

  HEO

  116

  1

  EO

  207

  6

  AO

  453

  43

  594

  Grade

  Grade total1

  Estimated number of ethnic minority staff by grade1

  AA

  112

  14

  SGB1

  9

  1

  SGB2

  26

  1

  SUTLX

  1

  —

  SPTLX

  5

  —

  CTM

  1

  —

  TM

  2

  —

  TYP

  22

  2

  PS

  14

  1

  ADASI

  1

  —

  ADAS2

  1

  —

  ——

  ——

  Total

  1,049

  69

  1Includes both permanent and casual employees.

  Bananas
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what consultation she has had with the chairman of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce in relation to the issuing of banana import licences in the present year; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what consultation she has had with representatives of the banana importing trade in relation to potential conflict of interest between the functions of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce in issuing licences for import of bananas and the position of the chairman of the board being also chairman and chief executive of Fyffes.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 November 1993]: When the EC banana regime was established, arrangements were put in place to avoid the possibility of any conflict of interest arising from the chairman of the Intervention Board also being chairman and chief executive of Fyffes. The chairman is not, in any case, involved in the day-to-day running of the agency. The board's officials have issued licences to import bananas into the European Community in the present year entirely in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation 404/93 and Commission Regulations 1442/93 and 1443/93 with this in mind, my right hon. Friend has had no need for consultations with the chairman of the board, nor with representatives of the banana importing trade on this matter.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was his original estimate of the number of people who would be in employment as a result of the disability working allowance once the scheme was fully operational; what is the current figure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The original estimate that about 50,000 people might be entitled to DWA was based on surveys of disabled people carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The current case load is 3,176. New
  595
  benefits can, of course, be expected to take a period of years to become established and so the original estimate has not been revised.

  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what special rules for the terminally ill still apply for claimants of disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Special arrangements ensure that people with a limited life expectancy of six months or less are awarded the highest rate of the care component of disability living allowance, or the higher rate of attendance allowance, whether or not they have care needs, and without having to serve a qualifying period. Such claims are handled under special administrative procedures to ensure a speedy response.

  It is also possible for a third party to make a claim on behalf of the terminally ill person, with or without that person's knowledge.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons over the age of 65 years claim both mobility component disability living allowance and care component disability living allowance or mobility component disability living allowance and attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available because the age of the claimant is not recorded unless the claim is successful.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many persons over the age of 65 years are in receipt of attendance allowance or disability living allowance care component;

  (2) how many persons over the age of 80 years are in receipt of attendance allowance or disability living allowance care component;

  (3) how many persons over 65 years receive mobility component disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that on 31 March 1993 there were 929,000 people over the age of 65 getting the care component of disability living allowance or attendance allowance; of these, 507,000 were over 80 years of age. We also estimate that 228,000 people over the age of 65 were getting the mobility component of disability living allowance.

  Note: For attendance allowance the source to determine age is a 1 per cent. sample used to adjust and apportion the AA pay load by age. For disability living allowance the source is a 5 per cent. sample.

  State Earnings-related Pensions Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of SERPS.

  Mr. Hague
  The Government are committed to ensuring that all individuals have the opportunity to make provision for their retirement in addition to the basic state pension. SERPs is one of several options available to people. Some 10 million people are contracted out of SERPs through occupational pension schemes; and an additional 5 million people have chosen to contract out of SERPs through personal pensions. The Government want to encourage personal responsibility in the provision of pensions, and we are considering ways of ensuring that personal pensions remains attractive across the age range.
  596
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals who contracted out of SERPs during the last year for which figures are available had earnings whch when expressed as a fraction of national average earnings were(a) less than 50 per cent., (b) 50 to 99 per cent., (c) 100 to 149 per cent. and (d) 150 per cent. or more.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. Information on the earnings of members of contracted out occupational schemes expressed as a percentage of national average earnings, as at the end of 1991–92, is shown in the table. Such information as is available on the earnings of individuals contracted out of SERPs by virtue of appropriate personal pensions is contained in "Social Security Statistics 1993", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Earnings band

  Number of employees in contracted-out employment (000s)

  Less than 50 per cent. of national average earnings

  360

  Between 50 and 99 per cent. of national average earnings

  2,620

  Between 100 and 149 per cent. of national average earnings

  3,270

  Over 150 per cent. of national average earnings

  3,110

  Notes:

  1. Data derived from Inland Revenue statistics. It relates to the whole of the United Kingdom.

  2. The figures are based on an analysis of a 1 per cent. sample of all end-of-year PAYE returns submitted to the Inland Revenue by employers. Each relates to a single employment.

  3. The definition of national average earnings for this purpose is calculated from the sample using the amount of pay and an estimate of the length of employment covered by each return, and includes both part-time and full-time employment.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security where is the weather station whose recordings trigger payments to the residents of Balmoral and Braemar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  A list of all weather stations and the post-coded areas which they cover is contained in the social fund cold weather payments general regulations, copies of which are in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Child Support Agency will instigate a system of credits so that cross-subsidies from parents are taken fully into account; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The formula which the Child Support Agency uses to assess maintenance contains a protected income provision which takes account of the fact that a parent is supporting stepchildren, and of whether or not maintenance is paid for those children.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what current review the Child Support Agency is undertaking in respect of maintenance payments in clean-break divorces where arrangements have been made by courts; and if he will make a statement.
  597
  Mr. Burt
  Any review of child support policy is a matter for Ministers, not the Child Support Agency. As with any new policy, the improved arrangements for child maintenance are being carefully monitored. If, in the light of experience, the system can be made even better, changes will be considered.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for changing the 21-hour rule; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The 21-hour rule enables unemployed claimants in receipt of income support to follow part-time education and training courses while continuing their search for work. We have no plans to change this rule.

  Absent Fathers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women have been asked to date to name an absent father at benefit offices in the Doncaster area; how many have demurred; how many have had their benefit deducted as a penalty; and if he will show in his answer from what benefit the deduction was made.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. Hepplewhite to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 November 1993:
  I have been asked to reply to your Question to the Secretary of State asking how many women have been asked to name an absent father at benefit offices in the Doncaster area; how many have demurred; how many have had their benefit deducted as a penalty; and the benefit from which deductions were made.
  Between 5 April and 31 October 1993, 137 parents with care of children were interviewed in connection with their applications for child maintenance in the Doncaster area; 4 declined without good cause to co-operate with the Agency in arranging maintenance. As yet no Reduced Benefit Directions have been implemented in the area.

  Fuel Bills
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what help he is proposing to give householders in need in order to meet their fuel bills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on 30 November 1993.

  Rent Allowances
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest figures for the cost of rent allowances in respect of private tenancies.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated expenditure on rent allowances for 1993–94 is £3,254 million.

  Notes: The source of this information is the 1993 departmental report, published in February 1993. A copy of the report is in the Library.

  Funeral Grants
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the inequalities between men and women in the provision of funeral grants.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no such inequality.

  Income Support
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of eligible persons in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland who do not claim income support; what means are being used to improve the take-up rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Take-up figures for income support are not available on a regional or local basis. Estimates for the take-up of income-related benefits for Great Britain were published in January 1993 in "Income Related Benefit Estimates of Take-up for 1989" and showed that 87 per cent. of available income support was being received by 75 per cent. of those eligible to claim it.

  Social security legislation puts the onus of claiming benefit on individuals who may decide, for various reasons, not to take up benefit entitlement. The Department's role is to ensure that people are in a position to make informed choices.

  In this respect, the Benefits Agency are responsible for a wide range of initiatives to increase awareness of entitlement: Exhibitions talks, liaison with citizens advice bureaux, operation of multilingual freelines, participation in local radio phone-ins and now the one-stop initiative.

  Payment Recovery
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies are available to indicate the effect DSS recovery procedures may have on legal settlements of compensation and associated civil actions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I am not aware of any such studies.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current estimate of eligible households in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland which do not take up housing benefit; what means are used in order to improve the take-up rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Take up figures for housing benefit are not available on a regional basis. Estimates of the take up of income related benefits for Great Britain were published in "Income Related Benefit Estimates of Take-up in 1989" in January this year, a copy of which is in the Library. These figures show that 91 per cent. of available housing benefit was being received by 83 per cent. of those eligible to claim.

  Information on housing benefit is available at all benefit agency and unemployment benefit offices, though as responsibility for the administration of housing benefit lies with individual local authorities they are in the best position to undertake local publicity and initiatives to improve local take-up.

WALES

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many visits abroad he has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Redwood
  The previous Secretary of State undertook a visit to Brussels on 1-2 April 1993 for the purpose of inward investment and to attend EC meetings. The total cost of the visit was £983·20. My right hon. Friend also visited Stuttgart on 8-9 May 1993. The purpose of the visit was to perform the opening ceremony of the Wales at Stuttgart Arts Festival and participate. The total cost to the Department was £908·80.

  In September 1993 I undertook an inward investment mission to Hong Kong, Japan and North America. The final cost is expected to be below £30,000 and comes from the WDA budget.

  Felinheli Bypass
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement giving details of the causes of the delay in opening the Felinheli bypass in Gwynedd; what is the additional cost to the Welsh Office arising out of this delay; how much of those costs will be recouped; and what is the new scheduled date for opening the road.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The contract completion date for the Felinheli bypass is July 1994. The contractor is, however, intending to open the bypass before the end of the contract period but accidental damage to the new bridge over the bypass during the movement of heavy earth moving plant has frustrated his attempt to open it before the end of the year. He still expects to open the bypass early next spring, several months ahead of its contract completion date.

  All the repair costs will be borne by the contractor.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what accumulated reserves were held in total and by each TEC in Wales on 1 April 1992 and on 1 April 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The reserves held by each TEC are set out in their annual reports and accounts as at 29 March 1992 and 28 March 1993 and copies of these are held in the Library of the House.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many learning for work places and what budget have been allocated to each TEC in Wales; how many people are currently on learning for work in each area; what monitoring information is collected about learning for work participants and the subsequent destinations they will be entering; how he plans to evaluate the programme; and if he will make a statement about its extension beyond 1994.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of learning for work places contracted with TECs in Wales and the number of participants on the programme as at 29 October are set out in the table. Information about the allocation of budgets by the Welsh Office to individual TECs is commercial in confidence. However, the total budget available for learning for work in Wales is £3·887 million.
  600
  Information is being collected about starts, participants and qualifications, and take up by gender and disability.

  Destinations of leavers will be obtained through follow-up questionnaires. The programme will be evaluated in the costs and benefits compared to other programmes.

  The learning for work programme is scheduled to run until August 1994 and its future beyond that date is currently being considered.

  Learning for Work—Wales Position at 29 October 1993

  TEC name

  Contracted places 1993–94

  Starts

  Gwent

  304

  73

  Mid Glamorgan

  384

  65

  North East Wales

  152

  64

  North East Wales

  235

  16

  Powys

  44

  0

  South Glamorgan

  380

  36

  West Wales

  423

  105

  Wales Total

  1,850

  359

  Moated Sites
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list for the last 10 years the archaeological moated grange sites that have been demolished;

  (2) if he will list the archaeological moated grange sites that are due to be lost because of planning permission approval being granted.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments Executive Agency under its chief executive, John Carr. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. A. J. Carr to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your two recent Parliamentary Questions about the loss of moated grange sites in Wales.
  In my letter of 30 November in answer to your earlier questions about the identification and protection of moated sites generally in Wales I referred to recent Planning Policy Guidance issued by the Department on Archaeology and Planning. The Guidance gives advice on the handling of archaeological matters in the planning process. In particular it emphasises that the desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled. Advice to local authorities in Wales who for the most part do not have in-house archaeological staff is available from the Welsh Archaeological Trusts who, as you know, maintain the Sites and Monuments Record. Against this policy background it is for local authorities themselves to determine planning applications for development of sites of archaeological interest. Cadw does not keep details of planning permission granted by Welsh local authorities which affect such sites.
  Where development is planned on a site scheduled as an ancient monument consent needs to be submitted to the Secretary of State. This is in addition to any application for planning permission. As I mentioned in my earlier letter Cadw's records of consent do not identify the monument by type but we are not aware of consent being granted for the demolition of any scheduled moated site in Wales in the past 10 years.

  Urban Energy Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what role councils in Wales play in the United Kingdom urban energy management network.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Cardiff city council represents Wales on the seven-city strong urban energy management network.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what involvement training and enterprise councils in Wales have had in assessing the skill base in Wales for implementation of an energy efficiency programme in(a) industry, (b) commercial and (c) domestic sectors in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The TECs were commissioned by the WDA under the auspices of the Welsh energy project to add specific questions on training needs relating to energy and environmental issues, in the industrial and commercial sectors, as part of the 1992 Welsh labour market information survey.

  Investors in People Award
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employers in each TEC area in Wales have been given the investors in people award; how many have made a commitment to meeting the standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As at 31 October 1993, 33 employers in Wales have been awarded investor-in-people status, and 213 have made a commitment to meeting the investors standard. The table sets out the breakdown by TEC.

  Investors in people Wales at 31 October 1993

  TEC

  Awarded investor status

  Commitment made

  South Glamorgan

  6

  37

  Mid Glamorgan

  6

  35

  Gwent

  7

  26

  West Wales

  6

  56

  Powys

  1

  8

  North West Wales

  5

  24

  North East Wales

  2

  27

  Energy Technology Development Projects
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what collaborative energy technology development projects co-sponsored by the European Commission are currently under way in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  European programmes in the more efficient use of energy are actively promoted in Wales. An annual seminar is held specifically for this purpose.

  There are currently nine projects funded by European programmes in Wales, a list of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Valleys Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to rectify the structural problems identified in the Hausner Associates report on the 602
  programme for the valleys prepared for his Department, in regard to the decline in manufacturing employment and creation of long-term jobs in the valleys.

  Mr. Redwood
  Victor Hausner's evaluation of the first programme for the valleys—1988 to 1993—has informed the development of the latest five-year programme.

  Two of the programme's aims specifically tackle unemployment by focusing on creating more, better quality jobs, and improving training, education, and transport so that local people can benefit.

DEFENCE

  Imported Artillery Systems
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose the 14 larger calibre artillery systems shown in the United Nations arms register were imported from France; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Nations conventional arms register refers to 14 large-calibre artillery systems. These are 14 self-propelled launcher loaders (SPLLs) for the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS). MLRS is an international collaborative project and under the workshare arrangements for the project some SPLLs are finally assembled by Aerospatiale in France before delivery to the partner nations. The 14 SPLLs in question were delivered in 1992 from Aerospatiale to the British Army of the Rhine as part of the United Kingdom's total requirement for MLRS launchers.

  Animal Research
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what species of animals are currently used by his Department or on its behalf for the purposes of research and experimentation.

  Mr. Aitken
  The species of animals currently used by the Department for purposes of research and experimentation are rats; mice; guinea pigs; rabbits; sheep; goats; pigs; miniature pigs; marmosets; and rhesus monkeys.

  All experiments involving the use of animals fully meet the spirit and letter of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  AS90 Ammunition
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature of the fault in the round due to be fired from the AS90 at the demonstration on 16 November; what was the country of manufacture of the round; why 155 mm artillery shells of foreign manufacture are in service with the Royal Artillery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The failure to fire by an AS90 howitzer in the opening moments of the otherwise very impressive demonstration of this new equipment on 16 November was caused by a defective primer which failed to ignite the propelling charge. This is a rare event and initial indications are that it may have been due to incomplete filling of the primer, which was manufactured in Germany. Other elements of the round in question were manufactured in the United Kingdom. 155 mm ammunition currently in
  603
  use was procured initially for the FH70 gun under the terms of the tri-national MOU with Germany and Italy which governed this project.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made since the opening of the Scott inquiry in the criteria adopted by his Department in deciding whether to give substantive replies to parliamentary questions seeking details of arms or military equipment exports from the United Kingdom.

  Date 1993

  Destination

  Purpose

  Approximate cost£

  January

  5th to 9th

  Far East (Hong Kong)

  To visit British Forces and have official talks.

  141,048

  25th to 26th

  Belgium (Mons)

  Visit NATO Military Headquarters.

  1,685

  February

  15th to 16th

  Norway

  To visit British Forces and have official talks.

  4,462

  25th to 26th

  Gibraltar

  To visit British Forces and to have official talks.

  4,793

  March

  22nd to 24th

  Falkland Islands

  To visit British Forces.

  1,813

  29th

  Belgium (Brussels)

  NATO Ministerial meeting.

  3,358

  April

  20th to 23rd

  United States of America (Washington)

  To represent Her Majesty's Government at opening of Holocaust Museum, and to have bilateral talks.

  9,269

  May

  16th to 21st

  Far East (Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore)

  Bilaterals.

  45,145

  25th

  Belgium (Brussels)

  NATO Ministerial Meeting.

  1,238

  June/July

  No visits abroad

  August

  2nd to 4th

  Bosnia/Croatia, Italy

  To visit British Forces in Bosnia and Croatia, and for bilateral talks in Croatia and Italy.

  22,000

  September

  19th to 24th

  CIS (Russia and Ukraine)

  Bilaterals.

  67,761

  October

  20th to 21st

  Germany (Travemunde)

  NATO Ministerial meeting.

  10,711

  22nd

  Germany (Bielefeld)

  To visit British Forces.

  23rd to 24th

  Germany (Bonn)

  To participate in Bertelsmann Forum.

  24th to 26th

  France

  Bilateral.

  November

  21st to 22nd

  Austria (Vienna)

  Bilateral.

  6,257

  25th

  Germany (Bonn)

  Anglo-German Summit.

  1,071

  Note: Figures are based on the cost of the Royal Air Force and civil flights involved. Where RAF flights were used (in all cases except the visit to the United States of America in April and the vast majority of the Far East visit in May) the costs also include the flight costs of accompanying officials. Accommodation normally provided by Her Majesty's Ambassador or High Commissioner, other Government representative, or by host.

  Infantry
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be British infantry strength in 1994 and 1995.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total trained strength of British infantry is expected to be about 29,000 on 1 April 1994 and between 26,000 and 27,000 on 1 April 1995.
  604
  Mr. Aitken
  None. The present criteria are of long standing and have been maintained by successive Governments.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visits abroad he has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Secretary of State for Defence has made 14 overseas visits in 1993. The cost and purpose of each visit was as follows:

  Royal Clarence Yard
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take immediate steps to contain the infestation of dry rot in several buildings at Royal Clarence yard, Gosport.

  Mr. Hanley
  Treatment of the dry rot found in three buildings at Royal Clarence yard is being considered in the context of our future plans for the establishment.
  605
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are his plans for disposing of the Royal Clarence yard, Gosport; and what is the proposed timing of the disposal;

  (2) if he will dispose of the four residential properties at the entrance to Royal Clarence yard, Gosport.

  Mr. Hanley
  We are examining the scope and feasibility of releasing some or all of Royal Clarence yard and hope to announce a decision shortly.

  Regent's Park Barracks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list to-date the organisations and individuals who have written to his Department opposing the erecting of a multi-storey car park at the Regent's Park barracks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since notification of our intention to proceed I have received letters from six organisations and individuals about provision of a garage facility at Regent's Park barracks, including representations from Camden council, the Crown Estate, the Georgian Group, a local residents' association, a firm of solicitors and a local resident.

  Convoy (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cargo being carried by the convoy of three military lorries which travelled along the A638 road into Doncaster town, South Yorkshire at approximately 12·30 hours on 27 October; where the convoy originated; what was its final destination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Without details of vehicle types, registration numbers, and so on, it is not possible positively to identify the vehicles concerned. On the day and about the time in question, however, two Army Landrovers and a four-ton lorry were travelling on the A630 where it merges with the A638 in Doncaster. The vehicles had been collected from Grantham and were proceeding to 219 Transport Squadron (V) at Scarborough barracks in Doncaster. They were not carrying any cargo.

  Headquarters Fire
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report written by the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority into the serious fire that took place whilst construction work was being carried out in the basement of his Department's Whitehall headquarters in 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes, a copy of the London Fire Brigade letter dated 3 May 1985 will be placed in the Library.

  Clyde Submarine Base
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual running costs of the Clyde submarine base, Faslane.

  Mr. Hanley
  The annual operation costs for 1993–94 are estimated to be £85,600,000.

  RAF Land
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated land sale value of each of the RAF stations involved in the review of pilot flying training.

  Mr. Hanley
  The estimated value of the individual sites on the defence estate is commercial in confidence.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much land, by acreage, his Department owns in each of the counties of England.

  Mr. Hanley
  The land owned in acres by the Ministry of Defence in each of the counties of England is set out in the table.

  Acres

  Avon

  408

  Bedfordshire

  3,249

  Berkshire

  4,722

  Buckinghamshire

  1,601

  Cambridgeshire

  6,902

  Cheshire

  1,006

  Cleveland

  119

  Cornwall

  6,731

  Cumbria

  19,830

  Derbyshire

  277

  Devon

  7,391

  Dorset

  12,177

  Durham

  415

  East Sussex

  633

  Essex

  39,356

  Gloucestershire

  3,674

  Greater London

  3,030

  Greater Manchester

  1,110

  Hampshire

  31,417

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,076

  Hertfordshire

  227

  Humberside

  2,587

  Isle of Wight

  12

  Kent

  13,660

  Lancashire

  1,549

  Leicestershire

  2,587

  Lincolnshire

  14,893

  Merseyside

  489

  Norfolk

  26,870

  North Yorkshire

  31,778

  Northamptonshire

  2,160

  Northumberland

  57,061

  Nottinghamshire

  2,095

  Oxfordshire

  8,970

  Shropshire

  4,436

  Somerset

  1,994

  South Yorkshire

  1,001

  Staffordshire

  2,908

  Suffolk

  8,495

  Surrey

  11,550

  Tyne and Wear

  25

  Warwickshire

  4,030

  West Midlands

  82

  West Sussex

  1,819

  West Yorkshire

  15

  Wiltshire

  102,143

  Figures are at 1 April 1993, the latest date for which records are available, and relate to freehold landholdings, including foreshore, for which deeds were held. Acquisitions or disposals which may have been completed but where deeds had not been transferred by 1 April 1993 are not included.

  Maralinga
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the ex gratia payment towards the clean-up of the Maralinga site will be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 14 July 1993 the United Kingdom Government agreed in principle to make an ex gratia payment to the Federal Government of Australia as a contribution to cost of the further clean-up of the Maralinga site. Final arrangements for making this payment are close to completion and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Search and Rescue (Chivenor)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to authorise the continuation of the Wessex helicopter search and rescue service at RAF Chivenor in the event of any decision being made not to transfer the Sea Kings to Chivenor from April 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Lesbians and Gay Man
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to introduce the new regulations dealing with lesbians and gay men in the armed forces; and if he will set out the regulations currently in force.

  Mr. Hanley
  New regulations reflecting the policy announced in June 1992 that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should not constitute an offence under the service law cannot be introduced until the law has been amended. This will be done as soon as the legislative programme allows. The new policy is, however, being followed by the armed forces and new tri-service guidelines on handling cases of homosexuality are currently being drawn up.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the benefits payable(a) to lesbians and gay men who have been dismissed from the services because of their homosexuality and (b) to men and women administratively discharged.

  Mr. Hanley
  The level of financial benefits payable to all personnel who are administratively discharged from the armed forces depends on their length of service and the circumstances of each case. Where misconduct or unsatisfactory behaviour has occurred, the individual's rate of pension could be affected. If personnel do not qualify for an immediate pension there is no difference in the level of their preserved pension and gratuity. If they have completed sufficient service for them to qualify for an immediate pension they receive a lower rate of pension and, therefore, of gratuity as this is three times the first year's pension. To qualify for an immediate pension, however, they would have had to complete a minimum of 16 years' reckonable service if officers or 22 years' reckonable service if non-commissioned personnel. Individuals discharged as a result of homosexuality would normally receive the full extent of benefits to which they are entitled based on their length of service.

  Able Seaman Brett Burnell
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the case of Able Seaman Brett Burnell; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal Navy has a well established statutory complaints procedure of which Able Seaman Burnell was fully appraised prior to his discharge. Should he wish to do so he may seek redress through these channels.

  Armed Forces (Protective Clothing)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the flak jackets issued to United Kingdom forces serving in the former Yugoslavia in protecting against sniper fire;

  (2) what plans he has to issue United Kingdom forces serving in the former Yugoslavia with bullet-proof vests;

  (3) what factors have been taken into account in deciding not to issue United Kingdom forces in the former Yugoslavia with bullet-proof vests.

  Mr. Hanley
  All United Kingdom personnel serving on the ground in Bosnia are equipped with lightweight combat body armour (CBA), which provides protection against shrapnel and would normally be worn in battle. Contoured ceramic chest plates are also available for use in theatre. These can be fitted to the CBA to cover the heart area, back and front, and will stop high velocity bullets. They are designed to provide maximum protection with minimum degradation of the wearer's effectiveness. The decision to issue and to wear the plates is a matter for the judgment of the local commanders, who have not identified any requirement for protection over and above that which is available in theatre.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the cost of issuing bullet-proof vests to United Kingdom forces serving in the former Yugoslavia.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence what is the cost of an individual set of body armour used by British service personnel in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of the combat body armour, including ceramic plates, issued to United Kingdom forces serving in the former Yugoslavia is £156 per set, including VAT.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the operational locations where United Kingdom forces have been issued with bullet-proof vests.

  Mr. Hanley
  Body armour is issued as a matter of course for any form of operational duty where the risk warrants it wherever that might be. Records of issue, however, are not kept.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many national contingents serving with UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia have issued their forces with bullet-proof vests.

  Mr. Hanley
  All contingents in UNPROFOR serving in Bosnia issue some form of body protection, either individually or on a pool basis for certain duties.
  609
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the relevant merits of the body armour worn by(a) British service personnel and (b) Dutch service personnel deployed in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  All body armour issued to British troops has been researched, developed and trialled extensively against specific military requirements. This applies to the combat body armour (CBA) issued to personnel in the former Yugoslavia, which specifically protects the wearer from fragments produced by exploding munitions, which is considered to be the main threat, and, with the ceramic plates inserted, also protects against high velocity bullets. Dutch personnel are currently using a heavyweight British commercial body armour providing a high degree of protection against high velocity bullets, which is double the wieght of the CBA issued to British troops and considerably reduces mobility.

  Defence Equipment Programme
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence equipment programme in the light of the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government will continue to ensure that the armed forces are properly equipped to carry out their tasks effectively. I am, therefore, pleased to announce decisions on a number of important equipments.

  The way ahead on ordering new tanks for the Army has been decided. Having examined a range of options, we have concluded that the most cost-effective way forward would be to buy more Challenger 2 rather than upgrade Challenger 1. Accordingly, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory contractual terms, we intend to place a further order with Vickers Defence Systems for up to 259 more Challenger 2 tanks, together with the associated support and training package. As part of these negotiations, we will ask the company to quote for production bands below this quantity so that we can consider possible options for varying the order. The contractual negotiations will be conducted under the Department's "No Acceptable Price No Contract"—or NAPNOC procedures—in order to secure the best value for money. I would expect to be able to place a contract next year.

  A decision has also been taken on the way forward on support helicopters. The main need is for additional large helicopters with good load-carrying capacity and a rear loading ramp. Only two types can meet this Medium Support Helicopter requirement: The Westland Group plc EH101 utility and the Boeing Helicopters Chinook. Some large loads could only be carried by Chinook, which is a reliable and capacious aircraft, proven in RAF service, but for other tasks advantages would be offered by the operational flexibility of a mixed fleet containing the modern, sophisticated and agile EH101.

  We therefore intend to enter NAPNOC negotiations with Westland and Boeing to determine the lowest prices available and other details of EH101 utility and Chinook helicopters respectively. On the basis of this information, we will decide what helicopters to buy. Value for money is the key and the prices determined through the parallel NAPNOC process will be crucial to decisions on the way forward.
  610
  Finally, the 1993 Statement on the Defence Estimates stated that our plans for the Royal Navy include building up to a fleet of 25 highly capable mine countermeasures vessels of the Hunt and Sandown classes. In this context I am delighted to be able to announce that we are now in a position to invite tenders for a further batch of Sandown class single role minehunters.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many visits abroad he has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  During 1993 I made five visits abroad which incurred costs borne on public funds. The costs of each visit, including those of officials travelling with me, were as follows:

  Destination

  Cost £

  Purpose

  Carnegie, Canada

  2,240

  Meeting of Science Ministers

  Luxembourg

  1,905

  European Research Council meeting

  Geneva

  1,748

  Visit to European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN)

  Hong Kong/Japan

  16,597

  Ministerial visit covering science and technology issues

  Washington, United States of America

  12,109

  Discussions on public service reforms with the Vice-President

  County of Lancashire
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evidence he has submitted to the Local Government Commission relating to the future of the county of Lancashire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have not submitted any evidence to the Local Government Commission relating to the future of the county of Lancashire. The County Palatine of Lancaster has been in existence for more than 640 years, and I hope it will continue for at least as long again.

  Charter Line (East Midlands)
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out the cost of the Charterline he has established in the east midlands, the number of calls made on it daily and the number of staff engaged in running it.

  Mr. David Davis
  The cost of setting up the Charterline pilot study was £880,000. The cost of the software system design was £109,000, and planning, project management and evaluation costs were £195,000. These are all one-off rather than on-going costs. At current levels of usage, it would not be necessary to purchase additional equipment to extend Charterline nationally. Operational costs to 3 November 1993 were £340,400. Significant economies of scale could be achieved if Charterline were to be rolled out on a national basis.
  611
  Charterline has, to date, received over 4,700 calls. IBM, which runs the Charterline service on behalf of the citizens charter unit, has nine trained staff available to answer Charterline calls, of whom three are awaiting calls at any one time.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Local Authorities (Loans)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total value of loans taken out by each of the 26 councils at the date of their last local government audit.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Antrim borough council

  2,752,818

  Ards borough council

  11,533,625

  Armagh district council

  2,687,827

  Ballymena borough council

  4,210,135

  Ballymoney borough council

  1,655,186

  Banbridge district council

  3,310,372

  Belfast city council

  33,297,440

  Carrickfergus borough council

  1,964,634

  Castlereagh borough council

  5,824,542

  Coleraine borough council

  2,818,547

  Cookstown district council

  299,519

  Craigavon borough council

  7,956,487

  Derry city council

  6,992,348

  Down district council

  5,151,730

  Dungannon district council

  1,326,877

  Fermanagh district council

  811,196

  Larne borough council

  1,844,631

  Limavady borough council

  1,542,266

  Lisburn borough council

  2,089,520

  Magherafelt district council

  1,114,525

  Moyle district council

  1,206,883

  Newry and Mourne district council

  8,917,191

  Newtownabbey district council

  7,536,600

  North Down borough council

  12,362,913

  Omagh district council

  4,680,833

  Strabane district council

  3,596,743

  TOTAL

  137,485,388

  Amounts Paid (Salary and Expenses)

  Members

  June 1989—March 1990

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  April 1993 to Date

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  A. Current Members

  The Duke of Abercorn (Chairman)

  18,277

  19,724

  19,996

  26,696

  16,288

  Mr. F. Cobain

  3,733

  5,600

  5,600

  7,940

  4,680

  Mr. B. Feeney

  4,479

  5,600

  5,600

  8,049

  4,680

  Mr. J. Fitzpatrick

  4,479

  5,600

  5,600

  8,049

  4,680

  Mrs. M. Spence

  4,479

  5,600

  5,600

  8,049

  4,680

  Mr. G. Irwin

  —

  5,133

  5,600

  7,965

  4,680

  Mr. R. Empey

  —

  —

  —

  5,455

  4,680

  Mr. E. Airey

  —

  —

  —

  5,455

  4,680

  Mrs. L. Blakeston-Houston

  —

  —

  —

  4,366

  4,680

  Mr. J. Jaworski

  —

  —

  —

  —

  880

  B. Former Members

  Mr. J. McGuckian (Deputy Chairman)

  7,904

  9,163

  8,710

  4,006

  —

  Mr. J. Carson

  4,479

  5,600

  5,600

  2,593

  —

  Dr. B. Henderson

  4,479

  5,600

  5,600

  2,593

  —

  Mr. D. Moreland

  4,479

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prosperity
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what working party his Department participates jointly with representatives of the Irish Republic to examine ways and means of promoting greater prosperity in both parts of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The major forum for such discussions is the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference whose objectives include working together for peace, stability and prosperity throughout the island of Ireland by promoting reconciliation, respect for human rights, co-operation against terrorism, and the development of economic, social and cultural co-operation.

  Other forums include

  (a) the Anglo-Irish Secretariat;

  (b) A steering group which oversees the upgrading of the Belfast to Dublin rail link involving officials of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, Republic of Ireland;

  (c) A joint steering committee on cross-border rural development in which the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland participates; and

  (d) A joint working party set up to deliver the Northern Ireland/Ireland Interreg programme involving officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel, Department of Education for Northern Ireland, Department of Economic Development, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  Development Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the development agencies together with their directors; and how much has been paid to each director, including expenses, in each of the past five years, and this year to-date.

  Mr. Aitkins
  Laganside corporation has functions similar to those of urban development corporations in Great Britain. Payments to members over the past five years were as follows:

  Student Nurses
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated total cost per annum of training nurses from the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  At 31 October 1993 there were 263 nurse students from the Republic of Ireland attending colleges in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that the total cost of training these students in 1993–94 will be approximately £1·9 million.

  Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the amount of Government financial support paid to the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders in each of the last five years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Office has paid the following direct grant aid to the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders in each of the last five years.

  £

  1988–89

  197,764

  1989–90

  211,881

  1990–91

  219,500

  1991–92

  286,828

  1992–93

  302,000

  The Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders also contracts with other Northern Ireland Departments to provide progammes for a range of client groups within the criteria set by those departments. Information on the amounts involved is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the amount of Government financial support paid to Victim Support Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following sums were paid to Victim Support Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  £

  1988–89

  33,000

  1989–90

  40,580

  1990–91

  44,000

  1991–92

  93,000

  1992–93

  167,000

  Bomb-proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost, by location, of bomb-proofing the Department's premises.

  Sir John Wheeler
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

EMPLOYMENT

  Claimants
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were interviewed at each stage and how many of those who claimed unemployment benefit—including continuing to claim cases—had their claim disallowed following availability, actively seeking work or refusing suitable employment action taken at(a) the new claims stage, (b) 13 week interviews, (c) restart interviews and (d) other counselling interviews for 1992–93 and 1993–94 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 1 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about how many people were interviewed at each stage and how many of those who claimed unemployment benefit (including continuing to claim cases) had their claim disallowed following availability, actively seeking work or refusing suitable employment action taken at (a) the new claims stage, (b) 13 week interviews, (c) Restart interviews and (d) other counselling interviews for 1992–93 and 1993–94 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; and if he will make a statement. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  This information is not available in the precise form which you request it. However, the attached tables show, for each region, the numbers of interviews conducted at each stage of unemployment together with the total number of disallowances by Adjudication Officers on each eligibility condition. We have no information available that tells us the stage of unemployment at which the disallowances occurred.
  Also, the Employment Service has changed it's performance monitoring at national level for 1993–94 and the numbers of interviews for this year cannot be given in exactly the same format as the previous year.
  Table 1 contains information for the 1992–93 operational year. Table 2 shows information to June 1993—these are the latest published figures for Adjudication Officer's decisions.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
  615

  Table 1—1992–93

  Interviews

  Disallowances by adjudication officer

  New Claims

  13 week

  Restart

  Other

  Availability

  Restricted Availability

  Actively Seeking Employment

  Refusal of Employment

  Northern

  233,739

  43,146

  172,212

  24,639

  1,506

  239

  132

  17

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  407,439

  65,186

  209,592

  43,694

  5,249

  826

  413

  22

  East Midlands and Eastern

  443,838

  44,606

  252,469

  36,894

  4,042

  500

  46

  24

  London and South East

  1,412,962

  238,039

  854,311

  83,414

  18,787

  6,589

  483

  81

  South West

  378,761

  45,923

  200,833

  32,488

  3,708

  660

  149

  17

  Office for Wales

  217,596

  40,200

  148,542

  32,011

  1,676

  371

  78

  5

  West Midlands

  407,148

  50,369

  258,437

  36,254

  3,976

  458

  132

  8

  North West

  567,287

  121,882

  441,163

  77,417

  5,526

  2,089

  853

  63

  Office for Scotland

  447,337

  81,559

  280,722

  27,858

  3,211

  521

  253

  15

  NATIONAL TOTAL

  4,516,107

  730,910

  2,818,181

  394,569

  47,681

  12,253

  2,539

  252

  Table 2—1993–94 (to June)

  Interviews

  Decisions by adjudication officer

  New claims

  Restart

  Other

  Availability

  Restricted availability

  Actively seeking employment

  Refusal of employment

  Northern

  54,302

  43,546

  12,065

  362

  55

  44

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  87,060

  64,264

  31,306

  1,077

  278

  112

  12

  East Midlands and Eastern

  94,252

  71,221

  15,007

  845

  187

  44

  11

  London and South East

  302,130

  258,318

  24,240

  3,265

  1,443

  141

  9

  South West

  78,703

  62,601

  12,122

  577

  115

  43

  7

  Office for Wales

  49,972

  42,182

  13,328

  304

  73

  22

  3

  West Midlands

  82,554

  71,986

  12,776

  696

  146

  30

  8

  North West

  123,178

  116,063

  43,502

  1,086

  451

  253

  16

  Office for Scotland

  101,287

  72,889

  21,036

  593

  94

  89

  6

  National Total

  973,438

  803,070

  185,382

  8,805

  2,842

  778

  73

  Employment Service
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress the employment service has made in meeting the targets outlined in the 1993–94 agency agreement; and if he will list for each quarter the(a) total unemployed job placings and variance from targets, (b) long-term unemployed job placings and variance from target, (c) people with disabilities job placings and variance from target, (d) inner-city job placings and variance from target, (e) number of claims not pursued following initial contact and variance from target, (f)

  Employment Service performance against target July to September 1993

  Annual performance targets

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Cumulative

  Target levels

  (a) Total placings of unemployed people into jobs

  394,000

  465,000

  859,000

  1·47 million

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  (b) Long-term claimants placed into jobs as a percentage of total unemployed placings

  28·6

  27·6

  28·0

  27·0

  (c) People with disabilities placed into jobs as a percentage of total unemployed placings

  3·2

  3·3

  3·2

  3·0

  (d) Unemployed people in inner cities placed into jobs as a percentage of total unemployed placings

  34·1

  35·0

  34·6

  35·0

  (e) Benefit claims not pursued following initial contact with ES (as percentage of initial enquiries)

  8·4

  8·5

  8·5

  9·0

  (g) People signing off as a result of action by fraud officer

  18,000

  18,500

  36,500

  63,000

  Restart Courses
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have been referred to restart courses by employment service counsellors since April for each region and for Great
  616
  number of claimants moved from unemployment benefit to another benefit and variance from target and (g) number of people who withdrew their claim to benefit after contact with fraud investigators and variance from target.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Service is making progress against its targets for 1993–94, meeting or exceeding almost all at the mid-year stage. It placed 859,000 eople in the first two quarters, against an annual target of 1·470 million. This represents 130,000 more placings than at the same stage last year. The Employment Service does not have a target for the number of claimants moved from unemployment benefit to another benefit. The performance is shown in the table.

  Britain as a whole; how many of them were unemployed for over two years; how many attended and completed the course; what were the outcomes of the participants; how many had benefit penalties imposed for not attending or failing to complete their attendance at the restart course; and if he will make a statement.
  617
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 1 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about Restart Courses. These are matters which fall within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  As you will know from our previous correspondence, Restart Courses are short courses aimed at helping people who are having the most difficulty returning to work. They are not an alternative

  Restart Course Attenders unemployed for 2 years or more April 1993-September 1993

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1. Referrals to Restart Courses1

  6,305

  11,558

  10,367

  32,604

  9,104

  5,892

  10,779

  19,274

  10,503

  116,386

  2. Starters

  3,755

  6,559

  5,589

  16,877

  5,152

  3,034

  6,486

  10,048

  5,024

  62,524

  3. Total completers

  3,451

  5,877

  5,103

  15,594

  4,614

  2,750

  5,737

  9,286

  4,499

  56,911

  Completers who had agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  788

  1,776

  1,753

  3,173

  1,084

  719

  1,641

  2,718

  2,618

  16,270

  Training For Work

  443

  836

  870

  2,552

  831

  425

  1,523

  1,675

  643

  9,798

  Jobclub

  323

  441

  634

  2,032

  542

  394

  479

  795

  336

  5,976

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  2,456

  3,970,

  3,761

  10,533

  3,215

  1,846

  2,323

  5,564

  2,696

  36,364

  4.Total number of people with an outcome to follow up2

  2,979

  5,204

  4,685

  14,029

  4,179

  2,495

  5,184

  8,500

  4,107

  51,362

  5.Number of decisions received from the Benefits Agency3

  328

  582

  387

  703

  276

  203

  202

  1,361

  1,094

  5,136

  1This figure includes people who fail to attend the course they are booked for who are rebooked for another event.

  2Some people will be referred to more than one option at the end of the course.

  3Since April 1993, the Benefits Agency has combined the number of reductions for non attendance/non completion of Restart Courses with the number of reductions for non attendance/non completion of Jobplan Workshops. Therefore we can only supply the number of decisions that have been made. This figure includes cases where no reduction is made. About 87 per cent. of all decisions lead to a reduction of up to 40 per cent. of personal Income Support.

  All Restart Course Attenders April 1993-September 1993

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1. Referrals to Restart Courses1

  6,678

  12,707

  11,521

  37,201

  10,890

  6,787

  12,644

  20,929

  11,333

  130,690

  2. Starters

  4,012

  7,291

  6,312

  19,382

  6,135

  3,491

  7,583

  10,917

  5,484

  70,607

  3. Total completers

  3,691

  6,618

  5,779

  17,633

  5,474

  3,151

  6,693

  10,045

  4,891

  63,975

  Completers who had agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  864

  1,989

  1,985

  3,705

  1,310

  851

  1,973

  2,984

  2,829

  18,490

  Training For Work

  469

  914

  974

  2,964

  972

  500

  1,810

  1,829

  693

  11,125

  Jobclub

  343

  490

  730

  2,184

  696

  474

  603

  849

  382

  6,751

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  2,601

  4,371

  4,328

  12,271

  3,786

  2,184

  2,825

  6,118

  2,999

  41,483

  4.Total number of people with an outcome to follow up2

  3,193

  5,784

  5,291

  16,170

  4,976

  2,866

  6,106

  9,196

  4,464

  58,046

  1This figure includes people who fail to attend the course they are booked for who are rebooked for another event.

  2 Some people will be referred to more than one option at the end of the course.

  Counselling
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have been referred to jobplan workshops by employment service
  618
  to regular job search or other employment or ttraining programmes. Essentially they provide people with the opportunity to explore all the options open to them and give them confidence to take the next step back to work.
  People who have been unemployed for two years or more who refuse or fail to take up a place on an Employment Department employment or training programme at their Restart interview, are asked to attend a Restart Course.
  As your question has raised a number of specific points, I am setting out the information you have asked for in the two tables attached—one deals with all Restart Course attenders, the other just those covered by the requirement to attend.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  counsellors since April for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; how many of them were unemployed for over one year; how many attended and completed the workshop; what were the outcomes of the participants;
  619
  how many had benefit penalties imposed for not attending or failing to complete their attendance at the jobplan workshop; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 1 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about Jobplan Workshops. These are matters which fall within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Jobplan is a new programme which aims to help people who have been unemployed for a year or more to compete successfully for jobs and opportunities. About 80 per cent. of the people who first become unemployed leave the unemployment register within a year. For those who remain unemployed, confidence and the intensity of jobsearch can decrease. They may believe that there are very few positive options open to them. It is therefore important that at this stage people take a fresh look at their

  All Jobplan Attenders April 1993-October 1993

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Lonon and south East

  South west

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1. Referrals to Jobplan1

  13,098

  21,320

  22,965

  118,264

  21,981

  10,499

  24,148

  32,755

  26,517

  291,547

  2. Starters

  8,121

  12,168

  13,045

  66,691

  13,344

  5,901

  14,112

  17,372

  14,092

  164,846

  3. Total completers

  7,556

  11,170

  11,972

  61,291

  12,208

  5,343

  12,810

  15,971

  12,694

  151,015

  Completers who agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  2,319

  3,355

  3,906

  19,244

  3,884

  1,742

  3,446

  4,951

  4,318

  47,165

  Training For Work

  2,472

  3,364

  3,206

  17,101

  4,455

  1,397

  4,699

  4,892

  3,840

  45,426

  Jobclub

  843

  1,646

  1,795

  11,339

  1,691

  896

  2,075

  1,797

  1,759

  23,841

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  2,993

  5,748

  4,781

  30,977

  5,356

  2,734

  5,201

  8,355

  5,214

  72,359

  4. Total number of people with an outcome to follow up2

  6,787

  10,481

  11,083

  57,521

  11,443

  4,851

  12,059

  15,042

  11,487

  140,754

  5. Number of decisions received from the Benefits Agency3

  491

  1,112

  867

  4,040

  661

  396

  585

  2,024

  2,527

  12,703

  1 This figure includes people who fail to attend the workshop they are booked for who are rebooked for another event. All people referred to Jobplan have been unemployed over 1 year except a small number (1,582) from areas affected by colliery closures where special dispensation exists.

  2 Some people will be referred to more than one option at the end of the workshop.

  3The Benefits Agency have combined the number of reductions for non attendance/non completion of Jobplan with the number of reductions for non attendance/non completion of Restart Courses. Therefore we can only supply the number of decisions that have been made. About 87 per cent. of all decisions lead to a reduction of up to 40 per cent. of personal Income Support.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the amount of overpayment made by his Department to training and enterprise councils in each year for which information is available; how much has been recovered; how many TECs are still holding money which has been overpaid; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information currently available shows that the Department identified overpayments amounting to £3,407,887.71 and £8,807,118.79 made to the 75 training and enterprise councils (TECs) in England in 1990–91 and 1991–92 respectively.

  Of these overpayments Treasury agreement has been given to write off £231,054 and a further £11,513,773 has
  620
  situation and have the chance to review their strengths and skills and set themselves new clear, achievable job goals that take advantage of the range of help available.
  This can be achieved on Jobplan, through in-depth guidance interviews with one of the leaders, access to computer assisted guidance programs and tests of attainment. During the week participants will draw up a comprehensive action plan which will map out the steps that they need to take to find work. For many people this will involve further help such as Training for Work or a place on a Jobclub.
  People who have been unemployed for a year will be asked to attend a Jobplan workshop unless they prefer to take up a place on another Employment Department programme. People who fail to attend each day of the workshop may, under the Income Support (General) 1990 Regulation 21A, amended in March this year, lose a proportion of their personal entitlement to Income Support. When making this amendment, Ministers consulted the Social Security Advisory Committee who accepted that it was reasonable to ask people unemployed for some time to go on an event such as this.
  I have set out the information you have asked for in the table attached.
  I hope that this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  been recovered. In consultation with legal advisors the Department is vigorously pursuing recovery of the remaining balance from the three TECs which still hold overpayment monies.

  In 1992–93 information currently available shows overpayments amounting to £6,586,421·73 were made to 51 TECs. Action is in hand to ensure that the overpayments are recovered by the end of December 1993.

  No information is held centrally with regard to overpayments in 1993–94, but regional staff have been instructed to ensure that any overpayments are recovered as they are identified.

  The Department is committed to ensuring that sound systems of financial control are in place in all TECs and in all training providers and to recovering any overpayments that may be made as they are identified.

  Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Liverpool.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Last Friday, I visited TWG Packaging, where I was given a presentation on the company's achievements. I then met members of the Merseyside Manufacturing Challenge Group who made a presentation on the work of the group and their vision for the long-term economic regeneration of Merseyside.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will accept the recommendations made by the Animal Procedures Committee in its annual report 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The document is a report on the activities of the committee including matters upon which it has made recommendations in the course of 1992. The committee recommended the extension of the controls of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Octopus vulgaris and made recommendations in respect of nine applications for project licences under section 5 of the Act. Its recommendations were accepted.

  Section 11 Funding
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total estimated saving to the Treasury from the proposed cuts in section 11 funding.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Departmental expenditure plans are reviewed annually and details of planned provision are set out in Home Office annual reports. Reductions in future financial provision for section 11 grant were made in the context of the 1992 public expenditure survey. The following table shows planned provisions for section 11 grant in the 1991 and 1992 public expenditure surveys, as published in the annual reports of 1992 and 1993 respectively.

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Annual Report 1992

  130

  136

  139

  —

  Annual Report 1993

  —

  131

  111

  97

  Year-on-year differences in expenditure plans reflect a range of factors such as changed assumptions as to inflation.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women held in prisons in England and Wales were serving a life sentence as of 19 November.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  622
  Letter from Mr. Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the population of life sentence prisoners in Prison Service establishments.
  The latest available information is for 30 September 1993 and shows that there were 3,086 prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales serving life sentences, of whom 2,980 were men and 106 were women.

  Clothing (Fire Safety)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were killed or injured as a result of clothing catching fire(a) nationally and (b) in the London borough of Lewisham in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for the United Kingdom is shown in the table. It shows casualties where clothing being worn was the first item to catch fire. 'The statistics cannot identify fires starting elsewhere spreading to clothing. Data are not separately available for Lewisham.

  Deaths and injuries of children aged under 11, where clothing on a person was the first material to catch fire, in fires attended by local authority fire brigades, United Kingdom

  Year

  Fire related deaths

  Fire related injuries

  1981

  4

  18

  1982

  1

  10

  1983

  0

  14

  1984

  0

  11

  1985

  0

  7

  1986

  2

  14

  1987

  0

  10

  1988

  4

  11

  1989

  0

  8

  1990

  0

  8

  1991

  0

  8

  19921

  1

  10

  1Provisional.

  Source: Home Office Fire Statistics, based on reports from local authority fire brigades.

  Wormwood Scrubs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the projects now under development at Wormwood Scrubs prison, London, the cost of each project and if funding for each project has been approved and granted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from: Mr. Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the current development work at Wormwood Scrubs prison.
  The major phase of redevelopment work currently being carried out at the prison is due to be completed by the end of April 1994. This will create a secure corridor to connect the four existing accommodation wings and provide additional accommodation for 146 prisoners. A new kitchen, gymnasium, medical centre, workshops and reception and discharge unit are also being provided. The estimated capital cost is £43·7 million.

  623
  In later phases of the redevelopment it is proposed to complete the modernisation of the four existing accommodation wings, which will include upgrading security and 24 hour access to sanitation in those cells which do not have it at present. A final decision is still to be made about the timing and phasing of this work.

  Prison Building
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total amount of money to be allocated for the prison building programme.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. Derek Lewis to Ms Mildred Gordon, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the money to be allocated to the prison building programme.
  Over the next three years a total of £620.3 million will be assigned to the prison building programme, as follows:

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  251·4

  223·1

  145·8

  The overall total includes nearly £43 million for the completion of the current prison building programme and the purchase of sites and infrastructure work for the programme of building six new prisons to which the Home Secretary referred on 6 October.
  The remaining £577 million will be spent on providing additional accommodation, repairs and modernising facilities in existing prisons.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department undertakes into the problem of child prostitution.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office has not conducted or funded research into child prostitution.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the bonus payment paid to the Director General of the Prison Service since his appointment.

  Mr. Howard
  £8,280, in respect of the period 6 January 1993 to 31 March 1993.

  Segregation Units and Prison Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the number of(a) men and (b) women held in segregation units in prisons in England and Wales on 19 November;

  (2) what was the number of (a) men and (b) women held on rule 43 in prisons in England and Wales on 22 November.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  624
  Letter from Mr. Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of men and women in Prison establishments segregated from association under Rule 43 and the number held in segregation units.

  The table below shows the number of inmates held on Prison Rule 43 and Young Offender Institution Rule 46 on 22 November.

  Rule 43 & 46 (own Protection

  Rule 43 & 46 (good order and discipline)

  Men

  1,251

  267

  Women

  19

  14

  Total

  1,270

  281

  The above table does not include inmates held in vulnerable prisoner units. Information on numbers held in segregation units is not collected centrally.

  Deportations
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been deported from Britain in each of the last five years after breakdown of their marriage.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available as wives are not separately identified in the
  deportation statisics.

  Fraudulent Leaflets
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation to outlaw the production of fraudulent leaflets purporting to come from a rival political party.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend sympathises with the hon. Member's concerns. The Government have, however, no present plans to introduce such legislation, the technical feasibility of which is not beyond doubt.

  Muderers (Prison Sentences)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will detail the average amount of time spent in prison by those who were sentenced for murder and have since been released.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. Derek Lewis to Mr. Frank Field, dated 30 November 1993:

  Muderers (Prison Sentences)

    AVERAGE SENTENCE LENGTH FOR MURDER
    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average time served by inmates sentenced for murder and who have since been released.
    I attached a copy of a table showing the numbers of life sentence prisoners released from 1981–1991. This information is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (Table 8·5 of the latest volume, for 1991, Cm 2157), a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new money is to be made available and how much for building new prison establishments in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the funding for the construction of new prison establishments.
  On 2 September 1993 the Home Secretary announced that the design, construction, management and potential financing of future new prisons would be contracted out to the private sector. It is intended that both the construction and operation of the six new prisons planned will be funded in this way. It is too early to indicate the cost of these prisons which will be assessed on the basis of value for money obtained for the complete financial package comprising both capital and operating costs. Outline proposals and expressions of interest in the first two prisons have recently been invited. It is expected that almost all of the expenditure will fall outside the period covered by the 1993 Public Expenditure Survey (that is, beyond 1996–97).
  Doncaster prison which is due to open next year is the last of the current programme of 21 new prisons to be built.

  Temazepam
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now considered the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs for measures to reduce Temazepam misuse.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am considering the report of the advisory council in consultation with other Government Departments and I hope to reach a decision shortly.

  Domestic Fires
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many domestic fires occurred in(a) 1963 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available; what were the casualty figures in each year; and what proposals he has to reduce these.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information required is given in the table.

  Fire certification arrangements under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 are not possible in single dwellings. The Government therefore continue to seek reductions in casualties from fires in such dwellings through effective initiatives in publicity and education.

  Domestic fires and casualties from domestic fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom

  Year

  Domestic fires

  Casualties (includes fire brigade)

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  1963

  37,600

  656

  2,652

  11992

  64,500

  576

  11,219

  11992 figures are provisional.

  Source: Home Office Fire Statistics, based on reports from local authority fire brigades.

  Criminal and Motoring Cases
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) criminal and (b) motoring cases were brought to trial at Redbridge magistrates court and Snaresbrook Crown court for each quarter of 1991, 1992 and 1993 to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1991 and 1992, which is provisional, is given in the table. Information for 1993 is not yet available.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at Redbridge magistrates' court and the number of defendants tried at Snaresbrook Crown Court for "criminal"1 and "motoring"2 cases by quarter 1991 and 1992*

  Year/ Quarter

  Redbridge PSD

  Snaresbrook CC

  1Criminal

  2Motoring

  1Criminal

  2Motoring

  1991

  Ql

  925

  1,066

  1,020

  4

  Q2

  906

  1,103

  1,064

  4

  Q3

  956

  1,189

  1,074

  4

  Q4

  901

  1,365

  935

  3

  1992

  Ql

  1,116

  1,101

  1,101

  5

  Q2

  1,002

  1,223

  916

  4

  Q3

  1,014

  1,051

  894

  4

  Q4

  31,000

  1,330

  724

  1

  1Indictable and summary non motoring offences.

  1Summary motoring offences.

  3Improvements in the data collection methods used by the Metropolitan police district (MPD) have led to an increase from this quarter in the number recorded as proceeded against in magistrate courts for indictable and summary non-motoring offences of about a third in the MPD area as a whole.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he intends to take to improve the training for special constables; and what further action he will take before recruiting.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Chief constables are responsible for the recruitment and training of special constables in their force area.

  The central planning and training unit has developed a number of standard training packages as a resource for training special constables. National special constable training packages covering induction and basic training are now in use in the majority of forces in England and Wales, and a new development training package is being introduced in a number of police forces.

  Suspects' Rights
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure of his Department on promoting the rights of suspects under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 since the coming into force of the Act and for each subsequent year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The approximate expenditure incurred in distributing to police forces new or revised versions of the codes of practice required under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and notices to detained persons required under paragraph 3·2 of code C was as follows:
  627

  £

  1985

  33,700

  1986

  2,000

  1988

  14,600

  1991

  138,300

  1992

  1—

  1 No expenditure.

  Police Resources, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on existing police resources covering the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the Commissioner from time to time to discuss matters of common concern, including resource matters.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits abroad he has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost of each visit to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Howard
  I have not made any official visits abroad since becoming Home Secretary.

  Details of visits made by my predecessor during 1993, and the associated travel and subsistence costs, including those of a private secretary, are as follows:

  Purpose

  Cost

  £

  Official visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

  12,504

  European Conference on Uncontrolled Migration, Budapest

  2,430

  Ad Hoc Immigration/TREVI Ministerial Meeting, Copenhagen

  1,784

  Fire Inspections
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has had from local authorities to the Government's proposal to end local authority fire inspections of bed-sitters and multi-tenant flats.

  Sir George Young
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local housing authorities have a statutory duty under the Housing (Means of Escape from Fire in Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1981 to require that houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) with at least three storeys (excluding basements) and with a combined floor area of over 500 square metres are provided with adequate means of escape from fire.

  Housing authorities have discretionary powers to inspect smaller HMOs under section 395 of the Housing Act 1985.

  We have no plans to remove these powers.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Government have to privatise the landholdings of the Forestry Commission.
  628
  Sir Hector Monro
  Forestry Ministers have asked the forestry review group to review options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands, and to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and environmental policies.

  Once they have received and considered the advice of the review group, they will decide what further action, if any, should be taken.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by generic and specific name the trees and shrubs, indigenous or otherwise, which are most commonly grown by the Forestry Commission; if he will show the density of each species as a percentage of land use; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The species most commonly grown by the Forestry Commission are listed in the table, together with the percentage of the total area of the commission's productive woodland which each occupies.

  Species

  Percentage of Total Area

  Conifers

  Picea sitchensis (Sitka spruce)

  48·0

  Picea contorta (Lodgepole pine)

  11·6

  Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine)

  9·5

  Larix kaempferi (Japanese larch)

  5·3

  Picea abies (Norway spruce)

  5·0

  Pinus nigra var maritima (Corsican pine)

  4·2

  Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir)

  2·7

  Larix eurolepis (Hybrid larch)

  1·5

  Larix decidua (European larch)

  0·7

  Tsuga heterophylla (Western hemlock)

  0·7

  All other conifers

  1·4

  Total Conifers

  90·6

  Broadleaves

  Quercus spp (Oak)

  3·1

  Fagus sylvatica (Beech)

  2·6

  Betula spp (Birch)

  2·0

  Fraxinus excelsior (Ash)

  0·5

  Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore)

  0·3

  Castanea sativa (Sweet Chestnut)

  0·3

  All other broadleaves

  0·6

  Total Broadleaves

  9·4

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the number of trees on Forestry Commission land in(a) Nottinghamshire, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales.

  Sir Hector Monro
  A broad estimate is given in the table.

  Number of Trees (Millions)

  Nottinghamshire

  7

  England

  300

  Scotland

  800

  Wales

  200

  Training
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many trainees were recruited to employment training and the successor training for work programme in each local enterprise company area in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) between 1 April and 1 October.

  Mr. Lang
  In Scotland the responsibility for the monitoring of recruitment to employment training and its successor training for work rests with Scottish Enterprise and with Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have therefore asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum of money was spent by each local enterprise company on employment training and its successor programme, training for work, in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) between 1 April to 30 September, actual and (d) 1993–94, estimated outturn.

  Mr. Lang
  In Scotland the responsibility for the monitoring of local enterprise company expenditure on employment training and its successor training for work rests with Scottish Enterprise and with Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have therefore asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what analysis has been made in each local enterprise company area of the leaver destination of trainees on employment training or its successor programme, training for work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  In Scotland the responsibility for analysis of leaver desinations of trainees on employment training and its successor training for work rests with Scottish Enterprise and with Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have therefore asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the percentage of(a) three-year-old children and (b) four-year-old children who attend nursery school in each local education authority area in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table. The percentage figures are based on the mid–1992 estimates of the three- and four-year-old population.

  Percentage of three-year-olds and four-year-olds attending education authority nursery schools/departments at September 1992.

  Education Authority

  Per cent. of three-year-olds

  Per cent. of four-year-olds

  Scotland

  19·3

  50·9

  Borders

  4·2

  34·0

  Central

  20·6

  61·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8·6

  56·3

  Fife

  19·1

  79·2

  Grampian

  12·0

  57·1

  Highland

  5·0

  28·3

  Lothian

  27·8

  66·8

  Strathclyde

  20·2

  42·1

  Tayside

  22·8

  51·2

  Orkney

  18·2

  50·7

  Shetland

  30·4

  47·1

  Western Isles

  0·0

  0·0

  630

  Education Authority

  Per cent. of three-year-olds

  Per cent. of four-year-olds

  Strathclyde Divisions:

  Argyll and Bute

  0·0

  0·0

  Ayr

  14·4

  39·1

  Dunbarton

  13·7

  61·1

  Glasgow

  38·3

  33·5

  Lanark

  10·2

  28·6

  Renfrew

  15·4

  42·6

  Scenic Areas
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those notified applications for developments in national scenic areas which have been called in since 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1.980 was issued in August 1980. Since then, the Secretary of State has called in four notified applications for developments in national scenic areas. These were:an application for a hill track at Little Gruinard;
  two applications for housing development at Kelton, Dumfries and Galloway; and
  an application for seven houses on the foreshore at Ballachulish.

  Smoke Detectors
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions have taken place between his officials and representatives of Convention of Scottish Local Authorities concerning the installation of smoke detectors in homes in(a) the public housing sector and (b) private homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  In discussions earlier this year with COSLA, and also with Scottish Homes, about the implementation of the health promotion initiatives outlined in "Scotland's Health—A Challenge to Us All", the Chief Medical Officer and officials of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department emphasised the importance of smoke detectors in reducing fatalities from fires and encouraged COSLA and Scottish Homes to continue their efforts to secure the installation of detectors throughout their housing stocks.

  Regulations making the fitting of mains-operated smoke alarms compulsory in all new dwellings came into force in Scotland on 23 July 1993.

  Sports Centres
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the provision of(a) swimming pools and public baths and (b) indoor sports centres by each relevant Scottish local authority on a per capita basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  This information is not held centrally.

  Locate in Scotland
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the budget of Locate in Scotland in each year since its establishment; and what would the budget be in 1993, using the year of its establishment as a baseline, had it kept pace with inflation.
  631
  Mr. Stewart
  Locate in Scotland was established in 1981. Between 1981–82 and 1983–84 costs were not held in a format to identify separately those attributable to Locate in Scotland.

  The cost of running Locate in Scotland from 1984–85 to 1992–93, taking account of salaries, administration expenses, travel, overseas offices and marketing is shown.

  £ million

  Year

  Cost

  1984–85

  3·3

  1985–86

  3·5

  1986–87

  3·8

  1987–88

  3·9

  1988–89

  4·0

  1989–90

  4·3

  1990–91

  4·6

  1991–92

  5·1

  1992–93

  6·2

  Had costs since 1984–85 kept pace with inflation, the budget in 1992–93 would have been £5.1 million.

  Hardy Nursery Stock
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the health of the hardy nursery stock industry in Scotland; and what plans he has further to develop and promote it.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The container sector of the industry has seen increasing sales and prices whereas in the bare-root sector overproduction of some lines has led to price reductions. Overall demand is good and activity on the landscape supply side shows signs of an increase. Growers have generally accepted the new single market plant health regime—plant passports—without major problems.

  I was pleased to be able to lend my personal support this year again to the Scotgrow exhibition and I hope to attend the launch of Scottish Plants early next year. In the meantime we are considering whether the Government could make a financial contribution towards a joint initiative by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Horticultural Trade Association and Scotgrow to employ a full-time promotional officer.

  Community Councils
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans for community councils.

  Mr. Stewart
  I announced, on 11 November, new measures to strengthen the role of community councils following local government reform.

  Under the changes, community councils will gain the legal right to be consulted on local planning issues and schemes which the new councils will be preparing for decentralising service delivery arrangements. In addition, local licensing boards will be urged in new Government guidance to keep community councils fully informed of local developments in their area.

  Glasshouse Crops
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to promote the use of waste heat from incinerators, distilleries and industrial units for the production of glasshouse crops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Energy Efficiency Office commissions a wide range of studies, including waste heat recovery projects. The results of these studies are widely promoted.

  Renfrewshire Enterprise
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of full-time permanent jobs that have been created by Renfrewshire Enterprise since its inception; and how many full-time permanent jobs have been lost in its catchment area in the same period.

  Mr. Stewart
  Estimates of jobs created by the local enterprise companies are made not by my right hon. Friend but by the local enterprise companies themselves, since it is they who have access to all necessary details about the projects and activities in which they have been involved. Renfrewshire Enterprise estimates that, during the period April 1991 to October 1993, its activities have created 6,500 jobs; and that it has had a considerable impact over and above this in maintaining and safeguarding jobs across its area.

  No central register of jobs lost in the area is held. However, Renfrewshire Enterprise's monitoring of major job losses over the same period suggests losses of around 3,500.

  Lending Libraries
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the provision of lending libraries by each relevant Scottish local authority on a per capita basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Local authorities revenue expenditure on library provision in 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available, is set out in the table.

  Local Authorities net revenue expenditure on libraries 1991–92

  Authority

  £ per Capita

  Regional Councils

  Borders

  14·04

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12·55

  Highland

  11·46

  Island Councils

  Orkney

  19·94

  Shetland

  18·86

  Western Isles

  13·27

  District Councils

  Clackmannan

  16·61

  Falkirk

  13·63

  Stirling

  18·92

  Dunfermline

  11·91

  Kirkcaldy

  12·21

  North East Fife

  12·74

  Aberdeen

  17·07

  Banff and Buchan

  14·09

  Gordon

  10·73

  Kincardine and Deeside

  10·08

  Moray

  15·73

  633

  Authority

  £ per Capita

  East Lothian

  11·08

  Edinburgh

  16·99

  Midlothian

  13·98

  West Lothian

  12·85

  Argyll and Bute

  10·30

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  17·97

  Clydebank

  19·64

  Clydesdale

  13·53

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  13·30

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  15·23

  Cunninghame

  13·87

  Dumbarton

  16·01

  East Kilbride

  18·06

  Eastwood

  16·72

  Glasgow

  20·92

  Hamilton

  14·17

  Inverclyde

  12·10

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  9·87

  Kyle and Carrick

  14·04

  Monklands

  16·17

  Motherwell

  15·65

  Renfrew

  20·74

  Strathkelvin

  13·99

  Angus

  13·00

  Dundee

  19·52

  Perth

  13·36

  Scotland

  15·62

  Benomyl
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines his Department currently issues on the use of benomyl as a crop fungicide; what precautions he advises on its use; what are the effects of misuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My Department receives advice on pesticide safety issues from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, an independent body of scientific and medical experts. Following a review of benomyl by the ACP, it was announced in March of this year that there was no cause for concern over its continued use in the United Kingdom.

  In addition to the statutory conditions governing pesticide usage in general, benomyl products carry label restrictions including warning not to contaminate
  waterways, to keep off skin, to wash after use, to empty the container completely and dispose of safely; and, for home garden produce, to store away from children. Exposure to extremely large amounts of benomyl can cause anophthalimia and microphthalmia in rats. However, provided conditions of use are followed, exposure of consumers and operators is 1,000 times less than that demonstrated as a no-effect level in rats.

  Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a study by Scottish Enterprise into the potential for the development of manufacturing of Paisley pattern goods in Paisley.

  Mr. Stewart
  Renfrewshire Enterprise, in partnership with Renfrew district council, is already supporting the industry and examining a number of strategic issues through the Paisley pattern initiative. The initiative covers the heritage of the industry; commercial and product development; and marketing and promotion of Paisley pattern and its links with the local area.
  634
  Renfrewshire Enterprise plans to examine in the new year the full market potential for the manufacturing of Paisley pattern products, to build on the strategic examination of the industry conducted under the Initiative.

  I am sure Renfrewshire Enterprise would be happy to provide the hon. Member with further details about the initiative should he wish to contact it direct.

  Windyhill Farm, Elderslie
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will consider the appeal against refusal of planning permission by Renfrew district council for the development of a quarry at Windyhill farm, Elderslie; what procedures will be followed before final determination of the appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Evidence on this appeal will be heard by a reporter at a public local inquiry scheduled to commence on 14 June 1994. The reporter appointed will subsequently submit a comprehensive report based on the evidence led at the inquiry and the many other written representations submitted by local residents and other parties. The report and reporter's recommendations will, thereafter, be referred to my right hon. Friend who has directed that he should determine this appeal on the grounds that the proposal would constitute a significant development within a designated green belt.

  Lord Lieutenants
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the procedure for the appointment of a lord lieutenant of Renfrewshire to replace the retiring incumbent; if he will publish a table showing the name, occupation and date of appointment of(a) the vice-lord lieutenant and (b) each deputy lord lieutenants of (i) Glasgow and (ii) Renfrewshire; how nominations can be made for these positions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Lord lieutenants in Scotland are appointed by Her Majesty under section 131 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Deputy lieutenants are appointed by the lord lieutenant under section 133 of that Act, which includes the requirement that the lord lieutenant must ascertain that Her Majesty does not disapprove of the proposed appointment. Under section 135 of that Act, each lord lieutenant may, with Her Majesty's approbation, appoint a deputy lieutenant or a lieutenant as vice-lord lieutenant. Current information about the occupations of vice-lords lieutenant and lords-lieutenant is not held centrally. The other information requested by the hon. Gentleman is as follows:

  Renfrewshire

  Name

  Date of appointment

  Vice-Lord Lieutenant

  Colonel Sir Houston Shaw-Stewart of Greenock and Blackhall, Bt, MC TD

  11 November 1980

  Deputy Lieutenants

  Lieutenant-Colonel A. Leonard Aitkenhead, MBE TD

  13 February 1962

  Major David A. Kerr, MC TD

  13 February 1962

  Sir William J. Lithgow, Bt, of Ormsary

  31 May 1970

  Major John G. Stewart, TD

  31 May 1970

  Sir Eric Yarrow, Bt, MBE

  31 May 1970

  Sir Ian Denholm, CBE

  20 October 1980

  George G. MacMillan of MacMillan and Knap

  15 September 1983

  635

  Name

  Date of appointment

  Alan R. Devereux, Esq., CBE

  31 May 1985

  The Right Hon. The Lord Goold

  31 May 1985

  The Right Hon. The Lord Maclay

  29 July 1986

  Commander Henry C. Abram, VRD OStJ

  7 October 1987

  Brigadier John Brown, OBE MM TD

  7 October 1987

  Guy W. N. H. Clark, Esq.

  7 October 1987

  Captain William H. Hunter, CBE

  7 October 1987

  Mrs. Helen M. Laird, OBE

  7 October 1987

  Wing Commander C. Hector MacLean, AE

  7 October 1987

  James R. Minto, Esq., OBE

  7 October 1987

  Sir Simpson Stevenson, LLD

  14 May 1990

  Mrs. Margaret J. Baird

  20 July 1993

  Colonel Archibald D. Bremner

  20 July 1993

  Miss Annabel M. Goldie

  20 July 1993

  Archibald L. Morton, Esq.

  20 July 1993

  Cameron H. Parker, Esq., OBE

  20 July 1993

  Glasgow

  Name

  Date of appointment

  Vice-Lord Lieutenant

  Robert Gray, Esq., CBE OStJ LLD

  15 July 1992

  Deputy Lieutenants

  Group Captain Marcus Robinson, CB AFC AE

  1955

  Lieutenant-Colonel Leonard E. Dickson, CBE MC TD

  3 May 1963

  Colonel A. Walker Naddell, ERD KStJ

  3 May 1963

  Sir Samuel Curran, LLD FRS

  30 June 1969

  William L. Smith, Esq., MC TD

  30 June 1969

  Peter M. Gemmill Esq.

  31 August 1971

  Air Vice-Marshal Alexander V. R. Johnstone, CB DFC

  31 August 1971

  Captain John Mallard, MBE VRD

  31 August 1971

  Colonel A. T. Wilson, VRD

  31 August 1971

  Lord Wallace of Campsie, KStJ

  31 August 1971

  Colonel Lachlan Robertson, OBE TD

  15 May 1975

  Sir William Gray, LLD

  1 July 1975

  Peter T. McCann, Esq., OStJ

  26 December 1977

  Miss Agnes M. Patrick

  7 November 1979

  John K. Richmond, Esq.

  7 November 1979

  Mrs. Jean A. McFadden, CBE

  2 July 1980

  Gerald McGrath Esq.

  30 April 1980

  John H. Young, Esq., OBE

  21 September 1981

  Bashir A. Maan, Esq.

  7 December 1982

  Dr. Michael Kelly, CBE OSt1 LLD

  26 June 1984

  James Mullen, Esq.

  9 July 1985

  Philip O'Rourke, Esq.

  9 July 1985

  lain J. A. Dyer, Esq., MBE

  4 November 1987

  Patrick Lally, Esq.

  4 November 1987

  William Aitken, Esq.

  26 May 1992

  Mrs. Susan Baird, CBE OSt1

  15 July 1992

  Planning Regulations
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider extending planning regulations to make it the duty of planning authorities to ensure that service copies of proposed developments which are available to the public exactly match development plans on planning application forms and associated plans.

  Mr. Lang
  Responsibility for completion of neighbour notices rests with the applicant. It is intended that the description given of the proposed development should be consistent with the information on the planning application 636
  form. However, there is no requirement for it to match exactly. If it comes to light that there is a general problem on this matter, I will of course be willing to look into it.

  Land (Public Access)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes planning authorities are enacting or proposing when approached for planning permission for a change of ownership of forestry regarding freedom to roam; what representations he has had on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Change in the ownership of a forest is not subject to planning permission. The Forestry Commission operates procedures, where it plans to dispose of forestry land, which offer local authorities the opportunity of entering into an access agreement between the commission and the authority. These arrangements are being reviewed at present in conjunction with the work of the forestry review group. The review group and Ministers have received many representations of which a large proportion are concerned about maintenance of access.

  Procurators Fiscal
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the arrangements for reporting perceived cases of maladministration by local procurator fiscal's offices; how many such cases have been reported in relation to the operation of the procurator fiscal's office in Paisley since 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Where my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate receives a complaint about the conduct of business in a procurator fiscal's office, he obtains an immediate and full report of the circumstances. Procurators fiscal know that they may be called upon at any time to explain their actings to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. In addition, a programme of practice review involves inspection of local offices. Procurators fiscal also submit monthly returns of their activities to the Crown Office. In matters of administration procurators fiscal are accountable through their regional procurator fiscal to the Crown Agent. Regional procurators fiscal have powers to visit and inspect offices in their regions, and routinely do so. Local offices are also subject to regular financial auditing.

  There have been no reports of maladministration as such in relation to the operation of the procurator fiscal's office at Paisley, although a number of complaints have recently been made about the handling of particular cases by that office. The Crown Agent has discussed these with the procurator fiscal, and certain new procedures have been adopted as a result.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what major job-creating projects have been announced in Scotland in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]There have been many announcements of job creating projects in Scotland in the last 12 months. Those involving 200 or more jobs are listed.
  637

  Organisation

  Location

  Jobs expected to be created

  Muir Construction Ltd.

  Kirkcaldy

  250

  Aulds (Food) Ltd.

  Inchinnan

  270

  Jabil Circuit Ltd.

  Livingston

  400

  Mimtec Ltd.

  Livigston

  400

  Marks and Spencer plc and Sainsbury plc

  Glasgow-Renfrew

  5,000

  Mitsubishi Corporation (UK) Ltd.

  Livingston

  200

  Hoover Ltd.

  Cambuslang

  400

  Scotcable Ltd.

  Uddingston

  500

  Marshall Food Group Ltd.

  Edinburgh

  300

  Direct Line Insurance plc

  Glasgow

  200

  David A. Hall Ltd.

  Broxburn

  400

  VRG International Inc.

  Livingston

  300

  Costain plc and Taylor Woodrow plc

  Hunterston

  500

  Shell Ltd. and Esso Ltd.

  North East Shetland

  3,000

  Fullarton Fabrication Ltd.

  Kilwinning

  200

  Kvaerner Govan Ltd.

  Glasgow

  500

  Ministry of Defence

  Glasgow

  700

  Conoco (UK) Ltd.

  Aberdeen

  400

  Kvaemer H and G Offshore Ltd.

  Aberdeen

  300

  Safeway Food Stores Ltd.

  Glenrothes

  250

  Motorola Ltd.

  Glenrothes and East Kilbride

  980

  Shoprite Group Ltd.

  Dunfermline

  360

  Solectron Scotland Ltd.

  Dunfermline

  300

  Great Britain plc

  Hamilton Oil Company

  Port Glasgow

  300

  PCI Ltd.

  East Kilbride

  300

  Hoskyns Group plc

  Forres

  200

  DAKS Simpson Group plc

  Larkhall

  256

  British Sky Broadcasting plc

  Bathgate

  200

  Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd.

  St.Andrews

  200

  British Telecommunications Ltd.

  Glasgow

  230

  European Monitors Ltd.

  Ayr

  350

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a detailed explanation of his reasons for proposing to detach Musselburgh from the East Lothian local authority area, citing the specific representations or evidence of public opinion which supported that plan.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]In reaching the decision to include Musselburgh in the proposed Lothians authority, particular attention was paid to the petition of 8,000 names from the "Hands Off Musselburgh" campaign which expressed opposition to Musselburgh's inclusion within an expanded Edinburgh authority. The fact that Musselburgh traditionally formed part of Midlothian, and became part of East Lothian as recently as 1975, was also taken into account.

  Gourock Rope Works
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he or his officials last discussed the subject of the current circumstances surrounding the Gourock rope works, Port Glasgow, and its future with representatives of Historic Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]Historic Scotland, as an executive agency responsible to my right hon. Friend, reports to me for my interest in the Gourock rope works as a listed building.
  638
  Historic Scotland officials had a meeting with officials of Inverclyde district council regarding the rope works building on 12 August. Regular communication has been maintained since then. I hope the future of the category A listed building will be made secure by a scheme for its restoration.

  I shall write to the hon. Member as matters develop.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of Ayrshire and Arran health board's valuation committee have recently resigned from the evaluation committee.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 November 1993]No members have resigned from the evaluation committee.

  Countryside Survey
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment on the results of the countryside survey 1990 and the implications of these results for his Department.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 November 1993]My right hon. Friend maintains regular contact with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on these matters and will continue to do so. My right hon. Friend is committed to integrating environmental concerns into all policy areas.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Sellafield: Discharge Levels
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they received the report from British Nuclear Fuels plc that plutonium 239 has been released over Cumbria in levels 200 times greater than previous estimates; and whether they will now end the production or separation of plutonium in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in the autumn of 1992 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health received copies of a report written by Professor Steven Jones of BNFL. The Government have no plans to end the production or separation of plutonium in the United Kingdom.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Viscount comment on the report, which appeared in the Guardian and other newspapers, that the review which took place had revealed emissions from Sellafield 200 times greater than hitherto reported? Have the Government received such a report? If so, will the noble Viscount comment specifically upon it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the report by Professor Jones reassessed the discharges in the early years of the Sellafield site by reference to records made at the time and current assessment procedures. The report has no implication for current or proposed future discharges from the site, which are specifically measured.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Viscount further. According to the article in the Guardian—not denied hitherto by the Government—the report, which was officially received by BNFL and passed on to the Government, says that emissions from Sellafield were 200 times greater than previously reported. Is the noble Viscount denying that fact? Is he saying that the Government have not considered the matter? Alternatively, what is he saying?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, we are not denying that fact. The report by Professor Jones is the most detailed study yet made of plant discharges of isotopes in the early years. Previous reports carried out in the 1980s used major simplifying assumptions to track back from modern measurements. The new work by Professor Jones shows that for certain isotopes, especially plutonium, such assumptions were incorrect.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister say what are the levels of radioactive
536
plutonium in sediment along the Cumbrian coast caused by liquid discharges from Sellafield? If the level is 200 times greater in air pollution, what is it in liquid discharges? Further, does the noble Viscount agree that the level of radiation exposure for people who eat fish and shellfish caught in that area could give rise to serious concern? What are the Government doing to monitor the situation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the main source of plutonium in marine sediments is the emission of low-level liquid waste to the Irish Sea, especially emissions that occurred in the 1970s before, extensive improvements were made to effluent treatments in the 1980s. I must reiterate that the figure of 200 refers to an historic figure.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that pollution and emissions do not respect national boundaries and also the need for Britain to be a good neighbour to the countries that adjoin us, have the Government sent copies of the report to the Irish and Scandinavian governments and taken note of their responses to it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the report was written by Professor Jones for BNFL. The report is not secret; indeed, it was given openly as evidence in the recent Reay and Hope leukaemia litigation case and, as I said, was made available to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and other bodies. The information contained in the report has been passed to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. I also understand that Professor Jones is intending to offer the report for publication in a scientific journal in due course.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, although the noble Viscount now says that the report is not secret, it has been kept secret so far. Will he place copies of the report in the Libraries of both Houses so that Members can make up their minds about this difficult but important matter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as is customary with scientific research, publication of the report is a matter for Professor Jones as author of the material. I reiterate that the material is not secret. If and when the report is published in a scientific journal, a copy will he placed in the Library of both Houses.

Olympic Symbols
2.43 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to protect the Olympic ring symbols in favour of the British Olympic Association.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we remain committed to introducing legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows to protect the use of the Olympic symbols and related terms and thereby to benefit the British Olympic Association.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that positive reply. But is she aware that the British Olympic Association receives no government grant and indeed relies entirely on sponsorship? Does she accept that it is therefore vital that the £10 million that the association hopes to raise from its sponsors to assist our athletes competing in the Olympics in 1996 in Atlanta is not jeopardised by the unauthorised use of the Olympic symbols?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are looking at all possible options to speed up the introduction of legislation. We are certainly aware of the demands faced by the BOA and by athletes in the run-up to both the 1994 winter games and the 1996 games in Atlanta.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that such legislation as the noble Lord, Lord Archer, has asked for is introduced as a matter of urgency because people who wish to make a racket out of selling the logo and other goods will soon start to do so unless legislation to prevent them is introduced quickly?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are actively considering, as I have said, all possible legislative options so that British sport may begin to reap the benefit at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm or deny that the legislation to which she has just referred would be covered by the phrase "other measures" in Her Majesty's gracious Speech?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. I cannot do so.
Lord Elton: My Lords, presumably the legislation will have effect only in so far as the British jurisdiction extends. I presume protection is required worldwide for this symbol in so far as it relates to British teams. Is it not therefore also a matter for the British Olympic Association to take out patents worldwide in the normal way?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the intention would be to allow the British Olympic Association to market rights to use the Olympic devices more effectively by giving it exclusive rights in these devices which would generate revenue from the private sector to support British Olympic teams. British sport stands to benefit substantially from the extra fund-raising which this protection would facilitate, and a measure of this kind is required by the International Olympic Committee of countries wishing to stage Olympic games. Its adoption would greatly strengthen any future British Olympic bid.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Sports Aid Foundation does good work in raising money for sport, but the sponsorships in which it is involved have often required the use of the terms "Olympic" or "Olympian". Will the Minister assure the House that any such legislation giving monopoly rights would not damage the work of the Sports Aid Foundation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the Sports Aid Foundation does excellent work in funding elite athletes to help them compete with distinction. The BOA has been discussing with the Sports Aid Foundation how its interests might best be safeguarded.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all that she has said, but I stress the view that it would help if this important piece of legislation was put through as quickly as possible as the winter games, as my noble friend mentioned, will take place in only 18 months' time.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope I have made it as clear as I possibly can that we are looking at all possible options to speed this matter up. It is not for nothing that I am known as "Jeannie the Eagle".

NHS Supplies Authority: Audit Provisions
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the audit committee referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health at col. 713 of the Lords' Official Report on 25th October has yet been formed, and, if so, who are the members.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, at its meeting on 16th November the National Health Service Supplies Authority agreed that its audit committee would consist of three of the authority's non-executive members. The members will be selected at its next meeting on 16th December, after which I shall write to the noble Lord giving him the membership.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the detailed Answer that the Minister has given me. But in view of the unhappy financial outcome of some dealings within the National Health Service, does she consider that the three people she has mentioned should be members of the audit committee? I believe they are already employed in another capacity in the health service on a quango and now they will not only be twin-tracking but treble-tracking. For this matter to be run on a correct financial basis the people appointed to the committee ought to be totally removed from the health service. That stricture should apply not only to the three directors, who are nameless at this point in time, but also to the chief executive and the chairman. Does the Minister accept that for this matter to be seen to be financially correct none of those people should be involved with the audit committee because if they are involved they will literally be examining their own books?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to draw a distinction between internal and external audit. In this case we are talking about internal audit. It is quite right that the non-executive members involved with the organisation should be involved in the internal audit.

539
We have received the Cadbury Report on the financial aspects of corporate governance. I understand that it is the first such report, and it has been very well received by a number of regulatory bodies. It is highly commended by both the private and the public sectors. We are in absolute accordance with the recommendations of the Cadbury Report. The non-executive members of this authority are composed of a company solicitor, the former chief executive of the John Lewis Partnership, a chartered engineer, a management consultant and a director of a freight company. They all have outside interests, which is important for non-executive members.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to return to the matter so quickly. I accept what the Minister said without reservation. However, am I correct in thinking that some of the people she mentioned are already employed in another capacity in other quangos in the National Health Service? I am not talking about the qualifications of those outside members. The Minister insists that it has to be an internal audit. The point that I made in my Question a few weeks ago is that, with a turnover of between £1.7 billion and £3 billion, there ought to be an element of outside investigation of the final end-of-year turnover to ensure that this is not another case where the National Health Service will lose millions of pounds because of a poor business approach.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have absolute confidence in the supplies authority. The external audit for the supplies authority is carried out by the National Audit Office, the Audit. Commission, Parliament through the PAC and the review system. This is an internal audit and, as I said, it is important to draw that distinction. I have been given a guarantee by the chairman of the authority that he will not be part of this small membership, and neither will the chief executive or other executive members of the authority.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. Does it mean that none of those who will undertake this internal audit is in the payment of the National Health Service? That would he a proper move. Secondly, instead of using so many private audit companies, which come in and are paid by the National Health Service, would it not be more appropriate for the National Audit Office and the National Audit Commission to undertake these internal inquiries?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, those bodies do that. It is essential that every organisation has both internal and external audits. The internal audit is carried out by people within the organisation. In line with the Cadbury Report, they are non-executive members of the organisation. They keep a watching brief on a day-to-day basis. That is very important and one would not expect external auditors to do that.
As regards those who are involved in the audit, they are involved in the National Health Service. This particular authority is a supplying authority to the National Health Service. It is important that we have
540
people on the authority who are not only beyond reproach but are also consumers of the service, in that it is a service industry supplying a service to them.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my question was: are any of them paid by the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. They are paid as non-executive directors in line with every authority and trust board within the NHS, and they also hold posts within the National Health Service as chairmen of health authorities or other positions. That is the consumer aspect of the NHS supplies authority.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the findings of the proposed audit committee will be dealt with rather more openly than the original district auditor's report on the mismanagement, incompetence and possible fraud in the Wessex Health Authority? That report was delivered to the Secretary of State, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, who took no action. The senior staff of the health authority were warned that approaching the press or the local MP would result in instant dismissal. The then chairman of the authority, Sir Robin Buchanan, having first disclaimed any responsibility, then had to admit that he had been involved in negotiations regarding the computer contract which was the subject of the district auditor's highly critical 77-page report. Can we expect rather more open government so far as concerns the proposed audit committee, and will the findings of that audit committee be available for debate in both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, district auditors' reports on all authorities and trusts are published. They are in the public domain. With regard to the Wessex situation, I should like to point out that many of the irregularities which occurred in relation to that scheme took place before Sir Robin Buchanan became chairman in 1987.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Cadbury Report recommended that the audit committees of public companies should be comprised of non-executive directors? My understanding of non-executive directors is that they have no other connection with the company concerned except as directors. It would appear, and can the Minister confirm, that the arrangements that are being set up for the National Health Service are not in line with the recommendations of the Cadbury Report in that the non-executive directors involved hold positions elsewhere within the organisation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to reassure your Lordships that the proposals that are being put forward by the supplies authority are in accordance with the Cadbury Committee recommendations. The Cadbury Committee stated that the board should establish an internal audit committee of at least three, non-executive directors with written terms of reference which deal clearly with its authority and duties. That is
exactly what will happen.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the very detailed way in which the Minister has answered the questions. However, is she aware that her reply that some of the people involved are already receiving two salaries or stipends within the National Health Service makes my case for me? They ought not to be given a third, on the grounds that they are already involved. They are the buyer and the seller and are now becoming their own auditor.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as consumers of the service and of the National Health Service Supplies Authority it is very much in the interests of health authority chairmen, trust chairmen and whoever else is involved to ensure that they receive value for money. I believe that they will be keener than anybody else to ensure that there are no irregularities and, what is more, that they are receiving value for money from the NHS Supplies Authority.

Business
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Astor will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on social security uprating.

Liaison Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and to allocate resources between Select Committees; to review the Select Committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees;
That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Belstead,

L. Dormand of Easington,

B. Hylton-Foster,

E. Jellicoe,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Richard,

L. Wakeham (Lord Privy Seal) (Chairman),

L. Weatherill.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Charteris of Amisfield,

L. Dainton,

L. Denham,

E. Ferrers,

L. Gibson,

L. Glenarthur,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Hampton,

L. Hayhoe,

B. Hollis of Heigham,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Kimball,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

L. Mackay of Clashfern (Lord Chancellor),

L. Peston,

Bp. Peterborough,

L. Richard,

B. Seccombe,

B. Serota,

L. Stewartby,

L. Stoddart of Swindon,

L. Taylor of Blackburn,

L. Tordoff,

L. Wakeham (Lord Privy Seal),

V. Ullswater.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Belstead,

B. Blatch,

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Carr of Hadley,

L. Denham,

L. Dormand of Easington,

L. Elliott of Morpeth,

E. Ferrers,

543

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Hesketh,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

L. Mackay of Clashfern (Lord Chancellor),

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

L. Mustill,

L. Pym,

L. Richard,

E. Strathmore and Kinghorne,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Tordoff,

L. Wakeham (Lord Privy Seal),

V. Ullswater,

L. Weatherill.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be appointed as the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session:

L. Aberdare,

L. Airedale,

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

L. Alport,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Cocks of Hartcliffe,

B. Cox,

L. Elliott of Morpeth,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Grantchester,

L. Hayter,

B. Hooper,

E. Listowel,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

B. Lockwood,

L. Lyell,

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

V. Oxfuird,

B. Serota,

L. Skelmersdale,

L. Strabolgi,

E. Strathmore and Kinghorne,

V. Ullswater.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In moving this Motion perhaps I may pray the indulgence of the House if in my own speech I find it difficult to stick precisely to the five-minute limit which will apply to other speakers save for those from the Front Benches. However, I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Richard set down for this day shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Policies: Confidence
3 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard rose to move to resolve, That this House has no confidence in the policies of Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am told that I am entitled to speak for 20 minutes. Perhaps I may say at the outset to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that I expect to take somewhat less than 20 minutes. Therefore, if there are a few minutes left and if the House thinks it right, I shall be happy to give the Leader of the House those additional minutes for him to seek to justify the policies of the past 14 years.
I am told that the Motion is somewhat rare. I have been unable to discover a direct precedent on when it was last moved in the House. Although rare, from time to time similar Motions have been moved. However, we believe it appropriate that the House should have an opportunity for a little stocktaking so far as concerns the Government's record. It enables the House to express a judgment on the policies of the Government after no less than 14 years of Conservative Party rule. At the end of the debate, of course, there will be a vote. I understand the pressures of time on many speakers in the debate. Indeed, it is interesting that the debate has attracted so many speakers; there are about 47. I understand the pressures on some noble Lords. The last volume which the noble Lord, Lord Archer, produced contained some 420 pages. It would be an act of unwelcome self-discipline on his part to have to condense his remarks to four-and-a-half or five minutes. We look forward to his speech with interest.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that I wound not expect the Government to fall if the Motion were to be carried.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Richard: My Lords, it would be an appropriate expression of opinion, but the precise constitutional effect of the Motion being carried is, to put it mildly, somewhat unclear. As I see it, there are three possible votes at the end of the debate. Those who have no confidence in the Government will of course vote for the Motion. Those who have confidence will of course vote against it. But there are bound to be many in this House—I do not refer only to the noble Lords sitting on the Cross Benches—in an intermediate position. When I considered that position before coming to the House today, the couplet from Belloc came to my mind which states:
"Always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse".
The debate is not upon the policies of the Labour Party. In many ways I wish that it were. Had we been in office for 14 years I would have welcomed a debate on the

545
policies of the Labour Party. Nor, indeed, is it a debate in detail on yesterday's Budget. However, to those who take the Belloc position,
"Always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse",
perhaps I may say this. That is a doctrine not of confidence but of resignation. At best it is a doctrine of reluctant acquiescence in a Government about which one is extraordinarily unenthusiastic. As such it seems to me that if one is in that state of mind, the proper vote at the end of the debate should be an abstention.
I believe that the Government are culpable on four main grounds. In considering, as we are, the quality of government, if any one of those charges were proven it would be sufficient to justify a vote in favour of the Motion. If all four were proven it would make that an even more acceptable proposition.
We indict the Government, first, on their lack of integrity and veracity, their inconsistency, incompetence and the irrelevance of many of their policies. Let us go back to that day in 1979 when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, got to Downing Street. Standing on the doorstep of No. 10, she set out the objectives of her Administration. In somewhat unlikely fashion she quoted from St. Francis of Assisi. I quote the words again. She said:
"Where there is discord may we bring harmony. Where there is error may we bring truth. Where there is doubt may we bring faith. And where there is despair may we bring hope".
I am content to take that as the text for the debate today. Is there more harmony and less discord in Britain today than in 1979? I fancy not. Is there less error and more truth? I shall come to that in a moment. Is there less doubt and more faith? Finally, is there more hope and less despair? I think not.
Fourteen years after that day in 1979, Britain is a more divisive and divided society. Certainly it is a much less law-abiding society. There is now an underclass in our society which did not exist in 1979. I do not recall hordes of people sleeping on the main thoroughfares of our capital city. Noble Lords on the other side may gesticulate, but I have lived in this city for a long time. In the 1970s I do not recollect the obvious signs of poverty and homelessness that now exist. If they are there now, one is entitled to ask why. In the past 14 years, the ranks of the alienated and marginalised in Britain have grown, not shrunk, and yesterday's Budget will add to that problem.
Nor is it any answer to say that it is happening elsewhere —as though that could ever be an excuse. The policy of blaming everyone except themselves—whether it is single parents, scroungers and now apparently even the Churches—is no answer. Responsibility for the state of Britain today lies fairly and squarely on the party that has been in government for 14 years. Even the Prime Minister recognised that when in an interview to the Los Angeles Times he said,
"We have been here for 14 years. There is no-one else we can blame for anything that has gone wrong".
How he must regret that moment of uncharacteristic candour.
The responsibility for the current state of affairs in this country is that of the Government—no excuses, no
546
evasions. Let me therefore consider the first of my charges against the Government: that they lied to the British people; they lied about tax; they lied about public expenditure and thereby have grossly misled the electorate. On 28th January last year, Mr. Major said:
"I have no plans to raise … the level of national insurance contributions".
What has happened? From next April, national insurance contributions will go up by 1 per cent. to 10 per cent. for employees and to 7.3 per cent. for the self-employed. That will cost a typical family more than £3 a week. The majority in another place has still to vote for that tax hike. When it does, we shall take some pleasure in reminding Members that they are voting for an increase in income tax by another name.
Page 33 of the Conservative manifesto—we study those somewhat arcane documents in detail—states:
"We will maintain mortgage tax relief".
That is a straightforward, clear and unequivocal pledge put before the country at the last election. What is to happen? From next April mortgage tax relief will be cut from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent.; and in the Budget it is to be cut further to 15 per cent. Those are all taxes on home owners. Was that an honest prospectus to put before the country?
On 27th March 1992, the Prime Minister said:
"We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT".
That seems specific, clear and unequivocal. The Tory Party 1992 Campaign Guide stated:
"Following a series of unfounded and irresponsible scares from the Labour Party, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government has no intentions of raising VAT further".
So we were being irresponsible, and scaremongering. We had said that the Government would raise VAT. What has happened? VAT is to be put on fuel bills at the rate of 17.5 per cent. by 1995.
The Conservative manifesto states:
"We are the only Party that understands the need for lower taxation".
In Channel 4 News on 31st March 1992 the previous Chancellor, Mr. Lamont, said:
"We will not have to increase taxes. I cannot see any circumstances in which that will be necessary".
Honesty? Veracity? I venture to suggest that rarely at any British general election has a prospectus been put before the country in such specific terms which have turned out quite so quickly to be quite so mendacious. On expenditure before the election, what did the Government say? They promised to maintain spending. After the election, they cut it. Again, I have a quotation from the Prime Minister:
"If we were going to cut public expenditure, we would have done it before and I don't believe it's economically right. I have said that in the past, and there is no need to do it whatsoever. So you can rule out any prospect of that".
He said that on 30th March last year. It is common knowledge that legislation announced in the manifesto of a prospective government will get an easier ride than legislation thought up later, almost on the hoof. It is equally common knowledge that what a government promise to do in their manifesto, they should adhere to. It is a matter of honour and a matter of integrity and on both those criteria this Government are wanting.
When the electorate vote for a particular package they do not expect it to be changed immediately after the election. The Government have broken promises on a

547
number of important issues and yet still they expect the electorate to trust them. They have taken shamelessness almost to the bounds of incredulity. I think, too, that we should be rather careful about accepting yesterday's Budget at its face value.
Secondly, I now turn to the Government's consistency. I do not need to spend much time on this. The memories of the Criminal Justice Bill and the Railways Bill are fresh in the House's mind. The main characteristics of this Government's legislative approach seem to be that it is short term, ill-thought out and bulldozed through Parliament and is then repealed later on when the defects of the legislation have become apparent. In one respect, however, the Government have proved consistent, and did so again yesterday. When in trouble they go for the vulnerable, and yesterday's Budget is no exception. The relief for pensioners is approximately half the VAT increase on fuel. The unemployed will have their entitlement to benefit cut from 12 months to six months, although I gather the benefit will have a new name. There have been a number of new names for various benefits over the past 14 years, but the effect is the same. The benefit will be cut and that will impose increased burdens on the most vulnerable section of our society. There are to be harsher qualifying conditions for people on invalidity benefit and they are to be taxed. When the details become clearer, the savagery in these cuts will begin to appear.
Thirdly, let me look at the Government's competence—their economic competence. A once proud and prosperous nation is now industrially virtually on its knees. We are the only member of the Group of Seven major industrial nations where output is lower now than it was in 1990. Ponder that for a moment, before noble Lords heckle me. The Conservative boast is that inflation is now less than it has been for years. The last time inflation was at this rate was in 1967, when we had a Labour Government. Not only did we have a Labour Government and that rate of inflation, but the economy was growing at 2.2 per cent. a year. We had a manufacturing trade surplus and unemployment was less than 350,000. I would not describe that as a golden age, but it was certainly much better than the one we have now.
Although, of course, I welcome the recent fall in unemployment, it still stands at almost 2.9 million, well over 1 million more than it was when the present Prime Minister took office. Investment in Britain as a share of national income is at a 40-year low and since 1979 the economy has grown at an average of only 1.7 per cent. per year. Every Labour Government since the war has had a better record than that.
Even I am beginning to weary of these depressing figures which, in the final analysis, rob too many people of their humanity and individual worth. The human cost of this economic failure is, frankly, too high. We have housing estates in this country where 60 per cent. of males now have no jobs. What effect will that have upon the children of those people out of work?
Finally, there is the ethos with which the whole of the Government's policy seems to be imbued. The Conservative Party's appalling record on law and order, their attacks on the welfare state and the divisiveness of
548
much of their approach have placed a terrible strain on the social cohesion of the nation and, at the end of the day, that perhaps matters more than any other single issue. The greater the number of our people who feel themselves detached and alienated from society as a whole, the greater the dangers. It is this that is the most damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative rule.
So what have they produced after those 14 years? A country more, not less, divided—perhaps more so than at any time since the 1930s. So much for St. Francis! Conservative rule over this time has been characterised by high unemployment, a high rate of crime, de-industrialisation, a collapsing infrastructure and the gradual dismantling of the welfare state and the National Health Service. The effect and the impact have been devastating and the full extent of the effect on our people is only gradually beginning to emerge.
Inevitably, when a new Prime Minister takes over, he receives, and is entitled to receive, a period of probation. I have to tell the Prime Minister that his probationary period is now more than up. He has broken promises, isolated this country within the European Union and cast miners and others onto the scrap heap. He has backtracked in principle on reforming the criminal justice system and, most seriously, he holds ultimate responsibility for damaging the country's economy and damaging the social cohesion of our nation. We have no confidence in him and his Government. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House has no confidence in the policies of Her Majesty's Government.—(Lord Richard.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I almost always enjoy the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and he has not disappointed us on this occasion. He has put before the House an interesting, even curious, Motion—so curious that I racked my brain and, indeed, the more expert brains of the House authorities, for a precedent within living memory. The nearest I can find is a Motion moved by Lord Wells-Pestell, deploring the Government's social and economic policies. That was on 9th March 1983. It was not a Motion that found favour with your Lordships. It was followed, less than three months later, by a general election in which the Government increased their majority by more than 100 seats. In slightly longer order, the years after that saw seven years of uninterrupted growth which led to a huge rise in the average family's living standards and the creation of 1,300,000 new jobs in this country—more than any other European country.
Today, with that same impeccable sense of timing, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has moved his Motion when the economy has been growing for 18 months; when that growth is due to be the fastest of any big league EC economy; and when unemployment has fallen by 137,000 this year while it is rising virtually everywhere else in Europe. I am happy and proud to speak to any aspect of this Government's policies. But, in the time available to me, I would like to concentrate on three major issues. The first is the economy and employment. This is not a matter of narrow party politics. It is vital that we do not fall into the trap of

549
short-term solutions which will simply throw the problems, accentuated and multiplied, into the laps of our successors. That means building on the supply side changes this Government made in the 1980s, which enabled the economy to emerge from the recession with firm foundations for recovery.
There are, of course, still dangers and problems. It would be complacent to deny them. One of the biggest dangers to our recovery is the weakness in the economies of our major trading partners across the Channel. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, as a distinguished former commissioner, knows better than many how interdependent our economy is with that of the rest of Europe and how similar are the problems which face all European governments.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships' House of how we fare compared with our European colleagues. Inflation is lower than in almost every other EC country. Unemployment here is below the EC average and falling. Our industrial relations are excellent. Our unit wage costs—a key determinant of competitiveness—are falling; elsewhere in Europe they are rising. In France, with a similar sized working population, unemployment is 3.25 million and rising; nearly one in four of that country's young people is without work. In Germany some 3½ million are out of work. In Spain, the unemployment rate is 23 per cent.; 1,000 more people are joining the dole queues each day. Against that background I think that many of our European partners would view the Motion moved by the noble Lord today with some puzzlement.
The second set of problems which faces all European countries is the high and rising cost of social provision. That is why the Netherlands is reducing disability benefits, France is raising contributions, Italy is raising its pension age, and Germany is proposing to reduce unemployment benefits. The current social disorder in Belgium illustrates the magnitude of the task which that government face. Other countries have taken even more stringent action. Australia, Canada and New Zealand are moving from a universal to targeted family benefit. Sweden, long heralded as a model for welfare states, is having to cut benefits radically.
Oppositions have the luxury of being in favour of all being for the best in the best of all possible worlds; or perhaps delegating their responsibilities to the Commission for Social Justice. But governments do not have that option. They have a duty to make difficult choices to protect those most in need.
Edmund Burke said that it is necessary to reform if we are to conserve. Our programme of modernisation of social provision rests on three principles: first, to ensure that help is increasingly focused on those in need; secondly, to discourage dependency—in that respect I fully share the concern of the Opposition's official spokesman in another place who acknowledged that one of the tragedies of the present system is that it does encourage dependency; and thirdly, we must develop and improve the welfare system to improve incentives to work and save, and to take responsibility for our own families.
550
We have taken action to protect the most vulnerable through the recession. The amount that the taxpayer spends on social security has risen by £24 billion since 1990. Even excluding increases directly related to the recession, expenditure has risen over that period by around £20 billion. It now amounts to no less than £80 billion a year. That is £13 for every working person every working day. And it will rise significantly over the coming years.
The Government remain committed to a strong, modern welfare state. Yesterday's Budget, and the far-reaching reforms that is contains, will take that commitment forward. The Budget has tackled the rising cost of our social security system. In particular, it has set out our plans for equalising the pension age at 65. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced reform of the present, complicated, system of unemployment benefit. The Government's reform will keep the unemployed in touch with the world of work, tackling that terrible and debilitating social evil, long-term unemployment.
The Budget also put forward measures to reform invalidity benefit, the cost of which has continued to grow significantly, even as we as a nation have become healthier. And the Budget tackled—imaginatively—the problem of single parents trapped at home, unable to work, by creating a new childcare allowance, within family credit, worth up to £28 a week. The Budget was also a reaffirmation of the basic economic values for which the Government stand: sound money, prudent public finance and the encouragement of enterprise. That is the basis for sustained growth in the long term.
Reductions in interest rates alone are worth some £12 billion a year to the cash flow of businesses, and some £40 a week to the average mortgage payer. My right honourable friend's measures provide another boost to business, especially small businesses, and to exports. They reduce the cost to firms of taking on new workers. The new apprenticeship scheme will further develop the skills Britain will need in the coming century. The Budget has clearly addressed the question of putting the Government's finances on a sound footing for the rest of the decade and beyond. The successful restraint of public spending has contributed as much as the resource side to restoring sound public finance.
Yet within that restraint we have been able to expand spending on key areas such as health and education. We have virtually met already our target for the end of the century of one in three young people in higher education. We have also been able to maintain the fight against crime. I do not expect to satisfy noble Lords opposite. It is easy to speak with eloquence of public investment. That is taxpayers' money to you and me, my Lords. But being responsible in government means cutting one's cloth according to the nation's ability to pay. That is why we have brought forward new initiatives to involve the private sector in partnership with the public sector in major infrastructure projects.
The third issue that I wish to address is the creation of a safe environment in which we can live. Crime, lack of respect for the law and, as a result, fear of violence, are only too prevalent in our society. Academics can analyse the reasons. I welcome such analysis. It is a

551
matter of concern to us all. At the same time, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we must also address the concerns of those affected by crime. We intend to take decisive action against crime and the criminal and to make sure that our laws, and the criminal justice system as a whole, protect the public. The balance of the criminal justice system has tipped too far against the protection of the legitimate interests of our citizens. We have responded quickly to rectify those defects. We are taking that initiative forward in a wide-ranging Criminal Justice Bill this Session. In addition, the police will be given new freedom to apply their resources most cost-effectively against the criminal. The administration of magistrates' courts will he reformed. All these measures will yield direct benefits to those most vulnerable to abuse of the law and of the criminal justice system.
We have had four days of debate on the gracious Speech. We have a full legislative programme before us. It is right that our policies should be tested in the fire of debate and that in taking those policies forward we should listen carefully to the voices of experience and wisdom with which this House is so richly endowed. As a government, it is our duty to put such policies, and the choices which we have made, to your Lordships to consider. There is much work to be done. Let us get on with it. I urge the House to reject this Motion.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this debate provides an opportunity for an overview of the Government's general performance, especially and particularly in the context of yesterday's Budget. The nation regularly gives such a view through opinion polls, local elections and by-elections. That view has been consistent: from within a few weeks of the last election the Government have experienced historically low support. Clearly the nation has already lost confidence in them and we on these Benches simply represent the national view.
Yesterday's Budget was simply a reflection of the Government's failure. The Budget was almost wholly concerned with clearing up the economic mess that the Government had created. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, referred to difficult choices, but he must admit that too often those difficult choices were created by the Government's own incompetence.
Some of the financial numbers presented yesterday are quite mind-blowing. At 8½ per cent. of GDP, the PSBR is far, far higher than in 1976 when my noble friend Lord Callaghan called in the IMF. The total tax paid as a percentage of GDP now rises from 36½ per cent. this year to 40 per cent., as forecast by the Chancellor, in 1998. Both of those figures are way above what they were under the previous Labour administration. The total tax increases in the two Budgets this year accumulate to £30 billion over the next three years. So much, we say, for the Conservative Party's 1992 election promise and claim to be the party of low taxation; and so much for its claim to competence in economic management.
I feel that the Government's economic failures are reflected very seriously in the national heritage area with which I am departmentally concerned. I have never
552
known such anxiety and trepidation in the arts world, where fine theatres, dance companies and orchestras are threatened with closure. Yesterday, the grant to the Arts Council was cut by £3¼ million, or 1.7 per cent., in complete breach of the Conservative manifesto pledge. The chairman of the Arts Council said:
"This is a black day for the arts and a national disgrace".
He is not known for frequent criticisms of the Conservative Government—or he would not have been given the job in the first place.
Perhaps even more important to the arts i the terrible squeeze on the local authorities, which overall are the most important supporters of the arts at all levels and especially at community level. The local authorities will now have few resources for discretionary grants to local arts. That is very bleak news indeed. It is a similar story in the sports area. The Sports Council has also suffered a cut in cash terms for next year.
It is not just a question of money. The whole organisation and administration of arts and sports in this country is in constant change, uncertainty and disarray. I believe that the Sports Council has undertaken its sixth or seventh review. The Sports Council is given instructions which are then revoked; it takes measures which are then opposed and it has to renege.
A similar situation exists in the media. The 1990 Broadcasting Act arguably was one of the silliest Acts in our history. It is already being dismantled. The latest announcements about regional television have created fresh uncertainty. So the 1990 Broadcasting Act joins a long line of measures: the poll tax, the criminal justice Bill, the destruction of the coal industry and railway privatisation.
The evidence for this Motion, as my noble friend Lord Richard so clearly set out, lies unarguably, clearly and very sadly in the records of each year of this administration. I believe that to vote against the Motion is to vote against the history through which we have lived.
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House began by telling us that the Motion before us is unprecedented. I go further and say that it is not only unprecedented; it is totally unnecessary. We have had four full days of debate on the Queen's Speech, four days on which it has been possible to criticise every single aspect of government policy were we so minded. Now we are to have another debate which is simply a repeat performance. This afternoon I have heard nothing which seems to me to have added anything to what has been said over those four days.
However, I accept the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I listened with great interest to his speech. He said that we should go back to 1979 when we would see that we had a more discontented state. Did he say discontented? We had just lived through the winter of discontent. Do noble Lords not remember the rubbish in the streets and the people who could not be buried? Practically every industry was out on strike. One could not take a train or go about one's business. We were beset by almost every difficulty that there could have

553
been. I am the first to admit that not every difficulty has been put right, but we are certainly not a more discontented nation.
Indeed, I believe that the effect of 14 years of Conservative government has been to a very large extent to change the opinion of this country. In fact it has shifted opinion right round the world. Even now I recall with astonishment some of the conversations that I had in rather unexpected places when I was a Minister at the Foreign Office about how to privatise national industries. Everyone was looking to us for a lead.
Let us look at some of the things that have happened. My noble friend the Leader of the House set out clearly some of the great achievements in industry. Perhaps I may give one example from the area in which I live; namely, Rover cars. The Rover 800 motor car is made in Oxford. The motor car industry was on its knees. It had vast government subsidies. Having been taken over, it is one of the few manufacturing industries selling and making a profit. I believe that the Rover 800 has an enormous waiting list and hundreds more workers have been taken on in Oxford. That is a success story. Only three weeks ago I visited one of the most up-to-date factories in Europe. It was a food factory —part of Northern Foods—making recipe dishes. We are a European leader in this area.
Looking at one's personal life, one can appreciate the effects of an improved telephone system and the deregulation of long distance coaches, the latter having made travel vastly better, particularly for young people. Take even the privatisation of the water industry, which was fought over so strongly. If my local paper is to be believed, Thames Water has managed to stop the leaks so that it is no longer necessary to build an extra reservoir. When there is privatisation and competition one puts first things first.
Let us consider some of the other areas of criticism. I believe that the National Health Service was mentioned. I hope that I am correct in saying that for every 100 patients who were treated in 1990–1991 we are now treating 116 patients. The idea that there have been cuts in the health service is ridiculous. The money spent on it has increased every single year. The question is how the money is spent. The money has certainly been there.
It is very necessary to realise that we have brought a great deal of common sense and efficiency into industry, so that we now have some of the most efficient industries in the Community. I hope that they will be the basis of our sustained economic growth in the future. We have also taken care of the vulnerable. The health service has been improved and huge efforts have been made with education and training. Raising standards will take a very long time but it is extremely important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, pointed out, there will never be as much money available as everybody in the world of the arts and sport would like. But we have looked for other sources of money. A sequence of legislative measures has enabled far more charitable giving to take place, much to the benefit of all kinds of organisations. The national lottery will also help both the arts and sport in the future.
554
Therefore we look to see how we can make the best use of the money that we have, so that we can maintain and support those who need help and at the same time improve the economy and improve the standards of living of everyone. I hope that the Motion will be overwhelmingly rejected.

Social Security (Up-rating)
3.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, with the leave of the House I would now like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on social security following from my right honourable friend's Budget Statement.
"Spending on social security this year will amount to over £80 billion. It will increase over the next three years to £83 billion, £87.8 billion and £91.8 billion. This is the largest increase of any department and demonstrates our commitment to the needy, the elderly, and sick and disabled people.
"Despite the intense pressures on public spending we will keep our commitment to up-rate benefits, keep our pledges to families and the elderly, and keep our promise to give extra help with fuel bills.
"Although inflation over the last 12 months was low, the cost of up-rating all benefits just to offset it would have cost around £2 billion next year. I am grateful to my right honourable friend the Chancellor for going beyond that and providing very substantial extra funds to help people with fuel bills. This brings the total cost of increasing benefits next year to nearly £2½ billion. And by the time the full rate of VAT has fed through, the total help will run at £1¼ billion a year. Over three years the total additional help for VAT on fuel amounts to £2½ billion. That will be a permanent increase in the value of benefits going to 15 million people.
"The Chancellor explained that I plan to give everyone on income support (except pensioners and disabled people) extra help next April before the higher heating bills arrive. So their benefits will be uprated by 3.9 per cent. That is higher than most people in work will receive. A further 2 million people above the income support level who get housing benefits or family credit will receive a similar increase.
"I was also determined to help those who have worked, saved and earned modest pensions and normally get no extra help. So from next April, on top of up-rating for inflation, all pensions will be increased 50 pence a week for single pensioners and 70 pence for couples. The following year extra help for VAT on fuel will be £1 a week for single pensioners and £1.40 for couples. From the third year onwards that extra help will be as much as £1.40 a week for a single pensioner and £2 for a couple. And

555
all those on widows' benefits, invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance and disability premium will get the same extra help.
"In addition I will increase cold weather payments by 25 per cent. over two years. To help those with high heating bills, the scheme to help insulate homes and improve fuel efficiency will be virtually doubled in value and extended to all pensioners and disabled people. Also, the Chancellor announced yesterday a new National Savings pensioners' guaranteed income bond which will provide regular monthly payments at a fixed rate of interest. By any stretch of the imagination that is a substantial package. It far exceeds what most people expected and fulfils our promise to help those most affected.
"We are determined to maintain proper support for all those the welfare state exists to help. But, given the relentless growth of spending, we have to make sure the money is spent to best effect. That is the aim of my long term review.
"My first priority is to make savings which do not affect benefit entitlements. That is why operational costs have been kept within last year's cash limit despite the extra workload. And that is why I am intensifying the battle against fraud. I have created a new fraud board to step up prevention, deterrence and detection of fraud, chaired by my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security. I am cracking down on order book fraud. The order book has been redesigned to prevent forgery. We have introduced secure delivery methods to prevent theft and we are rewarding vigilant Post Office employees who stop false encashment of stolen books. I am continuing to look at new ways of tackling fraud.
"I am also stopping a number of abuses. I shall discourage local authorities from paying housing benefit for unnecessarily expensive property. I shall stop councils paying housing benefits to people who entered this country on the express understanding that they will be no burden on public funds. I am bringing in regulations today to prevent employers avoiding national insurance by paying their employees in commodities like gold bullion. These measures should save half a billion pounds over three years.
"But we also need to make sure benefits concentrate help on those Parliament wishes to help. I have been examining the social security system sector by sector. I am now able to introduce a fundamental reform of sickness benefits. The number of people on statutory sick pay, sickness benefit and invalidity benefit has almost doubled since 1979, from just over 1 million then to almost 2 million now, even though the nation has been getting healthier. Britain has the second highest level of sick leave of any EC country. The level varies between companies even in the same business. Those differences reflect management's success or failure in motivating employees, caring for their health and monitoring absences.
"At present the Government reimburse each firm 80 per cent. of the cost of statutory sick pay. That
556
largely removes the incentive to reduce sick leave. So from April next year I propose to abolish reimbursement, except to small employers.
"Small employers usually have less sick leave but are harder hit by prolonged illness. So I intend to increase the help to small employers and extend it to more of them. So far we have been helping employers whose national insurance bill was £16,000 or less a year. I am raising that limit to £20,000. So far we have been reimbursing 100 per cent. of SSP for absences longer than six weeks. I shall start giving 100 per cent. help after four weeks. This will help an extra 50,000 employers at a cost of £25 million. The new arrangements will help two-thirds of all employers.
"At the same time I am cutting employers' national insurance rates by substantially more than they were spending on statutory sick pay. Indeed, the cut in national insurance will also offset the future extra cost of statutory maternity pay which employers were expecting to have to bear. So employers as a whole will be no worse off. Indeed, employers' net costs will be reduced by over £100 million. And those who respond to the incentive to improve staff health will benefit even more.
"There has been a particularly marked increase in the number of people claiming invalidity benefit in recent years. The number on this benefit has more than doubled in the last 10 years and trebled in the last 15. This growth is particularly surprising, given improving health and better health care. So I propose to introduce from April 1995 a more objective medical test of whether people can work. I am issuing a consultation paper today, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. And I am forming a panel of medical experts and representatives of disabled people. They will be asked to help define what constitutes incapacity to work and how it should be measured. The new test will apply to new applicants. Those drawing invalidity benefit are already subject to regular review. Under the present test about 100,000 people each year are found to be fit for work and have their benefit withdrawn.
"After April 1995, those on the highest rate of DLA, those with terminal illnesses, those on a list of specified severe or chronic conditions, and those currently on invalidity benefit, who are then 58 or over, will no longer be subject to any review. But the new test will be used in reviews of other existing claimants. No one who is genuinely unable to work for medical reasons has any cause for concern.
"I am also simplifying the structure of all sickness benefits for new claimants from April 1995. At present there are two rates of statutory sick pay. I propose to abolish the lower rate. This means that lower paid workers will receive the higher rate of benefit—worth an extra £3.70 a week. I will also replace sickness and invalidity benefit by a new incapacity benefit. This will be payable at three rates—the longer the period of sickness the higher the rate. The lower rate will apply during the first 28 weeks, the middle rate for the rest of the year, and the highest rate after a year.

557
"Those who are incapacitated early in life will receive extra help because they will have had less time to make any personal provision for ill health. Additional payments will be made to those whose spouses are caring for children or are over 60. New claimants will no longer be entitled to a state earnings related addition. Incapacity benefit will cease at pension age. Those already drawing invalidity benefit at the time the new incapacity benefit is introduced will continue to draw their benefit at existing rates and will not be taxed on it. Only those who come on to incapacity benefit from April 1995 will be liable to tax.
"I am making a number of valuable changes for sick or disabled people. First, people on incapacity benefit will be free to do up to 16 hours voluntary work without losing their benefit. This will be widely welcomed by potential volunteers, voluntary organisations and those they help. Secondly, from April 1995, people taking jobs with the help of disability working allowance will automatically qualify for free prescriptions and free dental charges. Thirdly, I am increasing the level of support to Motability whose help for disabled people is so extensive that it now runs the biggest car fleet in the country. I am making a £1 million increase in the grant to the Mobility Equipment Fund, which adapts vehicles for use by severely disabled people.
"Overall, these reforms of sickness benefits will curb their rapidly growing cost, provide a more rational structure of benefits, encourage employers to improve the motivation and health of employees, and concentrate benefit on those genuinely unable to work. I believe they will command widespread support.
"The incapacity benefits are for people who cannot work. I now turn to benefits for people who are capable of work. Clearly, the best answer is to help people find jobs. But sometimes the rules lose sight of this aim. At present we have two benefits for the unemployed; unemployment benefit and income support. They overlap. Some people are entitled to both. Many switch between the two. The benefit levels leapfrog, because they are up-rated by different indices. So this year single adults on unemployment benefit will get 65p more than on income support. Next near they will get 25p less. The two benefits cover different periods. Unemployment benefit excludes Sunday. Income support includes Sunday. They have different rules, requiring different bureaucracies, different offices and different computer systems. The result is confusion for unemployed people, complexity for staff, and expense for taxpayers. It is time for reform.
"I propose to replace the two benefits with a new jobseeker's allowance starting in 1996. It will be more clearly focused on helping people into work. The longer people spend on benefit the more their motivation, skills and attraction to employers may decline and the less chance they have of finding a job. So all unemployed people will be required to enter into a jobseeker's agreement at the start of their
558
claim. It will commit them to a plan of action to seek work. And we will have a single set of measures for those who fail to take the necessary steps to seek work. But we shall give extra help to those who make the effort to find a job.
"The new jobseeker's allowance will have a single set of rates. We will provide help to unemployed people and their dependants according to their needs. This will be paid for as long as they need it. People who have paid national insurance contributions will receive a personal rate for six months irrespective of their capital or their partners' earnings. Currently, unemployed people cannot get income support if their partners are working for 16 hours or more. This problem emerged as a by-product of improvements in family credit last year. We shall retain the current beneficial rules for family credit. But we will restore the limit for partners of unemployed people to 24 hours.
"Going back to work can involve extra costs, for example, for clothing and transport. We will be testing a jobfinder's grant of up to £200 to help people, who have not had a job for two years, with these costs. We said that we would do this in our manifesto, and I am pleased that we are now implementing the pledge. I shall also give very significant help to people with family responsibilities who want to return to work. Many find it unattractive to leave benefit for a low-paid job, especially if they need to pay for child care. So I propose to allow families with a child under 11 to offset up to £40 per week of child care costs against their earnings when claiming family credit and related benefits. It will be worth up to £28 a week; it will start next October; it will be available to couples, where both are working or one is incapacitated, and to lone parents; and it will cover the costs of registered child minders or nurseries. The change will give a powerful new incentive for parents to move into work. It will provide help for up to 150,000 families, including 50,000 whom we expect to take up work as a result of the change. This measure has been widely welcomed.
"I am today publishing a White Paper on the equalisation of state pension age at 65. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The difference in state pension age for men and women is the last glaring inequality in our benefit system. We are committed to phasing it out. It is essential to do so to provide a clear framework within which occupational pension schemes can comply with the European Court ruling requiring them to equalise their benefits for men and women.
"It is right to equalise at 65 for three reasons. First, women are increasingly playing an equal role to men in the economy. Women live longer and increasingly expect to be able to work for as long as men. Secondly, people are living healthier, longer lives. As a result, the number of pensioners will increase by half by 2030—and there will be fewer people of working age to support them. At present there are 3.3 people of working age for each pensioner. That ratio was set to decline to 2.2 to 1 by 2030. Equalising at

559
65 will improve the future support ratio to a more sustainable 2.7 to 1. Thirdly, throughout the world, countries are equalising upwards or increasing pension age for both sexes. The majority of EC countries have or are planning a state pension age of 65 or higher. The United States is moving up to 67. We cannot afford to reduce our competitiveness by lowering our pension age. Equalising at 65 will eventually reduce the pension bill by £5 billion. It is the key to ensuring that the state retirement pension remains affordable.
"Our proposals contain a number of features which will make that decision widely acceptable. We have given women and employers plenty of time to plan for the future. Equalisation will be phased in between 2010 and 2020. So no women now 44 and over will be affected. Only those now 38 or under will have a state pension age of 65. Furthermore, the pension entitlements of millions of people—mostly women—will be very significantly enhanced. We plan to extend home responsibilities protection to SERPS. That will enable women (and men) who take time out of the labour market to care for children or disabled people to build full SERPS entitlement in as few as 20 working years. That will be a very substantial benefit enhancing the value of women's pensions by around £2 billion by 2020. In addition, to help those on low earnings, family credit and disability working allowance will count as earnings in calculating pension.
"Finally, we are extending the period of flexibility during which people can choose to start drawing their pension. At present people can defer drawing their retirement pension for up to five years and for each year of deferral their pension increases 7½ per cent. In future the increase will be 10 per cent. and people will be able to defer for as many years as they like.
"The best support for an improved social security system is a vibrant, free enterprise economy to create the wealth to pay for benefits, to generate jobs, and to provide opportunities for people to support themselves. To nurture economic growth we have to curb borrowing and make sure that the social security system does not outstrip or undermine the nation's ability to pay for it. All the reforms I have announced are intended to strengthen our welfare state, to adapt it to modern needs and to make it affordable into the next century. In doing that I have been able to announce a generous package of help for those most affected by VAT on fuel; reforms to concentrate help on those genuinely unable to work; incentives for employers to improve the health and motivation of their staff; a more rational structure of help for those seeking work; help for working mothers to cope with childcare costs; an equal state pension age; and help for women and the low paid to build up better pensions in the future. I commend these measures to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the Minister for the most significant Statement for years. But perhaps I may put in a plea that it is a little hard to be given a major Statement of such significance about three quarters of an hour before we are due to debate. There can be no reason why the usual channels should not ensure that such Statements are given to us at, say, 10 o'clock in the morning so that we can properly prepare. There is nothing secretive about these things.
I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not comment in detail on the proposals to equalise the pension age. It needs a fuller debate than is possible today, except perhaps to record the position of these Benches. We are in favour of a flexible decade of retirement based on choice for both men and women alike.
The Statement is significant, less because of the up-rating details which reflect the agreed formula of the Rossi index but more because, within the context. of yesterday's Budget, it profiles in detail the £2.5 billion cuts over the next three years which the DSS budget will bear or, more accurately, the sick, disabled, unemployed, elderly and poor will bear as a result of government economic mismanagement. Social security expenditure is driven not by demographic changes, certainly not by malingering or scrounging, but by unemployment.
It is clear that what floats people off benefits and poverty, as the Minister made clear in his Statement, is work if it is available. That is why we on this side of the House welcome the restoration of help with childcare to those on family credit which of course takes us back to where we were before the Government abolished such childcare help in 1988 and locked then lone parents into dependency. But why are the Government, while sensibly recognising that we need pathways out of poverty for lone parents—a positive response which we welcome very much—being so punitive to the sick and disabled?
Perhaps I may now turn to the proposals for invalidity benefit. The numbers have grown. The Government insist that that is because of malingering, possibly because GPs have been too lax with medical certificates and possibly because the benefits are too generous. On the contrary, as the Government's own research shows, and as Ministers know, none of that is true. Half of those on invalidity benefit have worked with a previous employer for 10 years or more. Far from malingering, they want to work. But they are infirm. As to the medical test, already half of those on invalidity benefit under the age of 50 are double checked by the benefits office medical service. The GP's assessment is upheld in six cases out of seven. Many of the rest are mental health cases which are notoriously difficult to determine. Even where the claimant is removed from benefit, in over half the cases that benefit is restored on appeal. So if the assessment is already accurate, as it is, and already tough, as it is, where is the saving? Will the Minister give more detail of how many and how much? Already only one in eight from whom invalidity benefit

561
is removed, namely, the fittest of them, find work. The rest are merely displaced on to other benefits. So what will the net saving be?
The second argument which the Minister adduced in his Statement for cutting invalidity benefit and rejigging it as the new benefit and incapacity benefit is that it is too generous. Therefore, he is proposing, first, to cut the additional pension to which people have contributed in the past. Secondly, he is proposing to tax it. Invalidity benefit already replaces less than half the earnings of more than half the claimants. It is worth about 17 per cent. of average earnings to people whose living costs, in terms of need for special diets, heating and physical appliances, are more expensive than for most of us.
The leaked DSS document actually suggests that no savings will come from taxing because the needs of these groups of people will be displaced on to other benefits such as housing benefit. Can the Minister say whether that is true? Will he say how many and how much? The core of the problem is that when employees suffer ill health, 75 per cent. of employers now do nothing to help them keep their jobs and often encourage them to leave. Once they have lost that long-standing job, then, with poor health, advancing age and a broken employment record, few other employers will take them on. That is why they cannot come off invalidity benefit. Surely, Ministers will agree that the right response is to do everything possible to enable employers to keep on their infirm staff for as long as possible. Once they leave, it is hard to re-enter the labour market, much as they wish to.
If the Minister agrees—I am sure he does—why, then, is government policy driving in precisely the opposite direction? Why, in Access to Work, are we now to require employers to pay half of the bill for work adaptions for the disabled? Why, in this Statement, will employers have to pay the statutory sick pay rather than be reimbursed by the state? As Price Waterhouse say,
"It will encourage employers to be much tougher on employees claiming sick pay".
This provision is not about improving employees' health, as the Statement says. It is an incentive to sack. It is perverse. The Government are encouraging employers to add to the very problems they are seeking to reduce and at real pain to human worth and dignity.
I wish to move on to the job seeker's allowance which the Minister presented in his Statement as simplicity—the integrating of unemployment benefit and income support. That is hypocritical. It is about cuts. What the Statement does is to cut the contribution-based unemployment benefit from 12 to six months and then displace claimants on to means-tested income support. So at the very time when national insurance contributions are being raised from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent., people are paying more. The contributory benefits, such as unemployment benefit, which flow from them, are being sharply cut. The claimants will get less. That is fraudulent.
Those with modest savings will be penalised when they are means tested (is that what we want?) as will formerly employed married women with husbands in work who have paid in their contributions as individuals
562
but who, after six months, will get nothing because their husbands and the household income will be means tested. These measures are about cuts and undermining the contributory principle upon which the welfare state is based and which the Chancellor said yesterday he was pledged to maintain. They are about massaging the unemployment figures, which, at a stroke, we estimate will fall, just by altering the name of the benefit, from 10.2 per cent. to 9.5 per cent. while claimants are simply displaced on to other benefits. Will the Minister confirm those figures and tell us how many and how much?
Finally, I turn to VAT on fuel. In the Budget and in the Statement, it is clear that next year single pensioners will get an extra 50 pence and a married pensioner couple 70 pence to pay for an 8 per cent. increase on VAT, and double those figures the following year when VAT doubles. We all know that pensioners need more heat and for longer hours because they are at home. Yet if a single pensioner is in future to spend more than 89 pence a day on gas and electricity that pensioner will be worse off. It is clear that the rebate meets barely half of the increased bills that will fall on pensioners and families on benefit. At least they get some help. Will the Minister confirm that those who perhaps need help most of all—that is to say, those on the disability living allowance with often greater heating needs and lower incomes, and also those receiving the disability working allowance, appear not to be eligible for any rebate on VAT at all? I cannot believe that that is true, and I hope that I am wrong. I ask the Minister to tell us explicitly.
All of these measures are presented to us because DSS expenditure, as the Minister said in his peroration, is allegedly growing too fast and is out of control. But is it not the case that in our welfare spending in Britain, compared to the rest of the industrialised nations, is relatively low and that we are rated 17th out of the 21 OECD countries; and that in the EC only Portugal spends a lower proportion of its GDP on welfare? Is it not the case that in the next century we shall have the best support ratio of workers to non-workers in Europe? Is it not the case that the additional cost of the elderly will add less over the next 50 years to social security expenditure than the rise in unemployment has cost us in the past three? Is it not the case that if unemployment falls by 100,000 a year—the Government's own medium level target—then social security spending as a percentage of GDP will actually fall?
As was said earlier today by the Leader of the House, Ministers are pleased—as we are—by the fact that unemployment is falling. But if it is falling and if it continues to fall, such cuts should be unnecessary. If, however, it does not fall it is not right that the unemployed, the victims, should pay for them. I repeat that social security expenditure is not driven by the malingerer on invalidity benefit nor by the scrounger on unemployment benefit. It is driven by the Government's own mismanagement of the economy, their failure to build jobs, and their failure to build growth. The sick and the unemployed will pay.
These are not financial choices in today's Statement but political choices: of who pays and who gains. It is about our moral priorities. The Government have decided in today's Statement that those who will pay are

563
those least able to do so: those without a job; those in ill health; those who are poor; and those who are often cold. It really is not decent, and we should all be ashamed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to the social security brief and to one of the ritual occasions of the social security year. I should like also to express my sympathy with him because he has come to this ritual occasion at a moment when it has been, by circumstances beyond our control, somewhat downgraded. The new unified Budget, so far as I can judge at present, seems on the whole to be a procedural success, but one of its consequences is that today's Statement is inevitably to a large degree overshadowed by yesterday's. Indeed, the Chancellor said yesterday that he was leaving the Secretary of State simply to fill out the details of the Statement. In fact, the Secretary of State is reduced to playing Sancho Panza to the Chancellor's Don Quixote. The mind behind the Statement—and it is a fertile and sometimes unpredictable one—is that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who by turns, with each revolving moon, was chemist, fiddler, statesman and buffoon.
I am fascinated in studying the Statement by the task of keeping ideological balance within it, and whereas the Prime Minister tends to preserve ideological balance by seeking equilibrium in immobility, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State have sought to preserve it by rapid movement left and right, both in the same direction.
There are two dominant themes. The first is the theme of back to work and the elimination of poverty traps. The other is the pursuit of scroungers. That is where I see the rapid movement both ways. Now that is not necessarily impossible. If one looks, for example, at an eightsome reel, one sees rapid movement in both directions which achieves a pattern, but everything here is in the timing and the co-ordination, and those are the points on which I think that we need to test the Statement. I am afraid that it is relevant to observe that what we have here is an eightsome reel danced by Englishmen. There are some extremely good things in the Statement, and in welcoming them I shall not complain that the Chancellor shot my fox, but on occasion I shall say that his aim was not very good and that he should put it out of its misery.
What I welcome most warmly is the disregard for child care, for which I was asking as recently as last Tuesday, and I am very glad indeed to get it. Both in ideological terms and in practical terms, it represents a major and entirely welcome shift in government thinking, but in passing I should like to ask the noble Viscount—when he is ready—whether there is to be any taper for the withdrawal of the benefit. If there is not to be any such taper and if one loses it all at once when one's earnings rise to a certain level, we shall have a new poverty trap. It was, I suppose, to be expected that the benefit would be passported through family credit, but since that is so, it forces us to look again at family credit because it is no good having a benefit unless its passport is in order.
564
Family credit is an unpopular benefit. It has, I think, a lower take-up than most other means-tested benefits. Very recently, Gary Craigï's study of the Child Support Act for the five children's societies has again confirmed a very widespread reluctance to go on family credit. If we cannot overcome that, this very welcome innovation will not achieve the designed effect of getting people back to work, as it should. At present, only 10 per cent of lone parents-130,000 out of 1.3 million—are on family credit.
I should like the Government to look at three things relating to the administration of family credit. The first is the procedure by which it is reviewed only once every six months. It is in the nature of part-time work that it is available only part of the time, so if one gets it and loses it and one's family credit is not reassessed, one may find oneself in the soup. People on benefit are well aware of that danger. The second is the loss of passported benefits —notably, free school dinners. Again, that is a considerable disincentive. The third is the loss of help with mortgage payments when one goes on to family credit, which deters a very great many people. In examining that, I hope that the Government will again look at the case for a mortgage benefit.
I must welcome the increase in cold weather payments, which is much needed and very timely. I should like also to pay tribute to the work that has been carried out by my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood on the calculation of those payments. I warmly welcome the help with insulation, and again pay tribute to the work done on that by my noble friend Lord Ezra.
On national insurance, I am pleased to see the reduction in employers' lower rates which will do something to give an incentive to provide low-paid jobs. That is vital. However, I wish that at the same time the Government had looked at the tapers for housing benefit and had applied the same principle there.
On the state pension, our policy (like that of the Benches on our left) was in favour of a flexible decade of retirement, but we are very much happier with equalisation at 65 than we were with some of the ideas that had been floated recently by the Chief Secretary. This seems to be a much more constructive route along which to go. I was interested in what was said about deferment and should like to know whether there is any more that the Minister can tell us about flexibility within the system for those who may want to retire a year or two early. I see that that flexibility already exists for those who want to work longer, and I welcome that.
I also am considerably distressed by the proposed changes in statutory sick pay. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who remembers our last Bill on statutory sick pay very well, will understand the points that I am making. The provisions risk making everything that the Government said during the Maastricht debates about the need to keep down business costs look somewhat hypocritical. It looks as if the Government are concerned to keep down business costs when otherwise workers might benefit, but are not concerned to keep them down when otherwise the Treasury might benefit. One knows that the Treasury is absolute, but it does not have to make it quite so obvious.

565
The provisions will be an incentive to employers to police the health of their workforce. There are quite a number of people—to take just one example among many—who are in the grey area between having a drink problem and suffering from alcoholism. Some of those, kept on for a while by a generous employer, may pull out of it and become full working members of the population, as we would wish. If they are dismissed, they are cast upon the tender mercies of care in the community. They tend to use up the extra money allocated for care in the community, and provide us with yet another case of running to stand still. So here again the attempt to get people off income support might be counteracted by other measures which push them back onto it. I shall say again in passing what I said last week: if the same ideas are applied to statutory maternity pay, we have a lively argument in front of us.
On VAT on fuel, I am glad that there is compensation. I am glad that the compensation extends to the body of pensioners as a whole, but the Social Security Advisory Committee calculated the compensation needed at £700 million. We have £400 million. Well, half a loaf is better than no bread, but it will still leave many people very cold. Also, the compensation for people on benefit is not matched by anything for people on low wages. If one comes off benefit and goes into work, one loses the compensation. Here, we have another poverty trap created. So, once again, the measures have undone with one hand the effect that they created with another. The pattern is unfortunate.
On invalidity benefit, we shall need a great deal of care in its administration or else the name "incapacity benefit" may acquire an uncomfortable ambiguity. I was distressed to see that the Chancellor said yesterday that many of those involved were not genuine invalids. I do not know whether he is aware, as are other people, that one of the effects of unemployment is a rapid deterioration in physical and mental health. I do not believe that we have an accurate base line suggesting that in the past that benefit was picking up all those entitled to it. That is the sort of remark, if it were made by one Front Bench about another, that would lead to an apology. Made to those who cannot answer back, it should all the more lead to an apology.
In particular, the Government are wrong to think that they can have a medical test which is tighter and more objective. If it is more objective, we do not know what the doctors will say. It is also wrong to think that there is a single clear dividing line which separates capacity for work, on the one hand, from incapacity on the other. There is a grey area, especially in the field of mental health. I should like to think that there will be discussions with the Department of Health before anything is done about this matter.
On the job seekers' benefit, I see the administrative reason behind it. But I should like to know what is in the job seekers' agreement and what will be the single set of measures, about which we were told, which will happen to those who do not live up to it. Here again, we have to accept that there is a grey area between capacity and incapacity for work, as all those of your Lordships who have back injuries know well. We have also to consider
566
whether we are prepared to use starvation as an instrument of policy against those whose job seeking we are not satisfied with.
In many ways, these measures will end up contradicting themselves. If they fall apart under their own internal weight, then in the medium term we may be wondering whether the Chancellor deserves the title of England's answer to Kim Campbell.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to some of the measures announced today and yesterday by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in particular, of course the disregard for child care. We shall have an opportunity to discuss all these measures in great detail when the Bills come before your Lordships' House in this Session and afterwards. I am sure that your Lordships will then examine carefully all the proposals.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She asked whether compensation for VAT on fuel applies to DLA and DWA. Help with VAT on fuel will feed through into DWA. The vast majority of those receiving DLA and attendance allowance are compensated directly through other benefits; for example, IVB and SDA. They add to the compensation in those benefits. Disabled people not on income-related benefits will be able to obtain help to insulate their homes via the home energy efficiency scheme. Previously, income-related beneficiaries only received that help.
The noble Baroness also asked about the proposed invalidity benefit and the test. We want to ensure that the genuinely sick receive benefit, and reduce abuse. The difficulties faced by GPs in exercising their role, as it were, as gate-keepers to the benefit system are well known. The Government believe that developing a test based upon the effects of the medical condition will focus incapacity benefit upon those who cannot work. A test based upon information provided by the claimant about their capabilities, backed up, where appropriate, by medical advice from the Benefits Agency medical service will reduce tensions in the doctor/patient relationship and relieve GPs from taking decisions which many consider to be outside their professional expertise.
I was asked also about statutory sick pay by the noble Baroness. We shall introduce a Bill before your Lordships' House. I do not believe that employers will fire sick staff, and of course nine out of 10 workers belong to occupational pay schemes which usually pay more than SSP. If financial costs were a factor, employers would have already let those employees go. The reduction to 80 per cent. reimbursement in 1991 did not cause employers to sack workers. It is important to stress again that, overall, business will not be out of pocket due to the compensating national insurance reduction, and we have greatly extended small employers' relief.
The noble Baroness also asked whether anyone would pay tax on invalidity benefit. Benefits which replace earnings should be taxed. That has always been

567
our intention. Existing IVB claimants will not pay tax. Almost half IVB claimants have occupational pensions. Others have savings.
The noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about VAT on fuel. I do not accept what the noble Baroness said about pensioners being compensated for half their loss only. In the first year (1994) the average compensation for single pensioners (that is, extra help) will be over 70 per cent. of the average of their VAT fuel bill. That will rise in the third year to over 80 per cent. extra help with VAT on fuel. I can do no better than quote the Chancellor yesterday when he said:
"On average, pensioners are likely to find that, after taking account of falling real fuel prices, the extra help they receive will broadly cover changes in fuel bills, including VAT, over the course of this Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/93; col 923.]
Overall, fuel bills have fallen by about 4 per cent. since the last election. They are likely to fall further.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, they will go up.
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his welcome for the child care proposals. I noted when I read his Question on child care that his noble friend Lady Seear asked that I pass the message on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer between then and Budget day. I am delighted to tell the noble Earl that I did, and it worked. I do not guarantee to be able to do it again, but it was certainly a help.
The noble Earl asked whether there would be a taper in respect of child care. The answer is, yes, the 70 per cent. family credit taper will apply. That is why in practice £40 per week earnings disregard in child care costs is worth up to £28 per week. The noble Earl also asked about family credit, the proposals for change of circumstances, passporting benefits and help with mortgages. I note his suggestions but they go beyond the substantial changes which come before your Lordships. I do not guarantee to do as well with the Chancellor in respect of those.
I welcome the noble Earl's remarks about cold weather payments. He then asked about sick pay. It is not only an incentive for employers to police sick pay but also to help their employees. I know that the noble Earl is worried about the issue because during our debate on the gracious Speech he reminded the House that the last time a statutory sick pay Bill came before your Lordships the Minister stood at a burning Dispatch Box whence all but he had fled. I am glad to tell the noble Earl that the Dispatch Box at which I am standing does not appear to be on fire and I appear to have a lot of support behind me.
The noble Earl commented on the medical tests for the sick and disabled. The more objective medical test will be based on the effects of disabilities on a person's capacity to work. Those who have functional limitations which prevent them from working will not be penalised.
That answers a substantial number of questions asked by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. I accept that they will ask many more questions when the Bills come before your Lordships.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the long and complicated Statement and for explaining it with such admirable clarity. The House is indebted to him. It is encouraging to someone who sits on these Benches to see that, despite the difficulties of the time and the real economic problems; which face the Government and the country, it has been possible to bring about a considerable number of real improvements. That is an indication that despite the present difficulties we have an active Secretary of State for Social Security and that he and his colleagues are prepared to bring about the improvements which experience has shown are required in the working of our system. That is extremely encouraging.
I wish to ask my noble friend about two issues. The first is about the age of retirement for women. He will be aware, as am I, that the subject has been under discussion in the department for 35 years. For those of us whose recollections of the department go back that length of time, the reappearance of the issue is like meeting an old friend. Of course it is right to go for equality. As my noble friend said, women's expectation of life is four years longer than that of men. It is absurd that they should draw their retirement pension five years earlier.
Will my noble friend explain in a little more detail how the changeover, which has always been regarded as the difficulty, will be effected? Will it be done one year at a time, then a gap of two years and then another year, moving gradually to the age of 65? Is it contemplated making a slashing change so that one year women retire at 60 and the next it suddenly changes? How are the mechanics to be handled? My noble friend will know from reading departmental files that an enormous amount of work has been done on this important issue.
I was pleased, in particular, to hear that provision is to be made for indefinite opportunities of deferral of pension. I do not think noble Lords have referred to that. The limit of five years was always illogical. If people have a good job and can remain in it, it is always right to leave them the option of accumulating a better pension for as many years as they feel disposed. It is a belated but extremely sensible provision to make.
Finally, I wish to ask my noble friend two questions about the procedures that are being followed. He indicated that the measures would involve legislation. Is a Bill to be introduced in this House or in another place? If it is to be introduced in another place, when is it likely to reach this House? We must have an opportunity to debate the issues in the near future. As my noble friend knows—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, your Lordships' House has many Members with great experience in these matters. They will be able to contribute advice on the handling of the details, which clearly the Government need. Will my noble friend indicate that we shall soon deal with the Bill or that we shall have a debate in the near future?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support. He is right in his comments about the changes in the state pension age. The subject has been under discussion for a long time and it is right that we have been able to reach this decision. It is in line with what other countries are doing, in particular member countries of the EC.
My noble friend asked me about the phasing-in period. It will be between 2010 and 2020. During that 10-year period a gradual change will take place when the pension age for women will rise from 60 to 65. In simple terms, it will be one month in two over the 10 years. Between those dates some women will retire at 61 or 62 but that will cease to happen after 2020.
My noble friend asked when the Bill will be introduced in this House. I must make it clear that we intend to introduce a Bill as early as possible but not during this Session.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, not in this House or not in this Session?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, not in this Session. I cannot tell my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter where it will be introduced, but I am sure that my right honourable friend will take note of the points that he made.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I promise not to make a long speech. Is the Minister aware that the Government's proposals for medical tests in respect of invalidity benefit imply widespread cheating, which is disputed by research carried out by disability organisations? Will the Minister tell the House on what evidence he has based the supposition? Will he reply to the questions put by my noble friend Lady Hollis about the number of people involved and the amount of money that will be saved?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the changes represent a fundamental reform and they are intended to achieve a more coherent approach to incapacity provision and a more affordable system. While incapacity lasts the flat-rate benefit will continue to be paid as of right if contribution conditions are satisfied. It can be topped up by private provision. The key aim is to focus benefit on those who are genuinely incapable of work —that is, the people for whom it was always intended—through a more objective medical test of incapacity. I think that there will be welcome debate on the detail of the test. As I said, we have today published a consultation document containing the medical test details. It is quite difficult to be clear about what the impact and the savings will be until we have the test and the Bill. However, I have made clear that there will be some. We believe that perhaps 70,000 cases a year will be disallowed following the test of incapacity. We estimate that about 250,000 existing cases may be disallowed on review over the first two to three years. But that is quite a long period in the future.
I believe that I should also make it clear that there is absolutely no criticism of GPs or of their professionalism. They are not experts on complex social security
570
rules and research confirms that they are experiencing difficulty with their present role. We want to make it much clearer and easier for them.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, in view of the rather brisk interchange that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on 16th July (at cols. 422–5 of Hansard) I should like to say just a few words of appreciation for the announcement made today—that is, as I understand it—that an individual will be able to do up to 16 hours of voluntary unpaid work (for example, with the citizens advice bureaux) without affecting his entitlement to incapacity benefit or invalidity benefit, call it what you will. It is important for the voluntary sector and I am most grateful. However, will that change have to await legislation or can it be put into effect by administrative means?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we shall be coming forward shortly with a Bill as regards the incapacity benefit. It will arrive in your Lordships' House during this Session. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked when the hours rule would come into effect. I am not sure whether we will be able to bring it in before the passage of the Bill. However, I can say that we hope the Bill will be introduced this Session.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give the House an indication as to whether the revision of the rules regarding the payment of unemployment benefit (now to be called jobseeker's benefit) after six months will lead to any change of definition for statistical purposes as regards the unemployed and those claiming benefit? Quite clearly, if the period is reduced to six months there will ostensibly be a once-and-for-all possible decline in the real unemployment figures. In considering his reply to the question, the noble Viscount will doubtless be aware that if unemployment were to be recorded and stated on the same basis as in 1979 it would now be 4 million rather than some 2.8 million.
Similarly, when considering his reply, will the noble Viscount take careful note of what his right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Alan Clark, recorded when he was in the Department of Employment? I shall quote from his diary relating to 15th June 1983, which reads:
"Faster than I can digest them. Great wadges of documentation are whumped into my 'In' tray. The subject matter is turgid: a mass of 'schemes' whose purpose, plainly, is not so much to bring relief to those out of work as to devise excuses for removing them from the register. Among my other responsibilities are 'statistics', so it will be me who has to tell the House each month what is the 'jobless' total".
Will the noble Viscount give the House an unequivocal undertaking that the figures published after the scheme comes into operation will accurately reflect the true position with regard to unemployment?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, by giving us that little extract, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, actually proved why one needs to bring in a new system. Indeed, he proved my point that it is wasteful and absurd to have two inconsistent benefits for the unemployed, with different rules, different offices and different systems. Therefore, his argument was most helpful in explaining why we need a new

571
system. The purpose is not to massage the statistics of the unemployed: the purpose is to improve the system for those who need benefit and to help people to go back to work.
Perhaps I may deal with one point that the noble Lord made about the effect of changing the period from 12 months to six months. At present, the unemployment benefit rate is slightly higher than that for income support. Therefore, those in the first 12 months will be receiving slightly more. Although we are shortening the period to six months, people with an entitlement to the benefit will be eligible for the same amounts which apply to the means-tested rate and the contributory rate will he the same; that is, one rate. However, the statistics will remain the same. What we are changing is the ability to give people benefit and to help people get back in to work.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Viscount has not answered my question.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that we now return to the debate. In doing so, I should like to announce that the five-hour time limit will now expire at 9.10 p.m.

Government Policies: Confidence
4.47 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the history of the present Government's incumbency has been a lamentable tale of incoherence and myopia. The background to their regime has been generally rising unemployment, social decay, rising crime and falling confidence. To those problems the Government have made the approach of measured consistency which one would expect from a half-demented weathercock. That really, perhaps, was not entirely unforeseen by many of us. However, what we did not foresee—neither can we accept, nor shall we forgive—is the wilful demeaning of a great office of state—the Home Office.
I thought last night about some former occupants of the Home Office; for example, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the present Foreign Secretary and the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and Lord Merlyn-Rees. None of those holders of that Seal left the office diminished. I suggest that no one could have listened to the remarks of the present Home Secretary at the Conservative Party Conference, and later and often, without a feeling of infinite sadness and distaste.
After 14 years of Conservative rule, what do we find in the field of law and order? According to a poll that was published yesterday morale in the Crown Prosecution Service has never been lower. There is dismay in the organisation about abandoned prosecutions, investigations in vain and victims left without redress. The frustration of the police service in this country has never been greater. I suggest that the citizens of this country have not been so uneasy in their liberties since the end of the last war. But what do the Government do? They look for a slogan here and a
572
totem there. They say, "We shall crack down on bail bandits". It is always a case of cracking down on something. However, if you crack down on bail bandits, you need prison places but there are none; they cannot be provided overnight. What will happen if the Government send those people to prison? Presently, of course, people are unconvicted, by definition, if they are on bail. If the Government send those people to prison, there will be further overcrowding of a system that is grossly overburdened; or a return to the old discredited system, bitterly hated by police officers, of keeping remand prisoners in police cells overnight and over the weekend. At the same time as this marvellous crackdown the provision for bail hostels is being savagely reduced.
The Government say they will limit cautioning. However, it is this Government who have presided over and colluded in the system of repeated cautioning for offences, among others, of domestic burglary, sexual offences and—the curse of our present time—gratuitous violence in public places. There is another slogan—"prison works". It seems that it does not work for white collar City criminals because they do not have the opportunity to see whether or not it does. Mr. Cole, Mr. Ramsden and Mr. Levitt have not been sent to prison. However, a single mother who fiddles a few pounds on state benefits out of need and not greed goes to prison for 28 days. Where are the Attorney-General's appeals on those sentences which have caused such public derision, unease and shame? As regards the slogan "prison works", the Home Office's own research material states:
"Prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse".
A significant number of people in prison are petty criminals. They spend lives of waste, idleness and boredom. The inspectorate under that admirable man Judge Tumim produces reports on what would have been a scandal 100 years ago, but no one resigns. The indictment against this Government is: gross negligence in the conduct of public affairs. A fair review of the evidence leads to one conclusion only: the verdict is "guilty".
4.53 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I deplore this Motion. I think its sweeping terms are unprecedented, and rightly so. In my view, it is for the other place to express confidence in the government of the day and not for us. Moreover, I regard it as wholly unhelpful to try to polarise the position of political parties in this House. However, as the Opposition have chosen this battleground, I am glad to declare my support for the Prime Minister and the Government. I believe that, looked at as a whole, the policies of the Government are right and in the interests of the nation. That is certainly true of our foreign and commonwealth policy which I consider has been brilliantly conducted by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
I felt during the Maastricht debates that some noble Lords opposite were considerably embarrassed and slightly caught up in the behaviour of their counterparts in another place who subordinated our European future to rather shabby, discreditable manoeuvres regardless of

573
the national interest. No doubt they judged that few people in the constituencies would understand that their alliance with the so-called "Euro-sceptics" was defended on the Opposition's view that the treaty signed did not go far or fast enough towards European union. That is something that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the Leader of the Opposition, inferred earlier today. For my part I believe that the opt-outs, skilfully negotiated by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, over a common currency, economic and monetary union and the Social Chapter are increasingly accepted as right and realistic, although of course they may not last as long as the opt-outs negotiated so skilfully by the Scots in the Act of Union.
As regards the economy, inflation is under control. By contrast, I remember only too vividly, not one statistic in 1967, but the damage inflicted on pensioners and other people living on small fixed incomes by the long-term rampant inflation endured under Labour governments. Of course there are great problems to be tackled, including the high level of unemployment. But even here it must be acknowledged that, while our unemployment is falling, in almost every country in Europe it is rising. We are pulling steadily out of the recession. We are the only country in Europe whose industrial production is rising not falling. We have now had a Budget which I believe is calculated to safeguard the future long-term interest and well-being of every section of society.
However, we must look beyond one Parliament in considering difficult economic and social issues. I believe that this will require our working together in seeking long-term solutions. For this we need compromise and not confrontation. The Labour Party consistently refuses to look at these problems in a sensible long-term way. Short-term party political considerations seem to be its only priority. Sadly, I am bound to say that socialist policies today belong to the past and not to the future. It has been well said that the only difference between the rut and the grave is that the rut is longer. It seems to me that the Labour Party wants to remain in the rut to the bitter end.
Finally, it is my belief that the strength of the House lies in the fact that we can vote on important matters across party boundaries and from time to time defeat the Government as regards improving the form and content of legislation without that being a vote of confidence. I believe this Motion to be ill-conceived and misplaced. I hope it will be defeated decisively.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, I welcome the Motion. It is about time we got the gloves off in this place. The Motion, in referring to the Stalinist gang which occupies the seat of power as Her Majesty's Government, does them a kindness. They do not deserve everything that is stated in the Motion. Indeed, everything they do and say is tainted and everything they touch turns to dust.
Even Her Majesty and the Royal Family are not exempt from their baleful influence. For the first time in recent history the Queen is required to pay tax. Her
574
Majesty has been reduced in status by this Government to a citizen of the moribund and disreputable European Union. Her laws are increasingly made, not by her Parliament but by a polyglot junta sitting in a foreign capital. I do not believe Tory supporters out in the country like that very much. The Prince of Wales, God bless him, has been asked by the police not to visit the Principality because they cannot protect him as the Government are not able or are not willing to provide the money for the police to keep law and order which has so badly slipped during the Government's 14 years in office.
As we heard, the Government have ruined the economy. The public finances are in ruin due to their lack of proper financial control and profligate expenditure. If a Labour government had dared to spend 45 per cent. of GDP they would have been hounded out of office with ignominy by noble Lords opposite and their counterparts in the other place and in the City. Yet this Government are spending 45 per cent. of money that people earn.
However, this clinging on to power and imposition of unprecedented tax burdens is typical of the Tory Government of the past 14 years. They have imposed high taxes on the very people who trusted them, voted for them and worked for them at the previous election. My right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday in another place that the Budget was a vicious attack on the welfare state. It most certainly is, but much more than that it is a vicious attack on the living standards of every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom, and in particular those people in the income group who usually vote Conservative. Indeed, they have been betrayed as never before. I hope that that will tell at the next general election.
This so-called Government pretend to stand for the family. Yet their policies are pushing more and more mothers to work to make ends meet. Only yesterday the value of the married couple's allowance was reduced. The Government's solution to teenage pregnancy is to cut benefit and lower the age of consent to 13. Those are the proposals of this Government in relation to family values.
Finally, I turn to democracy. The insidious undermining of every democratic institution in favour of centralised power is a danger to our freedoms. In local government, the health service and elsewhere power and decision-making have been transferred either to central government itself or to expensive quangos, which are the creatures and servants of government Ministers. The Government are still not content. The Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill is yet to come before us. Once again more power will be transferred to the centre. I believe that the lay magistracy itself may be under threat from this Government.
The Government have great contempt for the British people. But if they are not careful they will find, as the Conservatives in Canada found, that at the next election they too can be wiped out.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, the debate in which we are taking part becomes curiouser and curiouser. It is curious that such an unprecedented Motion should have been chosen for debate, particularly at a moment of unprecedented opportunity to affirm our confidence in the Government.
The most manifest sign of confidence is the Budget introduced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. He has made the most of the opportunity presented by the first unified Budget. I am happy to say that his first job in the other place was as my Parliamentary Private Secretary. That gives me added reason for confidence in the skill and courage with which he has addressed himself to the task. He has set himself the right objectives to sustain the recovery which has been under way since the first half of last year.
To hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, speak, he might have been speaking about another country. He may have failed to notice that, unlike any of our European partners, we live in an economy of dramatically falling inflation, dramatically falling interest rates, dramatically falling unemployment and substantially rising growth. His speech must have been addressed to a different audience on a different occasion. The same can be said of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It is right that the Chancellor should be determined to put public finances on a sound footing on a long-term basis. To hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, speak one wondered how on earth his party would ever address itself to that agenda.
The noble Lord spoke of a vicious attack on every taxpayer and a vicious attack on every beneficiary, all sustaining a Budget deficit which he also described as vicious. What does he propose to do about it? One cannot run an economy and tackle a deficit which is larger than it should be simply by saying "We wouldn't start from here". Where would they start? What would they do? The Chancellor is doing the right thing, not making a vicious attack on common sense. The vicious attack has been made by the party opposite, which is against any opportunity whatsoever.
The Chancellor is making long-term changes, broadly in the right way, in the structure both of taxes and of expenditure. He is addressing himself to the reduction of mortgage interest relief, the enhancement of the duty on tobacco and the prospect of higher duty on road fuel on a long-term basis which is calculated to generate revenue for the future. He is addressing himself to a proper appraisal of the welfare state. Therefore, far from launching an attack on the welfare state he and his colleagues are looking at the best way of preserving it in the most effective fashion possible by making measured and sensible long-term spending reductions of the kind that are necessary if the Budget balance is to be restored in a sensible fashion. Unemployment benefit is being reshaped; invalidity benefit is being reshaped; university grants are being reshaped by extending reliance on the loan system; there is to be a long-term change in the pension age; there is to be a proper reduction in the burden of public expenditure; and,
576
finally, there are proposals for the introduction of private sector finance in infrastructure expenditure. All those measures are grounds for confidence in the economic management of this Government, not the reverse.
There is one further point to be made about those proposals. The Chancellor is committing himself to achieving those objectives over a long term. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will agree, he has the wisdom to say, "Beware of forecasts". I said the same thing and I am sure the noble Lord did the same.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I certainly agree. However, in view of the record of every government, I find it surprising that a Chancellor can go on record as proposing that the deficit shall be reduced to £2 billion in seven years' time. With all the changes which are likely to take place in that time, I simply do not believe it.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I was going to make precisely that point. It was the one qualification that I wanted to make and I am grateful to the noble Lord for anticipating me. If one needs to beware of forecasting one needs to beware of over-confidence. I am glad to see a confident Chancellor, but I hope that he will not be misled so far as to disregard the need for keeping his target in sight.
In view of all the ways in which the Government are addressing themselves to these problems I believe that we have every reason for confidence in the Government. I am dismayed by the way in which this Motion was tabled by this Opposition in this House. It diminishes my confidence in the party opposite even further. I hope that this House will have nothing to do with it.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it has evidently escaped the attention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, that the debate this afternoon is not on yesterday's Budget but on the record of the Government as a whole over the past 14 years.
To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, across the House generally, there are a number of factors in common. We are all Members of the same House of course and we are all members of the same nation. The objective should always be to find out how much agreement we can achieve. But there are difficulties in that because noble Lords on the other side of the House, many of whom are known to me as very nice and kindly people, live in a different world altogether from the world which they describe. They represent people in this place, very rich and powerful people, who do not understand how the other half live and have never experienced how they live. In this country there are great extremes of wealth and poverty. A democracy as a system of developing laws and the welfare of the whole country cannot survive where great wealth confronts great poverty.
The Government claim on the one hand that the economy is strong and the nation is prosperous and then on the other hand say that they are in dire straits. It is notable, and it has been the same over the years, that whenever the Government find themselves in difficulty

577
it is not to the rich and powerful that they look to be sustained: it is the poor, the weak and the sick who always bear the brunt of the burden. We know perfectly well that in one day those who sustain the party opposite will spend on lunch what an ordinary person who is unemployed or in the poverty trap receives in a week. They live in a different world altogether.
The Government do not seem to realise that at least one-third of the population does not live in the world as portrayed in the colour magazine supplements of the Sunday newspapers. They live a life in which every penny matters. Even the changing of a small battery in a radio set represents a crisis. Every change in venue when they have to go to a hospital, so that they have to travel perhaps three miles instead of one, represents a crisis in the family budget because it means having to travel from one fare zone into another. That is what noble Lords opposite do not realise; nor can it be sustained for long.
We all have to face the fact that sooner or later democracy cannot endure where the fortunes of most of the people of the country who work and most of those who are out of work depend fundamentally on the complete and untouchable freedom of people who are supposed to provide the capital in order that manufacturing and other industries may run. That cannot go on. Either poverty using democracy will win the battle against property, or property fearing poverty will destroy democracy. That is exactly what is happening in the United Kingdom today. All over the country elected bodies are being replaced by quangos. Those quangos consist in the main—I shall prove it if necessary—of members of the Conservative Party and their hangers on. The democratic rule, progressive though it may be, is superseded by appointments made quite shamelessly without regard to the welfare of the people.
I have spent many days wandering around some of the hospitals that are the subject of the Tomlinson report. There is no time to give the results of my inquiries into those hospitals. However, I assure Members opposite that among the hospital staff who really care the Health Secretary's name is execrated. They do not like her in the slightest, or anything that she stands for.
In the time that remains to us we have to undertake those measures that have wide acceptance throughout the country rather than the measures accepted by those who hold the power.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. First, I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for the welcome and kindness that I have received. I also thank the Clerk of the Parliaments, officials and staff for being so helpful. I have been made to feel very much at home and I am truly grateful for that.
I have a long-standing interest in pensions. I noted the statement in the gracious Speech that,
578
"My Government will continue to develop their policies on social security so that help is concentrated on those most in need and expenditure is kept within affordable limits".
Hear, hear, to that, my Lords. The trouble is that those two points often conflict. It is reassuring to pensioners to know that they have a regular pension income, that pensions nowadays are increased each year and that the principle of benefit as of right on payment of contributions is firmly entrenched. However, the number of pensioners is increasing all the time and the cost of pensions increases as a consequence. We must therefore inevitably ask, "Is the cost becoming too great?" Are we asking future working generations to pay too much? Those are awkward questions which are being asked. I give the Government great credit for taking the lead in the debate on those important matters.
We also have to take into account the fact that the circumstances of a growing number of pensioners have changed for the better. We now have what the younger generation call well-off old folk with three sources of income: the straight retirement pension; an occupational or public service pension; and investment income. Those are wholly satisfactory developments but they have a bad side too.
As recent events have shown, the safeguards against dishonesty and cheating in occupational pension schemes have proved to be inadequate. For the most part, trustees are doing a good job. We welcome the new pensions ombudsman. The occupational pensions advisory service is doing valuable work in helping to obtain redress for those who have grievances. But the law needs to be tightened up. I am glad that the Government set up the Goode Committee to review the framework of law and regulation of pension schemes. I hope that the Government will take early action on the committee's wise and practical recommendations.
It has been said that this is an unprecedented debate. Therefore perhaps I may be forgiven for a somewhat controversial remark in my maiden speech; namely, that when the vote is called I shall vote with conviction and enthusiasm against the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I thank your Lordships for giving me the courtesy of your attention.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, one of the most pleasant tasks in your Lordships' House is to be the speaker following a maiden speech. Today is no exception. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, comes to us with a great reputation as a parliamentarian with expertise in particular on health and social security. His maiden speech has added to that reputation. I know that I speak for all noble Lords when I say how much we enjoyed his speech and look forward to his future contributions to our debates.
The Motion before the House refers to the lack of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. That certainly applies in the National Health Service and community care. There is increasing evidence that the reforms set in train by the National Health Service and Community Care Act are not working. As part of my duties in the health team, I spend much time in discussion with doctors, carers and nurses. I meet

579
consultants who cannot wait to retire. I met a young male nurse in my home town. He is well trained. He and all his colleagues were engaged on six-month contracts. He was taken on in March and discharged in September, not because of inefficiency but because of a funding problem. He is now lost to the National Health Service. He is being trained elsewhere.
We could have avoided that situation. When we were considering the Bill in this House, my noble friend Lord Ennals moved an amendment which had the support of all the Royal Colleges. It asked the Government to try out the reforms in two regions. Instead the Bill was rammed through —it was ill thought out and ill considered, as referred to by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in his opening—in the mood of triumphalism which suffused the Government at that time. The reforms have cost over £1 billion. The health service now spends £25 million a year on public relations. The number of managers has tripled—like some of their salaries. The pay bill for managers is up by 108 per cent. in real terms. The pay bill for nurses and midwives is up in real terms by 2.2 per cent.
We are surprised by the increase in the salaries of the managers in the health service—the trust hospitals and others. It was like the salaries of the managers in the privatised industries. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, "A gravy train is a gravy train is a gravy train". A leading consultant in industry told me the other day that the internal market was the last but two in management theory in large organisations.
Of course it is important to find out the cost of operating the National Health Service—we used to call it organisation and methods—to find out the best practice and see the cheapest way of doing it. I believe it was Mr. William Waldegrave when he was Secretary of State who referred to the health service as "an administrative slum". You do not engage in slum clearance by submerging it in paper; and that is what has happened. We are now engaged on a vast paper chase.
There was reference recently at Question Time to the Royal Marsden Hospital, which seeks trust status. I am sure that it will get trust status and will not be closed. But while it remains open, it will have to turn its attention from its world renowned treatment and research into cancer to compete with other hospitals and for customers in the same way as Tesco's competes with Sainsbury's.
We shall hear at the end, I am sure, about the resources the Government have put into the health service and the number of patients who are treated. That is to do with resources. But of the 21 OECD countries, only four spend less on health care as a percentage of their GDP than the UK. We spend £100 less per head of population than the EC average. If we had spent the average of the EC from 1980 to 1990, it would have been worth an extra £40 billion for the health service. In that period our hospitals have gone down by 20 per cent. and hospital beds by 25 per cent. The hospitals in the private sector have increased by 50 per cent. and the beds in the private sector by 70 per cent.
We shall be told, I am sure, about the number of patients. When the noble Earl winds up, will he confirm that when the Government refer to the number of
580
patients, they mean the number of consultant episodes? If a patient is seen by three consultants, it counts as three patients.
The Government rejected the gradualist, consensual reform that we could all have supported. They rammed through ill-considered, underfunded reforms which are based on a half-baked and out-of-date fad in management theory. The country is now paying and I am absolutely certain that the Government will pay eventually.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I also wish to associate myself with the words of congratulation to my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree on his splendid, short and pungent speech. We look forward very much to hearing more from him in the days and months that lie ahead.
Listening to the Leader of the Opposition opening the debate, fulminating and saying that the country was on its knees, my mind went back to 1979. In those days we longed for interest rates at a low rate, 5½ per cent. and inflation at its present levels. That is what we were saying. Then I remembered, of course, that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was not in this country; he was the United Nations representative, living in New York. I suppose that that is a bit like Pooh-Bah. When the Mikado had him grovelling at his feet for having cut off the head of the heir apparent, Pooh-Bah said: "I knew nothing about it. I wasn't there".
The country on its knees! I have to say that I strongly disagree with the Leader of the Opposition in that remark. A recent survey by the Financial Times of the top 500 European companies, showed that, on profit, 10 of the top 20 are in the United Kingdom. Manufacturing output per head in the three months to September this year is up 4.9 per cent. Yesterday we had a Budget for small business. Deeds, not words; action, not words. The "son of BES" has indeed come to pass, with action to tackle late payment, particularly by large companies which are strangling small companies by holding up payments. I say to my friends on the Front Bench, "Do not give way; do tackle, if necessary by legislation, the late payment of accounts which is so difficult for a small business to counter".
I believe that the 1993 Budgets, in a difficult world scene, have rescued the United Kingdom from a possible plunge into fiscal unsustainability similar to that seen in some European countries such as Italy. I prefer the Government's approach to that of signing up for a social charter or a payroll tax so beloved of the party opposite. Levelling up of taxes is no good for business. It is bad for business and it is bad for Britain.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, as only one of two Cross-Benchers to take part in the debate tonight, I shall be extremely brief. I should like to raise two points as words of warning for the Government. Both are related to the situation in Scotland.
First, there has been a gross miscalculation of the base area for Scottish cereal production at the Scottish

581
Office. That has resulted in the fact that we farmers have been told to set a further 5 per cent. aside next year without compensation. That means that we shall now be setting nearly 21 per cent. aside. The same situation recently arose in Germany and the German Government fought long and hard in Brussels for their farmers. As a result of that great fight, German farmers are not being penalised. I have to say that the Scottish farming industry feels let down by Her Majesty's Government.
The second point I wish to raise is the Government's proposals to change the way we run local government in Scotland. I am not against the idea of single-tier local authorities, but what I am against is the Government's total reluctance to listen to local feeling. That has happened throughout Scotland and in our case the Government propose to take Berwickshire out of the Scottish Borders. Berwickshire has been part of the Borders for centuries but the Government propose to link it with East Lothian. Geographically, Berwickshire is separated from East Lothian by the Lammermuir Hills; the only road to the proposed new headquarters in Haddington is a B road which is partially blocked with snow from the beginning of October to the beginning of June. It simply does not make sense. I feel that the Government will earn the most enormous support if they look at both those issues and show a willingness to examine them. I am sure that they agree that they could do with more support from over the Border.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, like my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, I have confidence in the way in which the Government are managing the economic fundamentals. That surely must underpin all our aspirations on all sides of the House for the better development of society.
In the past, the "boom and bust" economic cycle has gravely harmed us. First and foremost, we have to seek economic stability and I welcome the fact that the Government are seeking steady, durable growth. We increasingly accept across the board that a long-term, low inflationary environment must be maintained. Low inflation is, of course, not just a goal in itself but it is fundamental as the foundation of long-term and sustained progress. In particular, there is no long-term trade off between inflation and unemployment. Employment prospects can only be underpinned by a sound economy. Some, I know, say that inflation is now dead, but in the light of the history of recent decades we should be vigilant to guard against it rising again. The aims of the Budget seem to me to reinforce that commitment. But, above all, I welcome the commitment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to long-term and not short-term success.
I am also heartened that the Government are now committed to a partnership with industry and business. We all rightly accept once again that manufacturing industry is vital to our future. Our service industry, into which the City of London chipped almost £19 billion last year, is highly important. But we need greater manufacturing success to export more and for our own goods to substitute for imports. I am glad that the
582
Opposition approve of the Government's present policy. The DTI, under Mr. Michael Heseltine, is absolutely and clearly committed, as we see it, to working with industry to help it to achieve its goals. New export markets are not easy to win, particularly when our principal European markets are in recession. But the commitment of the Government to promoting and supporting exports, as the Prime Minister has done on several trade missions in the time he has to spare from Parliament, is really heartening. We are no longer afraid to talk, in simple language, of UK Plc as if we mean it.
Like many others, I see small businesses as vital to the future. They contribute 17 per cent. of our GDP but they also contribute 35 per cent. of private sector employment. Ninety six per cent. of businesses in this country employ fewer than 20 people, so I am very glad, for the sake of employment as well as growth, that their importance was recognised in the Budget. The raising of the threshold for VAT, the lessening of the accountancy burden and the creation of new vehicles for tax efficient investment in small businesses are all steps in the right direction.
However, as my noble friend Lord Sanderson said, we must also help small businesses with their cash flow. Late payment of debt is a disease in this country. At any one time, £15 billion of payments are overdue, and the problem needs to be addressed urgently. Most banks and many businesses believe that voluntary efforts to cure the disease have failed dismally and that it is important to create a statutory right of interest—not, although I speak as a lawyer, with a view to clogging-up the courts but with a view to changing the culture. I am very glad that the Chancellor acknowledged so positively the havoc which late payment of debt plays with so many small businesses. I welcome the consultative paper that he has issued, which fairly squares up to the problem and indicates that government departments will publish from 1994 their own payment record every year. Government, both central and local, has to set an example in this area. After all, we are only asking that debts should be paid on time.
Mention of time indicates that I must keep to time myself. The Government seem to me to be firmly committed to low inflation. They are seeking steady growth; emphasising the importance of manufacturing and exports and trying to help small business. I believe that this agenda ought to command all our support.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Listening to the speeches from Members on the Benches Opposite, I have been irresistibly reminded, as they have held forth with their claims to credit for the Government trying to get us out of recession, of a nursery rhyme:
"Ding, dong, bell,
Pussy's in the well,
Who put her in?
Of course, it is this Government. Indeed, according to Mr. Norman Lamont, whom they were once cheering as Chancellor, the extravagances of earlier years led directly to the recession that we are in now. I see no signs that this Government have any chance of drawing us out of recession again.

583
It is not only a question of having no confidence in what this Government have done before. We have no confidence in the direction in which they are moving or in what they intend to do. I very much hope that Members of this House will give careful thought to what is happening—because it is happening in a way that I do not believe they would like if they stopped to realise it. The Budget shows that this Government have been captured by the new Tory Right. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to privatise all the social insurance and health insurance provisions in this country, leading to the inequalities that we have seen in the United States of America. As evidence, I quote from a recent pamphlet by the "no turning back" Thatcherites, who, in talking about the welfare state, called for its total dismantling. I shall quote just two sentences. First:
"State benefit should be primarily for the poor";
and, secondly:
"the state may provide no insurance of its own".
That is their intention, and this Budget has taken us in that direction. That purpose was echoed by Mr. Peter Lilley. It was even echoed by the Prime Minister and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in his Budget speech on the grounds that, as they have said, "the burden of the welfare state is something that we can no longer enjoy, and we shall collapse under the weight of it".
It is not surprising that some welfare expenditure has increased recently. We all know that unemployment has gone up and that we have to pay unemployment benefit. But there are other aspects of deliberately created government policy which have added to the cost of welfare payments. We heard them this afternoon. Welfare spending will go up—will it not?—in the next two years to compensate the pensioners for the new tax burden that the Government have put upon them. I suppose that we shall be told that that is the terrible growing burden of the welfare state.
Let us take housing benefit, one of the areas of spending that has increased. I rang up the Department of Social Security about the figures. When I was told that one of the increases was in housing benefit I asked why. "Oh", they said, "because the Government put up rents". So time and again the Government have precipitated the policies which require that kind of relief. They are creating the myth.
The Government say: "We have been lavishly generous to all the poorest and most insecure in the land". Let me tell them one thing as they rattle off all the things that they say they are going to do to alleviate the misery that they themselves have created. Let me remind them that the experts say that the biggest blow to pensioners in this country was dealt when this Government deliberately broke the earnings link, the income up-rating which the Labour Government had introduced. A figure was given recently by a social security expert who said that if that linkage purely with prices, and not with incomes, had obtained ever since 1948, the pension today would be worth £23 a week. Unless that earnings link is restored, then pensioners
584
face slipping increasingly into poverty and all the alleviations about which we have heard today will be meaningless.
Therefore, I want to draw the attention of the House to a document which it is quite obvious the Government have not read. It is called The future of welfare: A guide to the debate, and was published recently by John Hills of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. As time is so desperately inadequate, I merely want to quote one of the conclusions in its summary—if I may just get my other specs, and I hope that that does not count against my time:
"Welfare spending is neither 'spiralling out of control' nor being inexorably 'rolled back'. As Figure 2 [of the document] shows, over the medium term Britain's welfare spending has been a stable share of GDP, rising and falling with the economic cycle. As Figure 3 shows, that share is smaller than in most other European countries".
Can we have an answer to that statement today?
5.36 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Baroness and I entered another place, along with several hundred others, in 1945. I well remember, and often admired, the spirited speeches that she made, although I generally disagreed with them. I am glad to find that she has lost none of her vigour, but, alas, I cannot agree with anything that she said so far as I was able to follow her remarks.
I recall also that the noble Baroness was employment Minister at a very difficult time with the trade unions. She issued a White Paper In Place of Strife, which contained some quite wise suggestions for improving matters. But her Cabinet colleagues would not let her follow it up with legislation. So strikes continued and multiplied, both official and unofficial, culminating in the winter of discontent when hospital patients were deprived of necessary services and some of the dead could not be buried when they should have been.
The trouble was that the trades unions—many of them, not all—were in the hands of left wing extremists. Union members were deprived of power and of a proper voting system for electing their leaders. Ballots were not secret and indeed were sometimes rigged. There were cases before the courts. That was the position the Conservative Government found in 1979. The situation caused disharmony among our people, to borrow the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It damaged the economy; one cannot get away from that. It did Labour no good. It was the Conservative Government who persuaded Parliament to give the unions back to their members, first, by introducing secret postal ballots for union elections, and secondly, by making strikes unlawful unless 50 per cent. of the members of a union voted by secret ballot in favour of striking. That is the position today. The result has been a dramatic fall in the number of days lost through strikes. There has been less interruption of production, less interruption of public services and much better relationships between management and labour.
The Labour Party strenuously opposed all that legislation but I understand that it has no intention of asking Parliament to repeal it. Indeed, although the noble Lord tried to find as many differences as possible

585
the Labour Party broadly agrees with the Government on some very important matters—for instance, Northern Ireland, Europe, the need to reduce crime and Yugoslavia. I believe, however, that the Labour Party remains fundamentally a socialist party, although it has not paraded its socialism much in recent years. Indeed, it has pretended to abandon much of it.
One must take note of a current political issue involving its socialist beliefs, namely, the Government's proposal to privatise British Coal. I wonder whether I may inflict on your Lordships a personal experience. Like several other Members of your Lordships' House, I was once responsible for health and safety in several hundred coal mines. I went down about a dozen coal mines in different parts of the country. The miners always gave me a good welcome, except in one area—Scargill country in south Yorkshire. Miners had to lead daily lives which were dirty, dark, dangerous and strenuous. Every year several hundred were either killed by accident or died from pneumoconiosis. I did not believe that in a progressive society that could go on indefinitely.
A further factor is that the burning, especially in open fires, of most forms of coal pollutes the air. It does not surprise me that the coalmining industry has run down. There are so few mines left that the case for retaining nationalisation, if there ever was a case, has gone.
We won the last four general elections because enough of the British people supported our policies. They were wise to do so and your Lordships would be wise to defeat the Motion today.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, when I became a Member of your Lordships' House, I did not think that we should ever debate a Motion of this kind. It seemed to me that, as we are mainly a revising Chamber, such resolutions should never be contemplated, let alone debated. Over the past week I have thought about the debate and warmed to it. I have come to the conclusion that we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for giving us the opportunity to demonstrate our support for the Government's policies.
I wish to concentrate on what is perhaps the most important single policy of all. I refer to the control of inflation. The control of inflation is absolutely vital to create a stable environment in which the economy can flourish. If our entrepreneurs can rely on the Government to deliver low inflation, they can make plans for the medium and long term with confidence. They can focus their energies on winning world markets to the advantage of us all. For that reason, in 1979 the Government's top economic priority was to get inflation down.
At that time we had just experienced, under the last Labour administration, a period of horrendous inflation. Those in work were able to fight their corner to maintain their standard of living, even though they were pricing goods out of the market by doing so. But we can all remember people who suffered severely at that time. The elderly, the weak, the vulnerable and those on fixed incomes saw their standard of living dramatically
586
reduced. I well remember when inflation reached 26.9 per cent. in 1975. Panic set in, with people buying today because tomorrow goods would cost more. I refer only to those who had the means to spend. Others went without.
Inflation causes three main problems. First, it brings about a re-allocation of wealth from savers to borrowers. In the four years of government leading up to 1979 the real value of the pound was reduced to just 47p. Secondly, between wage settlements inflation erodes the real value of incomes. That is disruptive and socially divisive. Unrest results, and large groups, such as trade unions, use their clout and muscle in every new wage negotiation. Thirdly, high inflation causes great harm to business, fuelling those high wage costs which are the largest component of industry's costs. The CBI has calculated that for every point of inflation the cost to business is around £5 billion a year.
The battle of inflation is never won. It is therefore imperative that the present specific target range of 1 per cent. to 4 per cent. for underlying inflation is adhered to. The Chancellor confirmed yesterday that we are set to stay within that target range. As he said, low inflation must now remain a permanent feature of the British economic landscape. By introducing tough measures to control spending and raise revenue, he demonstrated our commitment to sustained low inflation.
The determined pursuit of the Government's policy has resulted in headline inflation below 2 per cent. in each of the last 10 months, which has not been seen since 1960. Inflation in this country has been below the EC average every month since August 1991. It is now the lowest in the G7 as well as the EC.
Last Friday, interest rates were reduced to 5.5 per cent. The last time that interest rates were so low was in 1977. Yes, it was when a Labour government were in power. But it was a very different scene. Inflation was 13 per cent. So savings were losing 7.5 per cent. of their value. In addition, nearly 10 million working days were lost through strike action that year.
Under this Government Britain leads the discussion in Europe on how to create growth and jobs. This Government are committed to a prosperous future for Britain. I have the utmost confidence in the policies of this Government.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this debate is about confidence. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the low level of confidence that industry has in the Government. I have spent the whole of my working life in industry and strongly agree with earlier speakers that industry is the engine of our recovery. It is therefore in the interest of us all that the Government should earn and retain the confidence of industry and encourage it to undertake the necessary risk and effort needed for our recovery.
The Government are responsible for creating an atmosphere in which industry is able to progress and invest. Unfortunately, that is not the situation at present. Industry plans its progress and investments very carefully. The success of those plans rests on the ability of managers to make a reasonable prediction of the

587
conditions in which their projects will operate. That is why the first page of any business plan is headed "External factors" and is largely about predicting the effects of the Government's words and actions on the projects to be undertaken. So long as the Government have policies which are reasonably predictable on the important elements which affect industry, such as monetary policy, labour relations, taxation or technology, industry will progress. It has great ability to adapt to most policies.
How do a government create that desirable atmosphere? They do it by observing two simple rules. Rule one is to give clear messages and ensure that members of the Government do not contradict each other. Rule 2 is not to say one thing and do another. Sadly, those simple rules have been breached not just in the past 14 years that the Government have been in power; nor in the past 14 months; but in the past 14 days.
Let me illustrate that. During the summer we were told that our managers were doing well. Exports were up and productivity was increasing faster than in Germany, Japan and the United States. In today's debate we have heard that we are the only country in Europe coming out of recession. How then is industry to interpret a speech made by the President of the Board of Trade—I am pleased to see him recovered and back at work—at the annual dinner of the Institute of Directors on 23rd November at which he rebuked British managers for unsatisfactory performance figures? Those figures show that our productivity is 25 per cent. behind that of our European competitors and even further behind that of the US and that our share of world trade has declined remorselessly. It is now half that of Germany. Who are we to believe?
There was then the episode when members of the Government contradicted each other over the declaration about work-sharing at the Congress of European Socialists. On 22nd November the Chancellor rubbished the idea in Brussels, yet on the same day the employment Minister, speaking at a seminar in London, praised it. What is industry to make of that contradiction? Particular encouragement was given to trade with our European partners. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, referred to that in his opening remarks. What conclusion is industry supposed to draw when a senior member of the Cabinet is seen on television at Blackpool doing sarcastic schoolboy impersonations of French, German and Italian citizens? They are the very people that industry is trying to persuade to buy our goods and use our services.
Looking further back, I remind your Lordships of the confusion regarding the Channel Tunnel rail link and the time, effort and money wasted by industry as a consequence of believing what the Government said in regard to urban light railway systems. Any member of the Government watching the "Money Programme" on BBC television on Sunday evening must have felt uncomfortable as the whole catalogue of broken promises and misleading statements was examined. The misleading statements and mishandling of our entry into
588
and exit from the ERM also broke the simple rules and severely tested industry's confidence in the Government.
Industry is investing less now than in 1979. There are many reasons for that. One is the uncertainty caused by the Government's unpredictable behaviour. Perhaps that is one reason also why many of our companies are choosing to invest outside the UK, with the result that there is now more investment outward than inward. We on our side wish to see industry lead us into real recovery. We have been consistent in our policy statements. On the other hand, the Government are inconsistent and in confusion; that is why I shall be supporting the Motion today.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, what a curious Motion to bring before the House at this particular moment. As has been pointed out by several noble Lords, there is no precedent for such a Motion and, were it to succeed, one is bound to ask what would be the consequences. Are we to assume that your Lordships' House would be dissolved and the Queen would call for the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to form his first administration? If so, the new Cabinet would consist of nine academics, five lawyers, two social workers and a farmer.
No. The truth is that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, imagined that this Motion would be a way of gaining some damaging publicity for the Government the day after the Budget. Once again the Members of the Opposition got their timing wrong because, much to their disappointment, the Budget was well received by the pundits and the press.
Since he became Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his Front Bench have obviously failed to notice that Britain has its lowest interest rates for 16 years; the lowest inflation rate for nearly 30 years; GDP has risen for six successive quarters; retail sales were up in October by 3.2 per cent. year on year; and our exports to non-EC countries are also up by a staggering 28 per cent. in the three months to October year on year. And perhaps most important of all, when the Leader of the Opposition in another place claimed that unemployment would rise month after month after month, he was proved right—it did rise month after month after month in every other European country except Britain. In Britain it fell for six out of the past eight months, with an overall decrease of 137,000. But despite that, we are expected to believe that, if the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was suddenly passed the mantle of power, all our problems would instantly be solved.
I was delighted that the noble Lord began his speech by referring to the last Labour administration., because when I had the privilege of sitting in another place he supported that Government, and that Government's past record deserves a moment of your Lordships' consideration. That Government allowed the top rate of tax on earned income to reach 83 per cent. That Government allowed the top rate on unearned income to reach 98 per cent. In both cases this Government have brought them down to 40 per cent. But if those statistics

589
were not enough to condemn them, let us not forget that the same administration that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, supported had an average rate of inflation of 15.5 per cent., rising to a peak of 27 per cent.—a far cry from the current inflation figure of 1.4 per cent.
And if your Lordships believe that the noble Lord and his friends are now reformed characters why have the Labour Opposition in another place voted against every single tax cut proposed by this Government over the past 14 years? I shall tell you why. They are traditionally the party of high taxation, and that is why they will traditionally remain the party of Opposition.
The truth is that this Motion should never have been brought before the House, and half the Members on the Benches opposite know that and are privately saying so. The Government's record does not call for a vote of no confidence. No, my Lords. While the rest of Europe is still deep in recession and we are the one country coming out of that recession, it calls for a massive vote of confidence in the present administration and their policies. The British people returned the Conservatives to power for four elections in a row. When the time comes to call the next election—and it will not be tonight—they will return the Conservative Party again.
I commend to your Lordships the defeat of this Motion and on their record to condemn the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his friends to a further period in Opposition.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, no modern state can achieve sustained economic growth unless it is underpinned by a sound structure of education and training to provide the educated and trained workforce which the modern economy demands. I am pleased to applaud the Government's record in that policy area for a few short moments.
Let us reflect for a moment on what was left behind by the last Labour Government in 1979. We had a failing education system—failing both the young people of our country and the business and industry which were their future employers. Young people left our schools lagging behind the rest of the western world and our competitors in their literacy and numeracy skills, in their knowledge of science and technology and in the basic technical skills they needed for employment. Only one in eight of our young people went on to higher education; 60 per cent. left full-time education at the age of 16 with nothing to show for their 11 years' education. Teachers in the system were qualified by the study of turgid and irrelevant educational theory and in many cases had no knowledge at all of the subjects that they would teach.
Let us look at the situation now after 14 years of this party's and this Government's policies. In the 1988 Act we produced a national curriculum which all children now follow, giving them access to a broad and balanced range of knowledge and skills which they need in order to survive and achieve in adult life. They are tested regularly to ensure that they are learning the knowledge and the skills that the curriculum provides and so that
590
action can be taken remedially to ensure that they catch up where the test results show that they are not succeeding.
The 1988 Act also introduced a common system of examinations at 16. I cannot tell your Lordships how important it is that schools no longer have to put young people into three miserable divisions: the O-level group, as it used to be, whose hopes of success in future life were fairly high; the CSE group, whose hopes of success were severely limited; and the dreaded non-examination group, who had little to look forward to in terms of adult achievement. Now all have access to an appropriate range of qualifications and the Government have set targets for 80 per cent. of our young people by 1996, which is only two and a half years away, to have achieved five GCSEs or their vocational equivalent. This target is achieved with the support, help and energies of the training and enterprise councils, which demonstrate a partnership between employers and education.
In 1984 reforms of teacher qualifications were introduced which ensured that they were not qualified unless they had studied the subject they were to teach and that they learnt their practical skills largely in the schools and in the classrooms. That is to be further extended by the Bill currently with your Lordships' House. In 1992 we debated long, as I remember, in this House the introduction of regular and tightened-up inspection arrangements to ensure that failing schools—failing not only the young people but the economic growth of our country—should be identified early and that appropriate action could be taken so that failure was turned round.
In 1993, this very year, we have passed through this House and another place the Act which will produce the greater involvement of parents in their children's schools. Everything we know about children's ability to succeed in schools emphasises the importance of their experience of unity and co-operation between their homes and their schools. No more powerful way could have been found than that measure of parental involvement in the running of the schools. The Parents' Charter has ensured that reality is given to this partnership.
The success of these policies is shown by the fact that the consumers are buying it. More than 50 per cent. of young people are now in full-time education at the age of 17 and one-third of the age group are now going on into higher education. The Government's target for 16 to 19 year-olds will ensure that many proceed through to A-level and its equivalent. All of this has been backed up with money—a 45 per cent. increase in spending per pupil since 1979. On the basis of these policies alone I shall have great pride in voting against the Motion today and I trust that your Lordships' House will do the same.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I put down my name to speak to this Motion last week and I wondered over the weekend whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do anything in his Budget Statement yesterday to persuade me that my lack of confidence in the policies of the Government was misplaced. Sadly, I think that in

591
what he said yesterday he rather reinforced my lack of enthusiasm for what the Government have been doing over the past few years. Nor have they improved the prospect, so far as I can see, of creating a fairer Britain in the foreseeable future.
The economic record of the past 14 years—other noble Lords have mentioned it during the debate—has been appalling. For any government the level of economic activity, together with our international competitiveness and wealth creating ability, must be at the heart of policy. But this Government have fallen short of that in all parts. I am sure that the Lord Privy Seal, in setting out that catalogue of selective statistics and platitudes, knows that that has not happened. I know that some noble Lords opposite know that it has not happened.
Since 1979 the average annual rate of economic growth in the UK has been only just over 1.5 per cent. Every post-war government formed by either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party prior to 1979 did significantly better than the miserable record of the Thatcher and Major administrations. The Lord Privy Seal failed to mention among other things in his selective statistics that the level of manufacturing investment this year will be below the level of 1979.
My noble friend Lord Haskel mentioned the speech of the President of the Board of Trade at the Institute of Directors on 23rd November and pointed out that he said some very interesting things about our twin deficits—our overseas trade deficit and our deficit in public finances. The President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Michael Heseltine, finished his speech on that occasion in this way. In talking about uncompetitive nations he said:
"They gradually slip down the league table of world prosperity. That is what has happened to us".
That is what the President of the Board of Trade said. It is a pity that he does not say that kind of thing in another place.
It is not only our public finances and our trade imbalance which embarrass our country. There is the shameful waste of 3 million unemployed people who would like desperately to contribute to the well-being and welfare of our country but cannot get a job. I find it particularly impudent for the Lord Privy Seal to say, as he did this afternoon, that unemployment is falling slightly from the level of nearly three years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, made some play of that a minute or two ago. On the present basis of falling unemployment it will take 10 years to get back to the level of unemployment that the Government inherited in 1979. When I see the Lord Privy Seal and listen to him I ask myself whether he is the same John Wakeham who fought the 1979 general election under the Saatchi and Saatchi poster depicting a seemingly endless queue of unemployed with the caption "Labour isn't working" when unemployment at that time was only a third of the level it is today.
I am not at all uneasy about supporting the Motion—I know that some noble Lords wonder whether it is right—but the way the Government have betrayed the coalmining industry annoys me intensely and makes me quite angry. In another few years we shall be importing
592
expensive gas to convert to electricity, at great cost to our balance of payments, from territories of the world which are not yet renowned for their political stability. But it does not seem to worry the Government. The Government are out of touch.
When I was a Parliamentary Secretary in 1966 I remember a schoolboy asking my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx "What do Ministers do?" Mr. Harold Wilson, as he was then, said, "They hold meetings". That is what has happened to this Government. They are holding far too many meetings and they are out of touch with reality. They ought to go on the Tube. They ought to see what is happening in some of the deprived areas of Britain. If they did so they would realise what a disastrous mess they are making of things. I have no hesitation at all in supporting the Motion.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, we are all indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for instituting this debate. A vote of confidence, contrary to what he said, does imply that the Opposition, if elected, could do better. This debate therefore gives us the opportunity to expose the vacuity of the suggestion that noble Lords opposite have policies that in any way would be more appropriate at the present time than those of Her Majesty's Government.
It requires a triumph of self-delusion over reality to suggest that there are socialist solutions which need to be applied in a world which is trying to recover from the disastrous economic effects of that damaging ideology. Noble Lords will recall those stirring days four years ago when Russia—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—started to throw off her chains. I remember being intensely moved by the interview comments of an elderly woman. She said, "Thanks to socialism my life has been wasted". That remark could easily apply to the damaging legacy of socialism worldwide.
So back here, nearer at home, the Government's priority over the past 14 years has been unscrambling the malign effects of that doctrine. The blight may not have gone as deep as in Russia, but it has certainly held back the economic development of this country, as one glance at the liberated, denationalised major industries now so clearly illustrates.
Worldwide, democracies are under great pressure as the unfulfillable demands of the ever-widening welfare dependency come up against the inescapable realities of inadequate resources. Cash is simply not there and the taxable capacity of the public to pay for it has reached its limits. But I count my blessings. My generation has been extremely lucky: too young for the last war; to have lived through the demise of socialism; 45 years of unprecedented peace in Europe; food coming out of our ears and an expectation of life, with any luck, 20 years more than our grandparents.
But such blessings bring with them the growing problem of demography. There will be fewer economically-active people to grow the rice for the rice bowl that will have to feed our ageing population. This is society's time bomb. All governments have to face

593
these problems, as would the noble Lords opposite if they were fortunate enough, and the country unfortunate enough, to have them in power.
So it would be nice to hear constructive, realistic policies coming from the opposite Benches, and on rare occasions one does so. But in the main their criticism of the Government's policies are superficial, ill-considered and point scoring. Intellectually they struggle to make yesterday's strategies fit today's needs. That is all the more disappointing because we live in times of great uncertainty and change, where leadership is so desperately needed. We live in a world in which the great verities that this House took for granted even 30 years ago—the verities of God, King and Country—are under question.
But the present Government are really grappling with these problems. They recognise not least that technology is changing employment patterns, which in turn demand great changes in educational and training systems. They are really concerned in this and in other ways to create self-sustaining, unsubsidised jobs in what is an increasingly competitive world.
However, one glance at the changes in employment laws demanded, and indeed endorsed, by many noble Lords opposite, leads one to the inescapable conclusion that they are not really interested in creating jobs; rather in burdening the labour force of this country with additional regulations that would destroy them. The road to unemployment is indeed paved with socialist good intentions, as France and Germany so clearly show.
Our Government clearly recognise the damage that over-regulation is doing to the economy. It is not surprising that this problem is unrecognised by many socialists who have little or no experience of living outside the political world and who are more interested in spending wealth than creating it, with all the inflationary implications that go with that thought.
The Government are wholly right to tackle the problem of over-regulation. Noble Lords will need no reminding of Gulliver in Gulliver's Travels. No one silken thread held him down but a thousand made him immobile. When I was a boy Britannia ruled the waves. Now we are the only country in Europe that does not waive the rules; indeed, we embellish them.
If our national morality prevents us from waiving them, we at least must rewrite them. Much over-regulation destroys enterprise, destroys initiative and destroys jobs. If Dean Swift were alive today he would be the first to recognise the damaging Lilliputian policies supported by those on the opposite Benches.
Inflation is at an all-time low. The Government have realistic and practical policies, as so clearly shown by yesterday's Budget. They have policies that work with the grain of human nature; policies that recognise that in a less deferential world people want their own independence, want their own home and want, in so far as they can, control over their own lives.
What they do not want is a return to the failed socialist policies of yesterday, which is all that an alternative government can offer them. Socialism is the future that does not work. We could have no confidence
594
in any alternative administration that embraced that failed dogma. We can have every confidence in an administration such as we have today that has realistic, workable policies for the future, and an excellent track record to go with it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, nothing that I have heard this afternoon explains why the Opposition sought to table such a bizarre Motion for debate today. The only explanation that I can think of is the same as that of my noble friend Lord Archer—that is to say, they tabled it as a trailer in the hope and belief that the reception of the Budget would be very hostile and they would have an opportunity for some good old-fashioned Government bashing in your Lordships' Chamber this afternoon.
I am thankful that they have been disappointed and not just for party political reasons. I am thankful that the Government have brought forward, through the Chancellor, a sensible Budget of the kind that is actually needed by this country to sustain the recovery and to redress the imbalances which arose during the recession.
If one looks back at how the Labour Party behaved at the critical points in the economic development of this country in the past few years, one finds that on almost every occasion they have been advocating exactly the opposite of what it was necessary to do at the time. In 1987–88, after the stock market crash, interest rates in this country and in others were kept very low because there was a fear of serious recession at the time. In fact, with hindsight, one can see that interest rates should have been raised sooner and perhaps more sharply.
But that is not what the Opposition were recommending. They were recommending even lower interest rates. Not only that, they were recommending substantial increases in public expenditure at the same time, which would have made the problems of the following two or three years all that much greater.
When one looks at the other end of this economic cycle a couple of years or so ago, what were they saying then? Quite rightly, the Government were insisting that it was necessary to encourage enterprise in order to ensure the economic recovery of this country. But there was nothing like that from the Opposition. Again, they wanted massive increases in public expenditure and possibly some swingeing increases in personal taxation at the same time—the permanent recipe of Labour Governments and Labour Oppositions which is to have a high-spending, low incentive economy. That has never worked in the past and it never will.
Yet, when they were faced with the next problem—the policy issue of the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System—there were two options. There was the option for this country and sterling to stay in the exchange rate mechanism and to have the high interest rates which were necessary to sustain sterling in it, or there was the option to come out and to have much lower interest rates. But that was not the problem as assessed by the Labour Opposition. They said that they wanted a little of both. They wanted to stay in the exchange rate mechanism, but to have lower interest rates at the same time. Those are two absolutely incompatible policies.

595
That has been the fundamental weakness of Labour Party policies for as long as I have been following them. Having been in the Treasury myself in the 1980s we used to look to see whether there were any really good ideas that we had missed. I can assure noble Lords that it was almost impossible to find any consistency in the Labour Party's approach to economic management.
The one overriding factor which a country has the right to expect from its government is a responsible approach to economic management and a consistency in its tax and public spending policies. That is the one factor in recent years which has never been on offer to the British people from the party opposite. So when the Labour Party tables a Motion of no confidence in the Government on the day after a Budget which has addressed these matters seriously in a consistent and coherent way, frankly, it is behaving in a way which has brought its own reward.
The Labour Party has been a brilliant Opposition. If success in government is staying in government and winning elections, perhaps success in opposition is staying in opposition and losing elections. All that I can say is that if the Labour Party goes on like this, it will go on losing elections. This is not just a trivial point because a democratic country such as ours needs a viable alternative government in the form of the leading Opposition party, yet the Opposition have never presented a coherent financial policy or economic strategy which would enable the British people to see them in that light. They are letting the country down. They will never be elected to power until they realise that fact and do something about it.
I can say from this side of the House that a Conservative Government is always desirable, and I would say that unless and until the Labour Party realises that it has got to get its economic policies in shape and achieve some consistency, a Conservative Government is not just desirable; it is absolutely essential.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with the greatest respect I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, should count his chickens. I think that he will be bitterly disappointed. All the evidence, such as the polls and the by-elections, clearly indicates that.
I was greatly touched by the assertion of the Leader of the House at the beginning of the debate of the Government's adherence to respect for the law. However, noticeably and perhaps understandably, the noble Lord did not comment very much—if at all—on respect for the truth. This is the Government who have massaged the unemployment statistics about 20 times since 1979. This is the Government who have indulged in the appalling situation at Matrix Churchill and in the Scott inquiry. The evidence given to that inquiry of distortions and evasions is scandalous. This is the Government who told lie after lie in their manifesto about 'VAT, as well as the litany of other falsehoods recited by my noble friend Lord Richard in his indictment. Frankly, I have to say that the attitude of the Leader of the House on law and the truth seems curiously indulgent.
596
I shall try briefly to test the claims that have been made in two fields, transport and the environment. I turn first to transport and the plan to widen 600 miles of motorways. We were told by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that that would cost £3.4 billion. The National Audit Office now reveals that the true cost will be twice that. One pictures a local authority finding itself in that situation and the Government's indictment of it that would ensue. And the Government still will not be able to tackle the greatest congestion.
The Government claimed that they were wedded to CrossRail, yet that plan is plainly in jeopardy. Then we have the cover-up by Ministers of a Whitehall report into road tax dodging by more than a quarter of a million drivers. The Government have displayed a deterrnination to frustrate an investigation by the National Audit Office. It is disgraceful.
Let us consider the position of London Underground. How often have we heard the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, assert that everything in the garden is fine for London Underground at the very time that we have an ageing infrastructure which is literally breaking down and which should have been replaced years ago—pumps, drains and cables? What is needed is not catching up but replacement if the system is not to be rendered totally unsafe. Citizen's Charters will not be the answer to that.
The Government's alleged commitment to the environment is a parody. Their road-spending policies plainly distort the Prime Minister's own Rio commitments—commitments now clearly incapable of fulfilment. Having prevaricated over implementation of the bathing and drinking water directive for years, the Government now seek to undermine the waste water treatment directive. It is an interesting exercise in manipulation of the truth. They now assert that the cost would be £10.5 billion as against the original estimate, which they themselves provided, of £2 billion only two years ago when the directive was unanimously adopted. Their conduct is wholly consonant with the characteristics that they have previously displayed in presenting four different sets of statistics in relation to the issue.
The Government's is a selective and eccentric view of the truth and of law enforcement, particularly when it comes to their friends with vested interests. Let us consider PowerGen. There is a concept known as BATNIEC—best available technology not involving excessive cost. That was waived for PowerGen in favour of another doctrine, CATNIP—cheapest available technology not involving prosecution. It happens over and over again.
I conclude that the trouble with this Government is that they actually think that they are doing well. They entertain illusions of adequacy. It is explicable because they keep three sets of statistics: one lot to deceive the public; one lot to deceive Parliament; and the other to deceive themselves. And they are wholly successful. This Government were clearly elected on a fraudulent prospectus. I believe that, like Mr. Roger Levitt, they should be sentenced to a long period of community service. And the greatest service that they could render to the community would be to go—and the sooner, the better.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, as has been said many times, this is an unprecedented Motion. I should have thought that the Labour Party hierarchy in another place would not look too kindly upon the powers of that place being usurped. A vote of confidence really should come from Members who are elected to Parliament. As we know, we are selected in this place.
Apart from that, however, I think it is audacious of the Labour Opposition to introduce a Motion of no confidence when one looks at their record. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that when a Labour administration were last in power they brought this country to near bankruptcy. They had to go to the International Monetary Fund with their begging bowl and from then on, the economy of this country —capital expenditure and all the rest—was taken over by the IMF. We had huge cuts in the health service, in hospitals, roads and schools. The audacity of anyone with that record to introduce a Motion of no confidence in the policy of this Government is unbelievable.
Perhaps I can give another statistic. When the Government took over in 1979, the number of working days lost was 29 million. Last year it was half a million. Obviously, therefore, the policies of this Government must be working if they can reduce to that extent the number of working days lost. As has been said, it is expected that our growth this year will be 2.5 per cent. and it is expected that that will give something of the order of £7 billion extra revenue to the Exchequer. As has also been said, our exports are up —not only to the European Community, but throughout the world. We have had the lowest inflation. For 10 months, it has been under 2 per cent.—not the 26 or 27 per cent. of the Labour government when people on fixed incomes saw their savings melt away like snow in the sun because of the inflation rate that was brought about by that government's policies. How can any government or any party with that record try to say that there is no confidence in our Government?
I remind your Lordships that the base interest rate has come down from 15 per cent. to 5.5 per cent., and I have no doubt that it will come down further. That drop has given a boost to industry of some £12 billion. I should have thought that one should take confidence from that, not criticise it.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget yesterday. It is true that the borrowing requirement is approaching £50 billion, but I remind your Lordships that nearly £30 billion of that is capital expenditure. So we should not overstress the amount. I get very sick of people, particularly the Opposition, always talking down the economy and achievements of this country. They seem to take a delight in bringing bad news about the economy and not looking at the achievements. Our industrial production is up 3 per cent. The Opposition do not compare that with the industrial production of Italy, Germany and Japan. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Richard, shaking his head. Let me give him the figures. Our industrial production is up by 3 per cent. Italy's is
598
down by 2 per cent. and that of France by 3 per cent.; Germany's is down by 7 per cent.; Japan's is down by 4 per cent. Those figures cannot be refuted. I remind noble Lords opposite that the Government have a good economic record. Unemployment is falling, and has been for some months.
Another factor to be taken into account and not so far mentioned is the Government's privatisation policy. In 1979, the nationalised industries were costing the taxpayer some £50 million a week in subsidies. Last year the privatised industries contributed some £60 million a week in taxation to the Exchequer. That is a turn-around of £110 million a week. It means that the Exchequer benefited by about £6 billion in one year as a result of privatisation.
The wording of the Motion is wrong. It should say that the House has no confidence in Labour Party policy. Its record was disastrous in the past. It would be catastrophic if it were again responsible for the administration.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I understand from the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the purpose of the Motion is to express dissatisfaction with the actions and policies of the Government. He was supported fully by those Members who sit behind him. One of course has the right to criticise because, after all, we are a democracy, but this side of the House also has the right to know what would be the alternative if the Government were not following their present policies.
Luckily, I came across a document which may not be known by everyone, and I am certain cannot be agreed by all Members on the Benches opposite, entitled The Manifesto for Elections to the European Parliament of June 1994. That document was signed early in November by the Leader of the Labour Party, the right honourable John Smith. It was presumably supported by the majority of his party, although I cannot believe that it was supported by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who are not in their places at the moment. That manifesto was declared by Mr. Willy Claes, the president of the European Socialist Party, which incidentally includes the former Italian Communist Party, to be:
"the principal programme for all the Socialist parties. We will be united under the banner of the party of the European Socialists. Parties will be expected to observe and vote for these policies in the European Parliament".
I regret the fact that many people will probably not have had the opportunity to read that document.
I shall raise just one issue which I believe to be relevant to today's debate. It is the problem which is agreed by most to be of the greatest importance—unemployment. Many of the proposals discussed in Brussels, which incidentally are now being discreetly dropped, are set out in the binding manifesto. They recognise, as we all do, the high numbers of unemployed in Europe (17 million to 18 million) and the high costs of social protection. They are much higher than those of our competitors, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said in the debate on the Queen's Speech on 25th November. The increase here over 10 years has been 50

599
per cent.; about 10 per cent. in the US; and nil in Japan. But the manifesto contains no proposal for modifying or moderating the high cost of social protection.
So what are the remedies proposed in that socialist manifesto? They include possible shorter working hours (35 hours per week). We all know that that does not work. It has never worked in any of the major industrialised countries. Indeed, they work much longer. Then next, a minimum wage to be applied throughout the European Community; a recovery programme. Although there is no figure (luckily for them) in the manifesto, it is revealed by M. Pierre Cot, who will be known by many as the leader of the French Socialists in the European Parliament. He considered—this was supported by all the socialists—a reasonable figure to be £77 billion. That just about doubles the European Community budget. Finally, there is the application of the Social Chapter to the United Kingdom, bringing with it a further gamut of rules and regulations, contrary to the proof of a need for deregulation. That point is not recognised by other member states.
We recognise that those policies which threaten the labour market would threaten all the policies which our Government have introduced so successfully and brought to a head over the past years. Other governments are now recognising the folly of those outworn policies which have consistently proved to be a failure in job creation. Even the Commission is now backtracking. The White Paper, Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, is acknowledged not to be legally binding. It states categorically that each member state is to introduce measures according to its own circumstances. Where is the general socialist policy in that statement? The policies are already out of date. Anyone who travels on the Continent will see and hear people in other member states look to Britain with a degree of envy as they recognise the folly of the excessive cost of social protection and union power and the consequences for employment. They watch, also with envy, as we climb out of recession, and they are now beginning to imitate many of the policies set out in the speech of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and other of my noble friends.
conclude by expressing some degree of sorrow for the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for whom I have the greatest respect. I remember of course that he was at the UN at the end of the 1970s (before 1979) when those of us who travelled abroad do not remember the green grass growing. All I remember is being attacked the whole time. "What has happened to Britain? What is the British disease? What are you going to do to cure it?" It was the British disease which was recognised throughout the Community and the world that was one of the main planks upon which the Conservative Government returned to power in 1979.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I would say only that we have no option but to vote overwhelmingly against the Motion.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, much of the rhetoric we have heard this afternoon from the Benches opposite seeks to obscure what is in fact a serious attack
600
on the welfare state. This time, Ministers are not using a battering ram; they are using a certain cunning upon which I am sure Machiavelli would have congratulated them. They are slashing no less than £2.5 billion from the social security budget, and they are pleading demographic factors as a reason.
I did not hear Ministers mention demographic factors when years ago they were handing out billions of pounds to their supporters. That is a new excuse being peddled by Ministers. In those early days, when they were giving that largesse to wealthy people, they were lacking in foresight or in fairness. My guess is that both are true. As a smokescreen for those policies, they are renaming some benefits. Disadvantaged people who are puzzling over the fancy new names that Ministers are giving them will soon discover the grim reality that lies behind the Government's policies. For example, disabled people who are landed with incapacity benefit instead of invalidity benefit and unemployed people who are landed with a jobseeker's allowance instead of unemployment benefit face cuts in family cash or may be deprived of statutory benefit and forced onto a means test. That is the reality which lies behind these fancy new names.
We should recognise that the means test of the 1990s is much the same as that of the 1930s. People will lose their hard-earned savings; they will have to sacrifice them. People will have to live in abject poverty and those without will have every aspect of their lives scrutinised. That is what the Government are forcing on poor people in Britain today.
Those people want to work. They are riot "work shy", as Ministers conveniently call them. It is simply that there are no jobs available. Much as I enjoyed the splendid speech of the noble Lord, Lord Archer—we all did—the piffling reductions in unemployment he mentioned are not good enough when we are confronted with millions of people unemployed. It is a major problem.
But, as usual, disabled people suffer the most. The rate of unemployment among them is three times greater than that among the able bodied. Now there is a further threat to their jobs, even though their rate of unemployment is so high. As was said earlier by my noble friend Lady Hollis, there is now a need for employers to provide 50 per cent. of the funding for the special equipment needed by disabled people. This is a direct incentive to employers to get rid of disabled people. Why should an employer take on those additional costs unless he is one of the few well-meaning employers? They are not in business for charity. It will have an adverse effect on the employment of disabled workers. Oddly enough, the provisions come under a new system called "access to work". It is a very oddly named system indeed. There is only one saving grace about the new system: it introduces communication help for deaf workers.
The prospects for disabled people are also hit because large employers will have to bear a larger proportion of sick pay. That is also an incentive to dismiss sick workers. The fact is that, like all disadvantaged workers

601
and other disadvantaged people, disabled workers will suffer under the policies. That is a good reason why your Lordships should vote for the Motion.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I wonder whether we can agree that after 14 years in continuous power the Tories must take most of the blame for the state and prospects of Britain today; and of course they must take most of the credit too.
I recently returned from a couple of weeks in America during which I exchanged views with American fund managers who wished to take the political and economic temperature of the countries in which they might invest. Not only did I go to New York but also to Boston and Philadelphia on the east coast, Kansas City, Minneapolis and Chicago in middle America and California and Oregon in the west. I was interested in their view of Europe.
They take, as do I, a sombre view of much of Continental Europe. First, there has been a failure so far—and I hope that "so far" does not become "too far"—of the post-communist system of the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe to deliver the goods to the people. Secondly, there is a lack of leadership in nearly all the Continental European countries. Thirdly, there seems to be political disintegration in Italy and perhaps in Belgium. Fourthly, there has been a deepening recession in France and Germany. Fifthly, there is the failure of France to face up to the need to restructure itself, shown in the withdrawal of the attempt to reorganise Air France and the reluctance to confirm the Blair House agreement on agriculture. Finally, there has been the disastrous effect of the social dimension of Maastricht, in particular on the poorer countries of the EC. When we consider that Germany has a GDP of about £16,000 per head, Spain has only £8,000, Greece has only £5,000 and Portugal has only £4,000, it cannot be fair on those countries to impose uniform social standards. It will cost them jobs.
While I was in the US, Americans were celebrating the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is totally different. They have 80 million Mexicans entering a new trade alliance; Mexico has a GDP per head of about £3,000 compared with America's £17,000. But there is no question of trying to impose American social standards and conditions on everyone in Mexico.
The Americans felt that Britain has a comparative advantage over most of Continental Europe. First, we are coming out of recession. I agree that we are subject to what is happening in Europe but we are coming out of recession and unemployment has stopped rising. Secondly, inflation, wages and money supply seem to be under tight control. Thirdly, and contrary to the fears of many people, we kept in the Budget low direct taxes. When people say how low our taxes are I must point out that our 40 per cent. rate comes in at an income of some £27,000 whereas even after Clinton's tax increases America's 40 per cent. top rate comes in at a level of £167,000 per year. Fourthly, we have a politically subdued trade union movement. I had hoped that, had
602
she been in her place, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, would agree that that at any rate is a tribute to the 14 years of Conservative Government. And of course we have a largely restructured economy.
Over the past 20 years employment in steel and coal has fallen by 80 per cent. I believe that to be a great plus for Britain. Even the number of British Rail staff has been halved during the past 20 years. The privatised industries are working well. I declare an interest as a director of Eastern Electricity, where since 1989 the tariff has increased by some 25 per cent. During the same period RPI rose by 23 per cent. and pensions by 29 per cent. The company has reduced its staff by 20 per cent., and is selling more units to more customers; they have increased by 100,000 to over 3 million. After talking to my American friends I believe that those are this country's real advantages.
The Labour Party has begun to recognise what it no longer believes in. However, although we heard from my noble friend Lady Elles a little of what Labour is proposing in its European manifesto, I do not believe that it is as yet under starter's orders. Of course, the poor Liberal Democrat Party has nothing much except the bushy-tailed charisma of Mr. Paddy Ashdown. It is important that people should recognise that the Conservative Government are a continuum from 1979. It is not a case of progress since Mr. Major became Prime Minister. The Conservative Government are a continuum which will continue to be a considerable success.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition rose to address your Lordships' House he quoted from one of my favourite poems by Hilaire Belloc. Oddly enough, he advised your Lordships that it would not be appropriate to refer to Belloc's axiom:
"Always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse".
The noble Lord said, "In order to prevent your Lordships looking at the alternative to a Conservative Government". But, the inference of the Motion before your Lordships is that that would be preferable to what we now have. Therefore, in a moment I too shall look at what is in prospect. The alternative of holding on to nurse, in the case of Hilaire Belloc's poem, was being eaten slowly by a lion starting at the toes, and the lion's name was Ponto.
Like my noble friend Lady Elles, I have also obtained a copy of the manifesto of the European Socialist Party, which is decorated, in this case, with the rose of England adopted by the party opposite as their emblem. As I understand it, the document was signed on the 6th November by, among others, Signor Achille Occhetto, the leader of what was the Italian Communist Party until it changed its name quite recently, and by Mr John Smith. In that manifesto we find, first—and I point this out to endorse the fears of my noble friend —that the Labour Party and its friends would like to further develop the EC measures on clean water. Noble Lords

603
opposite have already protested about the expense of directives. That makes their claim to be a party of economic management rather hollow.
However, much more important is the way that the manifesto reveals how the latter see the role of this country in Europe and in the world. In the fourth paragraph of the eighth section we find that they want majority voting within the Council of Europe. That means that this country would no longer have a veto on policies inimical to its own best interest. One might think that subsidiarity could be a hedge against it, and one is reassured to read later on in Section 8 that subsidiarity would be applied rigorously. But immediately afterwards we read in the very next paragraph that it must not be used to block progress in social policy. In other words, there should be a comfortable protection against Conservative-type policies; but there should be none against the policies espoused by the party opposite.
In my view, however, much more serious than that is the paragraph which deals with this country's role in the United Nations. In order to prevent the causes, and crises of conflicts we read on page 8 that,
"we want to strengthen and reform the United Nations… The UN must be given the ability to safeguard peace and enforce peace"—
we could have a debate about a standing United Nations army of some length, but I shall pass on that prospect—
"Once a common foreign and security policy is in place, the question of a seat for the EC on the Security Council can be addressed".
I think that those in the party opposite should come clean. First, can we know whether they believe that a United Nations seat on the Security Council for the European Community would be consistent with a United Kingdom seat on the council as a subordinate member of that body? Secondly, if it would not be—as I presume—are they or are they not actually arguing that we should vacate our seat on the Security Council in favour of a seat to be occupied by a representative of the European Community? That is a very major and important policy decision. We need to know where they stand They cannot stand anywhere else than the position described in the manifesto because it was adopted by the congress of the European Socialist Party on 6th November 1993, and they are signed up members of it. I believe that that adds another dimension to the anxieties expressed by my noble friends about the policies of the parties opposite. I believe that we deserve an answer in the reply to the debate.
6.54 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows by now just how much I respect him as a Christian and as a few other things, but he followed one of the oldest rules in politics in his speech; namely, when you have absolutely nothing to say in favour of your side, put some tricky questions forward. Indeed, he did not say a single word in favour of the Government.
As regards the Government, the first thoughts that come into my mind are so uncharitable that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, being a Christian, would not approve of them. However, what can one think of the Government? They will, I suppose, go down as the
604
healthiest government, or the government of meaningless slogans—"back to basics" will be high on the list—or the government with a record deficit, or the most unpopular government in recorded memory. They are all those things. But I shall not use those expressions because they would shock the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
I turn now to my own summary of the Government, and all in a charitable spirit. I would call them a government of contradictions. Last week we dealt at length with those contradictions and I shall not go over the issues raised as regards their penal policy, which of course makes total nonsense. Perhaps we should take the question of Europe. We know that one moment they say that they are standing at the heart of Europe and then, at another, their spokesmen at conferences deliver many xenophobic speeches. However, in view of the shortage of time, I shall have to pass over the latter.
Perhaps I may try to deal with the more fundamental aspects involved. Years ago there was a famous book which some of the older Members of the House may remember. It was called Moral Man in an Immoral Society. We all know that Mr. Major is a moral man. Indeed, the only time I actually met him he did not squeeze my shoulder, which he did to the man in front of me in the queue, but he showed a positive friendliness which I found most appealing. Therefore, let us take Mr. Major as a moral man; but he is a moral man at the head of immoral policy. I should not say "an immoral government" because no doubt in their own way they are well meaning. But Mr. Major is a moral man at the head of this immoral government.
Why should I say that? If one takes a Christian stand, which would certainly appeal to the noble Lord. Lord Elton, one could bear in mind that in the years of Mrs. Thatcher she reversed the trend under various governments to bring about a more equal distribution of wealth and more social justice. Inequality of wealth was steadily increased under that government. Moreover, yesterday we had the Budget Statement, and so on, which was quite rightly attacked by my noble friend Lord Ashley and others. I see that today's edition of The Times, which is a very respected Conservative organ, carries the following title on its front page:
"Showman Clarke takes whip to public spending".
Who will suffer there? Certainly not the rich. There was a record boom on the Stock Exchange. So everyone must accept the fact that that inequality of wealth will be carried still further in the Budget.
How can one square that fact with any kind of social justice according to Christian principles or any kind of ethics? I can only take the House, and especially someone like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is an influential Christian Conservative, as are others on the Benches opposite, back to St. Luke's Gospel and what Jesus Christ said, which was,
"When you have a feast, don't call the rich neighbours: call the poor, the lame and the blind and you will be blessed".
Well, there is not much of that sentiment in this present government; indeed, none at all. Moreover., I am afraid that I cannot hold any hope that the leopard is likely to change its spots. I can only say what a Conservative

605
statesman, the late Leo Amery, as he was at the time, said to another Conservative statesman, Neville Chamberlain:
"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing… In the name of God, go".
6.58 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, one of the mainstays behind the British way of life—indeed, its backbone—is its agriculture. In the short time that I have to speak, I wish to underline my support for the agricultural policies of Her Majesty's Government. This Government have stood up for the interests of British farmers in Europe. No one denies that farming in the United Kingdom has been going through an incredibly difficult time.
When the fundamental but essential reforms of the common agricultural policy first appeared, it was evident that British farmers were being discriminated against. In May of last year, after a long battle, John Gummer won for the British farmer a highly beneficial and significant shift in the direction of the CAP, switching support away from the end product and directing it towards the producer. Those reforms are cutting prices and moving the CAP closer to world prices and, at the same time, easing international trade tensions. In turn, they reduce the role of intervention and make the CAP more market orientated, reducing the burden on customers. That fight for subsidies, payments and other concessions should not be forgotten as that has enabled us to maintain, and in many areas strengthen, our position in agriculture within the Community.
There has been great encouragement given to farmers by the most valuable increase in spending on the environmentally sensitive areas scheme from £10.9 million in 1992–93 to £43.5 million in 1995–96 and to £63 million by 1996–97 covering 15 per cent. of the United Kingdom.
The Government have lodged with the European Commission proposals to introduce a range of new schemes from protection of water sources from nitrate pollution to creating new opportunities for access to the countryside. Total expenditure on such schemes is expected to rise to £100 million in the United Kingdom by 1996–97. This will undoubtedly encourage farmers in their dual role as food producers and guardians of the countryside.
With the Food Safety Act 1990, and the placing of responsibility for all work on food safety now in the hands of the Food Safety Directorate, it is firmly established that our food safety standards are the highest in the world. Representatives of consumer organisations have been brought together to form a consumer panel to advise the Food Safety Directorate on consumer concerns and to monitor government policies.
No farmer is tarred with the same brush and each has a different problem to face; but that is nothing new. There are no simple answers, and no single answer is likely to be right for every farmer. The Government have supported agriculture at its heart; but no government can be expected to support the apron strings of agriculture for there is no bottomless pot of gold.
606
However, low interest rates and low inflation have been a turning point in giving a bolster of renewed support for the farmer. Agriculture needs to be constantly reminded of its need to keep abreast of marketing skills. The Government are developing a broader marketing development scheme worth £6.4 million over the next two years while Food From Britain is concentrating on the key tasks of export promotion and speciality food, following an independent review.
It is worth remembering that 90 per cent. of humanity rely on only 15 plant species and only seven animal species for survival. Science has played a major part in creating food from our own resources; and science and technology, including responsible genetic engineering, will play a part in agriculture's future. This Government's support for agriculture will continue, and I have every confidence in the policies of Her Majesty's Government.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, a number of my noble friends—my noble friend who has just spoken is one of them—have made extremely good use of this debate to make powerful speeches pointing out just what has been achieved in this country since 1979 and contrasting that with the 98 per cent. tax rate in the "winter of discontent" for which the previous government were responsible. It has been interesting to be reminded of these comparisons although my noble friend Lady Young and others—quite rightly in my view—have suggested that all this is entirely unnecessary as there is nothing that has been said today that could not have been said at the time of the Queen's Speech, or could not be said during debates in the coming months.
However, I do not believe anyone has yet seriously questioned whether it is proper that this unelected House, whose role in our modern democracy is that of a revising Chamber, should be discussing this Motion at all. I am bound to say it strikes me personally as rather strange, and I have detected that other noble Lords who sit in all parts of the House also find it strange that a straight Motion of no confidence in the elected Government of the day —a procedure which is, I believe, reserved even by the House of Commons for moments of crisis—is being used now by hereditary and appointed people not for the purpose of revision at all but simply as a mechanism of party political opposition. That seems to me an idea that is not just bizarre, as my noble friend Lord Archer suggested, but also highly unsuitable if not improper.
That having been said, what are some of the policies of the Government that most affect people's lives and have not yet come into the debate? The Motion is a condemnatory one. However, is it so wrong—the Labour Party has opposed these policies—that hospitals, GPs and local schools are taking increased responsibility themselves for how they spend their money and how they organise themselves to meet patients' and pupils' needs? Is that so wrong? Is it wrong that the Chancellor plans to put large extra sums of taxpayers' money into these areas precisely to back the changes? Is it wrong that the Civil Service is being

607
asked to increase its productivity as others are having to increase theirs, and to yield no less than £1 billion in savings, which happens to be a sum which represents half the total sum being put into the health service and schools together?
Is it so wrong to alter the arrangements for those looking for work to make sure that those who can find work do find it? Is it so wrong to concentrate resources on encouraging job creation by increasing labour market flexibility and by helping small businesses, as has been said? We could all go on and we have gone on for rather a long time, but I would suggest that far from deserving censure, the Government's sense of direction in these and many other policies is closely in touch with what most responsible people feel in this country, and that this Motion deserves vigorous rejection.
7.7 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I rise in philosophical rather than partisan mood this evening to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the current state of play between the parties has its precedent in what went on between about 1750 and 1850, starting with two relatively homogeneous parties each of whom had been in power for a long time leaving the other one out in the cold. Under the stress of the Napoleonic War and the American War of Independence, gradually some internal groupings arose. One was not just a Whig; one was a Rockingham Whig or a Portland Whig or a Foxite Whig. The same applied to the Tories. One was not just a Tory, one was a Pittite Tory or a Canningite Tory or a Peelite Tory.
Gradually, in the first half of the 19th century, all these ties and relationships liquidated. Following Robert Peel's repeal of the Corn Laws, there emerged a Conservative Party headed by Disraeli and a Liberal Party headed by Gladstone. I was much amused when my friend and neighbour Lord Bruce of Donington told your Lordships that one half of England did not know how the other half was living, because he was quoting from one of Disraeli's early novels although he did not know it at the time—at least I think he was.
This situation seems to me to be repeating itself at the moment. I turn first of all to the Conservative Party. There are Butskellites and Thatcherites. There may be Majorites and Heseltinians and so on. However, they emerge as having a certain kind of subordinate party loyalty among themselves. I now turn to the Liberals who have not taken much part in this debate. That is a pity. However, there is one noble Lord observing proceedings. I hope he will remember and report to his noble friends a remark of Bernard Shaw which is apposite to this matter. I believe it occurred in Back to Methuselah. The Liberal Party has admirable principles but Bernard Shaw's dictum was that principles without programme amount to no more than platitudes. I believe that is something the Liberals must learn.
I now turn to the Labour Party, which is in a state of preliminary dissolution. Marxism has let it down through the collapse of imperial Russia, Fabian socialism is no longer fashionable among the chattering classes, and its relationship with the trade unions is in a state of flux. Unless the Labour Party can produce a
608
programme that matters to the nation at large it will continue to be a party of protest rather than of government.
It must be the fate of the party of government to become more and more stale through the inevitable elapse of time and the sense of self-sufficiency which goes with it. The Opposition's time will come. I will even make them a present of my programme. If it wishes to adopt it, I would not desert the Cross-Benches, but I would certainly say, "Hear, hear".
It is high time we kept the national accounts in such a manner of sanitary bookkeeping that we distinguish between revenue and capital expenditure. I shall riot enlarge on that theme because I have said that here dozens of times and no attention has been paid to it whatsoever.
The party in power has learnt partially how to cope with the Civil Service managing it and emerged with a grain of comfort at having sometimes managed the Civil Service. I said long ago that I am waiting for an earthquake at the Treasury which will accomplish what I have in mind. I make a present of that to the Opposition.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I regret and resent the Motion before us. I welcome the opportunity it provides to endorse and promote the Government's policies; indeed, to celebrate them and to affirm my own commitment to them with particular reference to education, like my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark.
The distinctively Conservative principles which motivate me to sit on these Benches include commitment to freedom of choice, diversity of provision and accountability to individuals; in the case of education, especially to parents comparing the situation now with that of a few years ago there have been fundamental changes in our education system which represent great achievements in all those respects, together with the "back to basics" policies designed to raise standards and to ensure that all pupils attain essential knowledge and skills.
The measures undertaken by this Government build on previous Conservative policies which were necessitated by a dire situation in education brought about by Left-wing ideologies and Labour policies. Of course there are many good schools and many dedicated teachers, and always have been, but the system in general had been failing to deliver an adequate education for far too many of our children and especially, as research showed, for those of average or below average ability.
Remedial legislation brought in by Conservative governments has opened up access to information needed by the public to assess schools and by parents to make the best choices for their children. I must point out that it is not parents who are leading the current anti-league table furore but the education establishment, which has tried to maintain a shroud of secrecy that can hide many faults in the system. It has been shown that far too many pupils have been getting a very raw deal.

609
This Government's commitment to raising standards in its "back to basics" campaign must be seen as a very necessary response to that grave situation of falling standards of literacy and serious underachievement in mathematical skills, which was, for example, leaving British 16 year-olds two years behind their German counterparts. That was outrageous. Many HMI reports have shown serious problems, especially in urban schools, of a long-standing nature.
However, increasing freedom of choice, diversity of provision and more accountability to parents and the local community have all been achieved by measures brought in by Conservative governments through welcome policies such as local financial management of schools, freedom to opt out from meddlesome local authority control and, now, opportunities for new good schools established in response to parental wishes to opt in to state funding. The local management of schools is a very popular measure, and the vast majority of grant-maintained schools are already great success stories.
When I compare those initiatives with the sterile policies on education of parties opposite I am amazed by their complacency and negativism. I understand their arguments for increased nursery education, although I do not go all the way with them. But other Labour Party commitments, such as threatening to drag opted-out schools back into local authority control and to close religious denominational schools, are intimidating, backward looking and destructive.
I am not averse to criticising this Government when I believe that criticism is justified; but when I compare this Government's achievements with the dearth of ideas and policies on the Benches opposite I speak with passionate conviction in support of the Government's record in bringing in much-needed reforms and in opening up new opportunities for the fulfilment of those principles which underpin Conservative philosophy. In education that has meant that the Government have succeeded in achieving increasing accountability, freedom of choice and diversity of provision according to the needs and wishes of parents, pupils, local communities and a wider society. I therefore resist this Motion and wholeheartedly commend the Government on their many and historic achievements in educational reform.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as your Lordships know, I have frequently expressed disapproval of Her Majesty's Government. On almost every single occasion that I have done so or voted against the Government the Labour Party has trooped into the Lobby with the Conservative Party when the Conservative Party was at its most unwise. I agree that the poll tax is an exception, but the Government have now wisely earned their corn and changed their minds.
When we wanted the people to have a choice on a Maastricht referendum we had a 27-line Whip against us. All the Conservatives, Liberals and the Labour Party said that it was a bad idea. I thought that it was rather a good idea. Mr. Smith helped push the Government
610
into the exchange rate mechanism. Look what a great success that policy was. It had the support of the Labour Party. In 1991–92 too much money was spent. What did the Labour Party say? They said that we should spend more. The Labour Party also voted for the confiscation of the assets of the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster. I did not.
On occasions there are grounds for criticising Her Majesty's Government. However, it seems to me that such criticism is muted in contrast to the good things which they have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, compared 1979 with 1993. I seem to remember that in 1979 there was a firm called British Leyland which could not do anything. There was a gentleman who ensured that the workers were out on strike most of the time. The company was regarded as a joke and a laughing-stock among all motor industries. Is it not a contrast that Rover is now exporting to Japan and is taking on labour and increasing its share of the motor market? Contrast that with the position of Mercedes. What is happening to Mercedes? It is laying off workers and has large numbers of unsold cars. The idea that there could be such a Rover/Mercedes relationship in 1993 was unthinkable in 1979. British Telecom, now privatised, is one of the leading companies in the world. The same can be said of British Gas.
My daughter is now aged 16 and sitting GCSEs. The GCSE seems to me to be a sensible and hardworking exam for which she has to apply her mind. I accept that she attends a private school rather than a state school, but children all take the same exam and follow the same curriculum. It is a good exam and it stretches their minds. That is a Conservative improvement. A further improvement is that there should be choice for parents as opposed to regimentation.
I speak from experience of the National Health Service. Our local GP is better than any private GP. He is paid for by your Lordships, for which thank you very much indeed. I had reason to be referred by him to a specialist in the Royal Surrey hospital. I could not have been treated better. The health service could not be run in a more efficient and practical way.
This Government have a record of immense achievements. I find it a little difficult to compare the number of workers in the National Health Service with those in the Chinese Army, which I have always thought was not a Conservative thing to do, but nevertheless I am sure our health is looked after better now than ever before, with greater numbers of doctors, nurses, and so on.
I believe that at a Front Bench meeting of the party opposite the noble Lord, Lord Richard, announced that he had tabled the Motion. Everyone complained and he said, "It is too late; I have put down the Motion". A little bird told me that. I would not dream of disclosing who it was, but I believe that it is a reasonably reliable source. It shows what an intensely stupid action it was. It is not how we should behave in this House. This House is for revision and the discussion of serious matters. It is not to be an ape-like copy of the House of Commons. Let us consider that peradventure there was a Labour Government and that every week my noble

611
friends on the Front Bench decided to put down Motions of no confidence in the Labour Government. Because there seems to be a slight preponderance of people who acknowledge the Tory Whip as opposed to those who acknowledge the Labour Whip, it is within the bounds of possibility that those Motions might be carried. It would be a waste of time. No one would pay any attention. The Motion has no more effect than if it had been moved in a parish witan in Ultima Thule.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to hear the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, contributing in the House. It is so refreshing to hear someone who is prepared to speak his mind. However, unfortunately the problem is that he quite often seems to come to the wrong conclusions following his argument.
I remind noble Lords that the Motion before us is,
"That this House has no confidence in the policies of Her Majesty's Government".
It is not about whether we have confidence in some other form of government. The Motion is about whether this House has confidence in the present Government. I hope that there will be a free vote and that we shall all consider the facts and vote as our consciences dictate. That is one of the real strengths of this House.
I wish to refer to some facts and expose some myths. The Government came to power in 1979. In that year the country had balance of payments equilibrium. The figure for unemployment was about 1 million. Both unemployment and inflation were coming down. It is a myth that the dead lay unburied. That fiction of the popular tabloids is perpetuated by a number of Tory party members. Since 1981 we have seen a continuous trend of a worsening balance of payments with a current account deficit for the past seven years. The evidence is presented by the Government themselves in Chart 3.19 on page 48 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report for 1994–95, the Red Book. Effectively, we are consistently consuming more than we produce. I was interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. He suggested that we should think of this country as the United Kingdom plc. For the past seven years we have been trading at a loss. Since 1980 the value of sterling has continued on a downward trend. I refer to Chart 3.21 on page 51 of the Red Book.
The Government have perpetrated a big lie: that they have cut taxation. The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, sought to perpetuate it. The Government have not. Every year since 1979 the average British citizen has paid more in tax than in that year. What has changed is the burden of tax. The rich pay less. But those on average incomes and the poor pay more. And for what? A declining economy and mass unemployment. Investment in British industry is less this year than in 1979.
Another example of the Government's crass stupidity is the way that they have armed two nations which, during their period of office, have been involved in armed conflict with ourselves. The Government are dragging our country down. That is why I have no confidence in them.
7.25 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, we have heard some most interesting points from all sides of the House although I am bound to say, with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that I find this a wholly unnecessary Motion. The problem that we face on the government side of the House is that inevitably memories are short and it is difficult to remember to what depths we as a nation had descended 14 years ago. We take for granted the benefits that have accrued from 14 years of sound government under my noble friend Lady Thatcher and latterly Mr. Major.
For much of my career I have been an exporter. I well remember the almost impossible task in the 1970s when it became more and more difficult to sell British goods abroad. From a sound base earlier this century when "Made in Britain" was recognised as a hallmark of quality and reliability, our reputation sank to an all-time low. The quality of our goods was perceived as poor. Our performance to contract was weak and, more often than not, industrial disruption at home meant that goods arrived late. Many is the time I have witnessed the arrival of goods in a far country such as India, Hong Kong or China, and the product did not work. Egg on whose face? Ours, my Lords.
How different things are today and how much easier is the job of the exporter. What this Government have created for British industry over the past 14 years is a framework for economic success. I shall not pretend that it has all been plain sailing. We live in a real world where no single national government have control over the vagaries or fluctuations in the world economy. What this Government have achieved is a framework within which business can thrive. Low inflation, low taxes on business, firm control over public spending, the freeing of markets by privatisation, deregulation and trade union reforms are all part of that successful framework.
Those are keys to our present and future industrial and commercial prosperity. I do not intend to bore your Lordships with a barrage of statistics. However, it is noteworthy that exports in the past three months to August were 15 per cent. up on the year. After decades of decline, Britain's share of world manufactured trade is rising. As a nation, we now export a higher percentage of our GDP than Japan.
It is sometimes better to forget statistics and to use simple yardsticks or rules of thumb. A simple indicator is British Rail car parks at our stations. If one thinks back 18 months they were half full, or half empty, depending on one's point of view. Today those car parks are nearly full. That is a simple but, I suggest, practical indicator that our economy is growing again.
Fourteen years ago, I, as an exporter, would travel on our national carrier, British Airways, and telephone my customers overseas using British Telecom. I confess that they were not always happy experiences. How different today! Both companies are recognised as world leaders and both are a living tribute to the success of the privatisation programme. How well I recall the gloom-mongers who opposed those privatisations back in the early 1980s. How similar were the arguments then to the arguments we hear now and have heard this

613
afternoon, raised against the Government's current round of privatisations. Those arguments were wrong then and they are wrong now. We must not weaken in our resolve.
Let me urge noble Lords, in conclusion, not to lose heart. Fourteen years ago this country embarked upon a crusade. We are already benefiting from some of the successes of that crusade, but the job is not finished yet and will not be finished until all sectors of British industry have achieved world class status.
I urge all noble Lords to demonstrate their faith and confidence in the present policies of Her Majesty's Government by firmly rejecting the Motion this evening.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, ever since I was privileged to enter your Lordships' House I have been struck by the courtesy, kindness and consensus which have existed between all Peers of all parties or political persuasion. Occasionally, like all friends, we have differences of opinion. Basically, we all seek the ultimate good of our country, although our beliefs as to how that may be achieved, or indeed what it is, may sometimes differ. Whether we are hereditary Peers or here under our own steam for services rendered to the country in another place or elsewhere, we are all parts of one body of friends.
We have our own ways and our own customs, which we preserve as jealously as our neighbours do theirs in another place. Having a vote of no confidence in the Government at this time is apparently without precedent. I can only say that it saddens me very much, as I expect it does many of your Lordships.
I have only two small short points to make. The first is that, speaking as President of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, I am absolutely delighted at the increase in the pensions of old age pensioners to meet the dreaded heating VAT. That is something which has been worrying some of my older members very much and I feel it will go some way towards alleviating their fears and, indeed, keep them warm through the winter.
My second point is that, as some of your Lordships may have observed, although I take the Conservative Whip, I have not always voted blindly for the Government. I have felt free to vote as my conscience impelled me. That I should not have been able to do under a government in whom I had no confidence. Only a true friend can tell you when you are wearing an unbecoming hat and remain confident that you will still be friends. It is that confidence and faith that I have in our present Government which give me this freedom and which now impel me also to vote for a government in whom I trust.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I think that the only way one can describe what has been said from the Benches opposite is as a mixture of naivety, forgetfulness, saying the opposite of what one means and conveniently
614
forgetting the awkward facts. Then when one is caught out, one either changes the definitions or blames everyone else but oneself.
Perhaps I may begin with the economic competence of the Government, because some people think that the Government are economically competent. Incidentally, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, mentioned consistency, he said that we lacked consistency. A government who, twice in 14 years, doubled the rate of inflation, increased unemployment permanently beyond the figure they inherited and changed their mind on practically everything from monetarism to the exchange rate mechanism and everything else several times cannot be accused of consistency.
People think that what the Chancellor did yesterday showed fiscal prudence. The Government have talked about fiscal prudence for about 14 years and done nothing about it; it would be nice if they had done something. We have to understand that what happened yesterday was a smoke and mirrors trick. What the Chancellor did was to move £4 billion from the reserves, slap a bit off defence—which is welcome—and savage local authorities. Then suddenly he predicted a decline in the PSBR for next year of about £6 billion or £7 billion. But beyond that date, beyond 1995–96, the balance is achieved by assuming a growth rate of GDP of 3 per cent., which the economy has never consistently achieved for three years, and that the tax take will continue to be high, which is also very dubious.
The only reliable figure in the Red Book would be that in 1995–96 the Government will continue to have a 4 per cent. budget deficit as a proportion of GDP. Beyond that, every figure is a fake number because, if we assume a realistic target which is given in the Red Book of what is called a lower growth variant—a growth rate of 2¼ per cent.—let me remind the House that over the past 14 years the Government have not achieved that figure and it would therefore be a miracle if they achieved the 2¼ per cent. They have just about achieved it this year. With a 2¼ per cent. growth rate, the deficit would continue to be high, and even by 1998–99 a budget balance would not be achieved.
Thus what the Chancellor did yesterday was to produce a nice number and more or less said, "I know what will happen up to 1995–96. Beyond that it is all fiction and I don't really care beyond 1995–96 because we shall have an election", and, as is usual and as he has done in other offices of state, he will have moved elsewhere. That is what the Budget showed.
The Budget also shows, by the Government's own admission, that the decline in the inflation rate has stopped and the rate will be slightly higher next year than this year. There will be no drop in unemployment, and by the Government's own definition it will stay at 2.8 million for the next three years. There will be no improvement in the deficit in the balance of trade; by the Government's own admission it will be high. Of course the Government usually underestimate the balance of trade deficit, so it will be much worse. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, said how nice things had been

615
for exports—but they have been even nicer for imports, thanks to the Government's policy. Cumulatively, we have had a continuously rising balance of trade deficit.
In the middle of such a crisis, the Government propose in the Budget a cut in real investment on the public sector account. Let us take the gross debt to GDP ratio. When Labour was in power—I remind noble Lords of those dire days—we brought down the debt to GDP ratio from 60 per cent. to 45 per cent., without the help of North Sea oil and without raising unemployment. With the help of North Sea oil and a lot of extra unemployment, for a while the debt to GDP ratio went down, but a signal achievement of the Major Government is that the debt to GDP ratio which they inherited will be back in 1994–95. All the evidence shows that for the l4 or 15 years of savaging the economy, with all the extra unemployment, there is the same debt to GDP ratio, with higher unemployment and many more working days lost through unemployment than were ever lost through strikes. Any notion that this Government have any economic competence is false and I wish people to vote for my noble friend's Motion.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time by giving a list of all the reasons why I have the utmost confidence in Her Majesty's Government. Others among my noble friends have already done that. Suffice it to say that I entirely share their views. Instead, I question, as did my noble friend Lady Carnegy, why we, as Members of an unelected Chamber, are engaged in this futile and possibly unconstitutional debate of no confidence in a democratically elected Government—a Government which achieved the largest popular vote in history. Answering myself, I submit that it is nothing more than a cynical attempt to create a smokescreen, to try to draw attention away from the most imaginative Budget that was presented yesterday by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and indeed, by the paucity of the Opposition's views in response to it.
Perhaps we should be debating this evening the abject failure of Members of the Opposition to provide constructive policies of their own instead of simply having argument for argument's sake. For example, both Opposition parties seem able to perform the most amazing feats of mental gymnastics by looking in several directions at once. To see exactly what I mean, one has only to recall that they both proposed increased taxes, either on fuel or on energy; yet now they are shedding crocodile tears because the Government is to put VAT on fuel.
We have an Opposition the main component of which is a party which sold its soul to the unions in order to get through a basic, simple piece of democracy: one member, one vote. They support the disastrous social chapter, and Labour has now signed up to the even more disastrous manifesto of the European Socialist Party.
It is difficult to know exactly what Labour Members stand for; although it seems to me these days, as they change their minds so often, that they even appear to support our manifesto of 1987. I suppose that that is not
616
a bad thing. However, I would be much more impressed with them if they stopped singing "The Red Flag" at their annual conference. The red flag that they want to keep flying high here is being torn down all over the world, except perhaps in North Korea, and of course the Walworth Road.
Even if it were not for the many achievements of this Government, the paucity and the abject failure of the Opposition would encourage me to continue to support this Government. The sooner that we are able to put an end to this nonsensical, sterile party politicking, which should belong in the other place, the better. This House does have serious work to do: to consider this Session's legislation. I jolly well hope that we can get on with it now.
7.43 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, having had the privilege to be a Member of this House for close on 27 years, I think that I can safely say that this has been the most disappointing debate that I have ever listened to. It is disappointing because it does not seem to have an object. I am disappointed that somebody of the calibre of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, should see fit to bring the debate before the House. As my noble friend Baroness Miller said, it does not belong in your Lordships' House; it belongs in another place. However, let us make the best of it, arid let us see if some good can come out of this remarkable performance.
Many of my noble friends on this side of the House have paid tribute to the many excellent things which the Government have done over the past 14 years—none more vehemently so than my noble friend Lord Archer. It might perhaps help to keep a sense of proportion if my noble friends on the Front Bench were made a little aware that all in the garden is not at this stage as rosy as they might like to think having listened to the tributes that have been paid, quite rightly, by their supporters. They have caused a considerable amount of concern in the country as a whole.
We were fortunate enough to win the last election. But I have to ask whether we actually won it, or whether the party opposite contributed very largely to losing it. If that second point is in any way correct, then it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs for this Government to be in —to win, as it were, by default.
Since then, some remarkable actions have been taken by the Government. The manner in which things have been done has caused concern. For instance, the manner in which the closure of pits was announced was terrible. I cannot put it any less strongly than that. I believe that it was declared illegal in the courts. There was a time when people in office who were found to make a nonsense of matters in that way usually held their hands up and said, "I am sorry, I have made a mistake. My position is untenable". It seems that across the board these days, in any walk of life, responsibility for one's actions is not always met in the manner in which it should be met.
Let us take the manner in which interest rates went up and down last year like a yo-yo in the space of 24 hours. That was a strange way of doing things. It struck people

617
in the country as being the result of panic. It is not good to be led by people who appear to be panicking. It gives rise for concern.
The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act is not a Conservative Act. It has no part in Conservative policy. The sanctity of contract was broken, as was widely discussed at the time. That gave concern to people in the country who were involved.
In the area of agriculture, great anxiety is being voiced. Not so long ago we discussed the quota system. We should have been strong enough to tackle that problem in a far better way, so that it did not give rise for concern to those who were involved.
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the question of our coalmines. I do not know about other people, but it is terrible for me to see those marvellous pits, and equally marvellous men who work in the pits, being thrown on the scrap-heap. We have 1,000 years of fuel there. Why has that happened? It has happened because in the euphoria of the desperate desire for the privatisation of electricity, somebody overlooked the fact that we must ensure a sensible outlet for our own home-produced fuel, instead of relying on fuel which may well later on be imported. I am not talking about the principle of necessary closures, or the principle of privatisation. I am saying that the way in which it was done has given rise to concern.
The proposed privatisation of forestry has not yet happened. But—for goodness sake—I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will think that measure through. It will be a devastating blow to the forestry industry of this country if the Forestry Commission sells to the private sector. The commission does a tremendous amount for the growing of trees in this country.
To that extent, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, may have done my noble friends a service by suggesting that they should sit back and take stock (I believe those were his words). They should try not to make the same mistakes again. I would definitely say well done on the good points, particularly on the Budget, which has encouraged everybody to feel happier. But I beg my noble friends: please, please do not upset your loyal supporters in the country.
The figure 14 is prevalent in Parliament. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in his seat a moment ago. My noble friend Lord Home was called the 14th Earl of Home, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, the 14th Mr. Wilson. We have opened a debate on 14 years of Conservative power. I hope very much that if I am granted a further lease of life of 14 years, I shall still be able to see the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his friends, heirs and successors, sitting in the places that they occupy now.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I wish to make three points on the Government's energy policy, in which I have no confidence. First there is coal. How wisely the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, has just spoken. I trust that his Front Bench will take great heed of what he said. I agree with him completely that in the
618
past year alone we have seen the almost casual announcement of a pit closure programme which would have destroyed an entire workforce; and when that aroused the implacable hostility of a huge section of the British people, the policy was withdrawn. The miners were promised a reprieve and a review. But as we now see all too clearly that was a cynical charade. It takes spectacular mismanagement of policy to produce a situation in which Mr. Arthur Scargill is cheered and encouraged as he marches at the head of a demonstration for coal through the midst of Mayfair.
Secondly, there is THORP, which is another classic case of government dithering. After the reviews and the inquiries and the reviews of the inquiries, when the original economic rationale for THORP has all but disappeared, since its plutonium will not be needed for the fast breeder reactors, and when the political unpopularity of plutonium has become evident, Her Majesty's Government, with all the caution in the cosmos can only say that they are "minded" to let BNFL proceed. They are "minded"—not "determined", not "decided"; they are "minded". What vision! What leadership! What a policy!
Thirdly, there is electricity. The Government have resolutely looked the other way while the electricity generators have manipulated the market. As The Times put it last week, the biggest question in Britain's power generation industry today is whether Stephen Littlechild, the electricity regulator, will refer National Power and PowerGen to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. So we have Government policy sheltering under the skirts of the regulator while consumers pay ever more for the product. The Yarrow study of 1992 found that,
"on average prices were up to 25 per cent. higher for domestic customers and up to 19 per cent. higher for industrial consumers than would have been predicted on the basis of a continuation of pre-privatisation trends".
Policy, my Lords? What policy?
The reason for all the wishy-washy dithering and tinkering is not hard to find. It is the Government's touching faith in the sovereign power of market forces. All true believers in the Conservative Party must bow the knee at that altar; but in no area of policy is it more dangerous and more unnecessary to do so. There can be no possible guarantee that the market will properly value the factors needed for the long-term security of energy supply, for environmental protection or, especially, for energy efficiency. Crude market forces are not good enough. Energy is different, and that is true all over the world. Even in the former Soviet Union it is not a matter of who can make a profit but of who has the pipelines.
The Government have missed countless excellent opportunities. Nowhere is that more true than in the area of renewable energy. They have ignored the possibilities of landfill gas sites. There is no developed strategy for the recycling of waste-to-energy plants. The early encouragement given to energy efficiency seems to have run out of energy as well as out of ideas. The exploitation of tidal energy has got stuck in the mud. Even the simple possibilities of wind farms are only timidly touched upon. The authorities in this country have only to stick a wind pump on a peninsula to raise

619
great gales of suspicion and hostility because there is no clear and published policy and because local people are not involved early enough in decisions.
Yet there is evidence to suggest that powerful and sustained development of renewables could do much more for the competitiveness of British industry than all the deregulation and enterprise initiatives put together, if only that policy were pursued openly, robustly and with a mandatory approach. It is entirely characteristic of the declining importance given to energy planning that the old autonomous Department of Energy has now disappeared into the recesses of the DTI. That old department, which was led by some distinguished Ministers and highly intelligent and able officials, has gone. The result is all too clear to see. The Government's energy policy has no policy and very little energy. All the steam has gone out of it. It has lost power and credibility. It needs a vigorous application of that primaeval energy source, elbow grease, if it is to be worth even our interest.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mountgarret who preceded me in this debate by a few minutes referred to his 27 years in your Lordships' House. I, a mere babe of 22 years in this House, attend a debate of this nature for the first time this evening.
I have to disagree with one or two of my noble friends. I have found this a fascinating debate. Indeed, we could do with more of this type of debate. If this is the kind of set piece attack by the Opposition I must say to the House that I am truly astonished at the moderation of noble Lords opposite. They have spent close on four-and-a-half hours in a mish-mash of complaints, harking back to a golden era prior to 1979. I wonder where is the sharp and targeted attack upon this Government, who have been in power for 14 years. I exempt from my remarks the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who I thought made a spirited and excellent attempt. But as I said, I have been astonished at the moderation of the barbed comments coming from across the Floor of your Lordships' House.
Earlier in the debate noble Lords opposite referred to the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Thatcher on the steps of Downing Street in 1979 when she quoted the words of St. Francis of Assisi: "Where there is discord" and so on. Those who remember the 1970s did not have to look too deeply at the outgoing Government or indeed the friendly brethren in the Labour Party—the noble Lord, Lord Richard, may have been away in Brussels, I am not too sure; he may well have been a distinguished Member of that government—let alone the great supporters of that movement, the trades unions. I wondered whether, like many of the comments that have come from noble Lords opposite in this great censure debate, they chose their weapons with great prescience or much foresight.
I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Your Lordships will be aware that he and I share one common factor. We are both members of the distinguished profession of accountancy. However, I was somewhat startled and worried to find that today he was not his usual self, red in tooth and
620
claw. Perhaps he has spent too long trying to catch up with the news of the Budget in the newspapers in the Library.
I wondered much at what he had to say about this country of ours and how many of us in this Chamber did not know how the other half of the country lived. If he gives me half a second afterwards, or tomorrow, I will show him exactly the kind of life that is lived outside your Lordships' House as it is illustrated in the tabloid newspapers. One does not need the talents of an accountant to do that. Everyone can see it and read about it. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was certainly inaccurate in his comments.
Perhaps I may return to the comments made about 1979. I recall the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Thatcher when, as Mrs. Thatcher, she formed her first government in 1979. One of the first things that her first administration undertook was to attempt to put some sense of order into industrial relations. I had the privilege of taking some humble part in the first Employment Bill of 1979–80. I and many noble Lords who were with us at that time will remember the fraternal discord in the Labour Party as we looked at various aspects of trade unionism. It was best put by the former and much regretted late Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Feather. Referring to some of the activities that had been carried on in the name of the trades unions in 1970, he said that such scenes as were taking place then and happened during the early, mid and late 1970s had nothing whatever to do with trade unionism and all the good work done by trade unionists.
It has taken the employment legislation of this Government, with much courage, at last to bring about professional industrial relations in this country. We have seen many of the results—some were referred to by my noble friend Lord Onslow. For instance, Rover cars are exporting to Japan whereas the great automotive industries of Germany are having some difficulty. I believe that my noble friend the Leader of the House and various other noble friends put forward one or two salient facts regarding comparisons with our competitor friends and member states, France and Germany. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the Prime Minister of France and the Bundeskanzler Kohl would be content with the so-called "problems" of the, United Kingdom economy.
We heard nothing in the debate this afternoon—this set-piece censure debate—from noble Lords opposite to make either myself or my noble friends buckle in our support of the Government and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
8 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I must start by apologising to your Lordships for not having been here to hear the opening speeches, or indeed many later contributions. I hope that may be forgiven on this occasion because I had long-standing commitments elsewhere from which I was unable to escape at the comparatively short notice which we were given for such an important debate.
It is of course true that some of us on these Benches have from time to time expressed reservations about

621
some aspects of government policy. But surely that is part of our function, and it usually results in improved legislation.
I think the only recent government policy with which some of us wholeheartedly disagreed, without being able to improve it in any way, was the decision to ratify the Treaty on European Union as signed at Maastricht. Time will tell who was right on that matter, and I pray that it turns out to be the Government—although I doubt it, if only for the reason that they were so strongly supported by the Benches opposite.
As many noble Lords will know, I am also now sure that our well-intentioned community care policy is not working and is not going to work as its authors wished. For instance, I am now convinced that we are closing down our residential institutions for the mentally handicapped too quickly, forcing many of these people to live with inadequate care packages in the outside world, where there is no real community and where people do not care as much as we hoped they would. So I very much hope that this policy will be modified urgently to give greater priority to the creation of sheltered or village communities, which seem to be wanted by more than 60 per cent. of the relatives of mentally handicapped people and in which the mentally handicapped can be happily accommodated much more cheaply than they can under our community care policy. I hope that the Treasury will take an interest in that suggestion before too long.
While speaking of the mentally handicapped, I also believe that our latest Education Act puts too much emphasis on educating children with a mental handicap in ordinary schools. I hope that this will soon be more generally recognised and that the resultant suffering can be alleviated through guidance from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education.
But it seems to me that the gracious Speech presented us with an entirely healthy set of policies. I appreciate that they do not appeal to the Benches opposite, but that is because, when enacted, they will do much to reduce the power of the bloated bureaucratic state, which still wields such a negative influence on all our lives but which is so beloved by socialists everywhere.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has also indicated that he intends to allow real people from ordinary walks of life to get some of the jobs at the top of the Civil Service. That will be thoroughly refreshing to the departments concerned, to the advice they give to Ministers and to the service that they offer.
In the time available I can mention only one policy in the gracious Speech of which I particularly approve and have some familiarity with the area which it will affect. I am immensely relieved that the Government have decided to do something about perhaps the last great socialist establishment in this country, that haven of the gender, race and class brigade, teacher training. That establishment is perhaps more responsible than anything else for the depressing failure of our state system of education over the past 25 years, and I trust that the Bill which is to receive its Second Reading in your Lordships' House next week will contribute to a fairer deal for all our children in the future.
622
I have spoken enough, and I trust that it is clear that I strongly support the Government against this extremely unfortunate Motion tonight.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, on a number of occasions I have had the privilege of winding up a debate in your Lordships' House. I have found it usually an interesting, challenging and worthwhile exercise, but I must confess that this evening I am totally at a loss. In my view we have not had a debate. We have had a random knockabout, unfocused and covering at least 20 different subjects, none of which was discussed. For the person who must wind up that is no small challenge, and it is not a challenge that I intend to take on. It is impossible to deal in any intelligent way with so discursive—I cannot even call it an argument—a set of assertions thrown from one side of the House to the other over a period of five hours.
Of course there were points with which one agrees from both sides of the House. For example, I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—I see that she is not in her place —when she said that it was a magical Budget. It was indeed; it was done with mirrors! The noble Baroness certainly got the language right on that occasion.
I agreed with many of the criticisms of government policy in a number of areas that came from both sides of the House, again as assertions with no time to discuss, argue or amplify them in an intelligent way. Of course, as a Member of the unofficial Opposition—that is perhaps the way I should be described—overall I oppose a great deal of what the Government have done; but not all of it. I cannot take part in a wholesale condemnation so ill-supported by the facts and argued in so random a fashion. While we on these Benches oppose the policies of Her Majesty's Government, I am bound to say that we also have no confidence in the policies of the official Opposition.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, Members of the official Opposition had plenty of opportunity to make their points and I am now making mine from these Benches. This has been a totally unsatisfactory afternoon.
I could pick up a great many of the issues raised and make yet another comment on them, but I do not intend to do that. Instead I intend to raise a matter which I consider to be of the greatest importance and in which I have a great lack of confidence. I refer to the fact that the Government do not seem to have taken on board in the longer term what the real problems are that this country is up against in trying to operate in a global economy. They are the problems that any government—it is for the Government to do it—trying to give leadership to the country should be raising, thinking about and telling the people of this country how they can be tackled.
The problems which we are encountering at the present time and which are being encountered in all the countries of the European Continent are structural and not cyclical. There are cyclical complications, but basically the problems are structural, arising from the

623
shift in the global economy, from what is happening on the Pacific Rim, from the vast increase in numbers in the developing countries and all that that will mean in terms of trade and social problems.
In my view we in the West are at a turning point in human history, like the Enlightenment and like the fall of the Roman Empire, when methods are changing at a basic level. Any government worth their salt should be looking at those issues and telling people that the structural changes and opportunities for change occurring in the world economy are threatening challenges but also great opportunities. They should be preparing the people of this country both for the opportunities and the threats. That preparation must be in the way in which human capital, infrastructure capital and capital in industry are organised in order that those challenges can be met and the opportunities seized.
Where have the Governmer, given this lead? When will they explain to people that the problems will not pass away? My criticism of the Labour Party is that it takes the same short-term view in criticising the errors in immediate policy but never focuses on the real difficulties. It is all very well to say—and of course we all agree—that we need to have a high wage, high skill labour force. But we do not have it. How are we to get it? Without it there is no hope of getting the country out of the problems which it faces. What is the Labour Party proposing to do about it? What indeed did it do about it in the past?
I recognise that there are many people in the Labour Party today who are as convinced as any of us of the importance of education and training. But I would remind them that in 1977—after all, we had many years in the preceding quarter of a century of Labour Governments—44 per cent. of the youngsters leaving our schools went either into unemployment or into a job with no training whatsoever. What have either of the parties done about that? The comparable figure in France was 19 per cent. and in Germany 9 per cent. These are the problems of the future. These are the things that matter.
Any government worth their salt would be making it clear to the country what the problems are. Some industries will die. Others must be brought forward. That is the problem which we ought to be facing. None of this has been mentioned today and in my view we have been wasting our time.
8.11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the course of the past few hours a good deal of resentment has been expressed at our temerity in putting down this Motion today. I find that puzzling. It is not, I suppose, just on the old Conservative principle that nothing shall be done for the first time. It must be some residual conviction that this House has a justification other than in the political arena. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for breaking away from the succession of party political speeches that we have heard, all of which, with the exception of the contribution the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, who spoke for five minutes against the Government and 10 seconds in favour of the
624
Government, were been entirely predictable. But unless we express political opinion and unless we act politically, what justification is there for the public expenditure in keeping this House in being as a House of Parliament? I can see none.
I have been here for a far shorter time than many of those who have spoken tonight. I confess that I find distasteful the spectacle of the House spending hours debating salmon fishing, game licences, or any of the things which appeal to noble Lords socially but have no political impact whatever. Unless we concentrate on political issues, both in expressing our political views in the way we have been doing today and, most importantly, in the revision of legislation, there is no justification for being here. In that sense I do not apologise on behalf of my party in any way for our having introduced the Motion, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Richard.
A further bonus is that we have had a succession of five-minute speeches. I venture to suggest that hardly one of those speeches was any the worse for being made in five minutes rather than in 10 minutes, 15 minutes, or 20 minutes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Stick to it yourself!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall watch the clock very carefully, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, rightly reminds me.
Of course, there have been disadvantages in the sense that we have heard a lot of what I might politely call House of Commons speeches, some of which have been no more than constituency annual dinner speeches. We have heard some speeches 'which lean very heavily on party headquarter hand-outs—and I am looking ahead of me when I say that.
I do not want to go over the ground concerning individual policies that has been covered very adequately in debate. Instead, I want but to try to explore what it is that the policies are for, what it is that we expect of a government and in what sense this Government can be said to have failed in meeting those expectations. I want to suggest to your Lordships that what government is for is to contribute—only to contribute—to a society in which there is an equal worth for all citizens; a society in which basic needs—equal rights before the law, a safe environment and adequate food, shelter, education, health and work—are met for all citizens. I want to suggest to your Lordships that the history of the past 14 years has not only been that the Government have not contributed to those basic rights and needs but that they have in many ways detracted from them and made things worse.
We have in theory equal rights before the law, just as we have in theory the right to dine at the Ritz—except that most of us do not have the money for it. But it is still the fact that 10 per cent. of our citizens are not on the voting list. They do not take part in our democracy. They deny themselves the opportunity to take part in our democracy. That figure increased very greatly when the poll tax was introduced. It is a fact that a significant part of our democratic structure—that of local government—has been persistently and consistently

625
diminished over the past 14 years so that we have now reached the position where quangos—quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations —whose members are appointed and paid by Ministers, account for more of public expenditure than the whole of the democratic local government structure.
It is a fact that, although we pay lip service to civil rights, this country loses more cases at the European Court of Human Rights than any other country in Europe. It is a fact that changes in legal aid have meant that access to the law is available to a smaller proportion of our people than at any time since legal aid was first introduced. It is a fact, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, well put it, that the citizens of this country are uneasy in their liberties.
On the right to a safe environment, well, again, my noble friend Lord Williams referred in more detail to the inadequacy of the Government's criminal justice policy. I want to give one figure which shows the extent to which the Government have failed. It concerns those people who have had experience of crime. In 1980 35 per cent. of our people had experience of crime. In 1993 53 per cent. had experience of crime. That is not an increase of which the Conservative Government should be proud.
I turn briefly to the basic right to food. I do so only because the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, said that we have food coming out of our ears. Well, we do, but a lot of people in this country do not. A couple on income support with one child can afford to spend only £26 a week on food whereas the minimum cost of a nutritionally healthy diet is £33.50. The availability of school meals, to take another example, has declined by 27 per cent. in the years since 1979. On the basic right to shelter, I could go into a long debate on house building and the decay of our housing stock. But let us take what is most obvious. The official figure for homelessness in this country is 400,000 people. Shelter's figure, which I tend to prefer, is 2 million. There are 1.5 million houses unfit for human habitation. When it comes to fuel as a part of shelter, the bottom 20 per cent. of our population spend three times the proportion of income that is spent by the top 20 per cent. on fuel, which is why VAT on fuel is such a wicked aspect of the Government's policy.
I do not have time to deal with the excellent speeches made on education and training except to say to noble Lords opposite that if they are so satisfied with the progress in education and training why is it that, in terms of the skills of the workforce, this country now comes 20th out of 22 members of the OECD? That is not an improvement over the past 14 years. The position is considerably worse.
When we speak about basic rights, above all let us consider the right to work. It is not simply that unemployment is unjust. Of course, it is. Many of my noble friends made that point with far greater effect than I can. But it is also inefficient. It is bad economics. It is a fact that we are failing to use the abilities of a large proportion of the people of this country. It is also a fact that unemployment is discriminatory. It is discriminatory by race for black people. Ethnic minorities are more
626
likely to be unemployed. It is also discriminatory by class and gender and for the sick and the disabled, as my noble friend Lord Ashley rightly said. It is discriminatory historically because those whose parents had good jobs are more likely to get good jobs themselves.
What is the reaction of this Government? Instead of doing something about unemployment they change the rules for the unemployed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, called it "reshaping". My noble friend Lord Ashley rightly corrected him and said that it was not reshaping but renaming and then cutting the benefits available to the unemployed. To call them job seekers when the policies of this Government have led to the fact that 2 million men of working age no longer actively seek work gives the lie to the claim of the Lord Privy Seal that this is not a party issue.
Behind all these factors lies poverty. It may not be a popular subject to talk about in your Lordships' House, but we must talk about it. It is an important means of judging the performance of the Government. By the most moderate, basic and elementary standard of poverty, which is the level of income support, or as it was, supplementary benefit, the number of our fellow citizens who are in poverty has risen from 7.75 million in 1979 to nearly 11.5 million in 1989. I do not have later figures. These are the 1993 published figures. There are 3.5 million more of our fellow citizens who are in poverty than when this Government came into office. According to the European Community standards of poverty, 20 per cent. of our population is in poverty. We have 20 per cent. of the poor of Europe. Our figures are worse than for all of Europe except Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Greece.
My noble friend Lord Bruce rightly drew attention to the extremes of wealth and poverty in this country. By every standard which one can apply these extremes have become worse. In 1979 the share of the total income of this country gained by the bottom half of the population was one-third. In 1991 it was down to one quarter. When one considers wealth, 1 per cent. of the people of this country own 18 per cent. of the wealth; 2 per cent. own 25 per cent.; 10 per cent. own 50 per cent. and the top 50 per cent. own 92 per cent. These are not simply comparative figures; they are absolute figures as well. In the 1980s and in the period of office of this Government, the absolute income of the bottom 10 per cent. of our population fell by 6 per cent. My noble friend Lord Longford rightly pointed to the immorality of such a development. He calls it Christian. I do not share his faith. But I certainly share with him the view that this is something which all people, with any sense of morality, ought to be ashamed of.
I am not accusing the Government of creating inequality by accident. Oh no! They have done it absolutely deliberately. This Government have had the policy of looking after their own. That is what governments are for and that is why I am a member of the Labour Party. I am a member of the party which represents and cares for the interests of the less privileged in our society. It was entirely proper for politicians in the Conservative Party to look after their own, and by God they have done so.

627
Let us look at the way in which the Government have managed public expenditure. Despite the fact that they have had £100 billion from North Sea oil and gas and £65 billion from privatisation, what has been the effect of their public expenditure policies? The effects have been a spendthrift policy such as has never been seen before. The effect has been a consumer spending binge which went on so long after it was justified by the taxation policy of the Government that we have landed up with a recession, the highest level of consumer debt and the lowest level of saving than at any time in recent history.
What has been the impact of the taxation policies of this Government? It is not just today's Budget that we are looking at. We are looking at what has happened to the £31 billion handed out in tax cuts since 1979. Of that £31 billion, £8.7 billion have gone to the top 1 per cent. of the population; £15.2 billion to the top 10 per cent. and only £4.8 billion to the bottom 50 per cent. The result is not a low-tax society. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was more honest when he said that the policy of the Government was low direct taxes. We have a high-tax economy which is less progressive than it was in 1979. We have the situation where the top 10 per cent. of the population pay 32 per cent. of their income in tax and the bottom 10 per cent. pay 43 per cent. That is regressive taxation and a deliberate and conscious policy, as all these policies are, of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It has not worked.
The Government's policies have been a failure by their own standards. The misplaced triumphalism of those who have chosen to quote figures from the past few months, as if they outweigh the figures from the past 14 years, does not bear thinking about. Above all, by any decent standards, over 14 years this Government have been a failure. They deserve no confidence from this House.
8.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, every opposition has the right to test the confidence of the House in the Government, but surely this must be one of the oddest occasions on which that right has been exercised. We have just had five days of debate on the Loyal Address. Despite that wealth of material, the Opposition seem to have been stumped for a single specific subject on which to take issue with the Government. There is no vote on the Queen's Speech.
Pierre Mendes-France's dictum was that to govern is to choose. The Opposition have the luxury that they do not have to govern but now that they have the luxury they do not want to choose. Labour Front Bench spokesmen have recently spoken at length and today's debate has given another opportunity for them to hear the sound of their own voices. It has been amusing to see them playing musical chairs between the Front and Back-Benches. Of course, I can understand the difficulty that the Labour Party have had in producing speakers for this debate. The Liberal Party, too, was noticeable by its absence.
Without doubt it was good for Britain that 14 years ago the Conservative Government rescued it from the
628
parlous state to which it had been brought. Let us never forget what was written in 1979 by one of our ablest ambassadors at that time:
"We talk of ourselves without shame as being one of the less prosperous countries in Europe. The prognosis for the future is discouraging".
I agree with my noble friend Lord Archer. The amount of time since then lends no enchantment to the lean years of Labour which gave us the lowest growth rate in Europe, the highest strike record, and for the average family, virtually no increase in take home pay and a substantial erosion of pensions for the pensioners.
The contrast could not be more stark. We now have a country whose views are heeded, whose help is sought and whose will to act is not in doubt. As my noble Mend Lady Young said, others outside this country are often well-placed to make incisive judgments and they have decided that we are a country in which they want to invest. That is an objective vote of confidence which cannot be questioned. The UK has received one-third of all inward investment in the EC over recent years. Over 3,500 American companies have invested in Britain, including 96 of their top 100 companies. Around 200 Japanese firms, among them every one of Japan's top 10 consumer electronics firms, have chosen the UK as their manufacturing location in Europe. I unreservedly welcome that investment. To my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden, whose support I appreciate, I say this: according to European business leaders, Britain is now the best place in the European Community to build a manufacturing plant.
As a country, we have become more prosperous and so services have improved. Although the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that there was a funding problem in the NHS, I remind him that spending in the NHS has increased by more than 60 per cent. in real terms and now stands at record levels. Yesterday my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a further increase in spending on the NHS, which will rise by £1.5 billion in 1994–95, a 1.5 per cent. increase in real terms. We will spend about 6 per cent. of our national income on the NHS this year compared to 4.7 per cent. when Labour were in office. There are nearly 19,000 more doctors and dentists, and the number of midwives and nurses has risen by 69,000. Their pay has increased in real terms. Labour cut their numbers and cut their pay.
It was appropriate that the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, talked about pensioners. She will recall that at a stroke she cut £2 a week off what they received. The average pensioner in 1990–91—
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not also true that I carried through the House of Commons a provision to link annually each up-rating with the movement of earnings instead of prices, which everybody agrees now was the right way of keeping their standard of living up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what the noble Baroness has not denied is that by changing the up-rating provisions she cut £2 a week from every

629
pensioner. Pensioners are now 54 per cent. better off in real terms than they were under Labour. That is a great and substantial improvement.
Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, said, he will know that spending on the disabled has risen by 100 per cent. over and above inflation, and that the number of people claiming invalidity benefit has doubled.
We have taken unprecedented action to protect the environment at local, national and international level. Not for the first time—and no doubt not for the last—the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was wrong. We are the first country to have announced in full and in detail how we will deliver our Rio commitment.
During our term of office, we have increased the number of police officers by 16,000, and spending on the police has increased by 81 per cent. in real terms.
The pupil-teacher ratio has fallen, and spending per pupil has risen by over 45 per cent. in real terms. There are now over 80 per cent. more full-time students in higher education. Already nearly one in three young people enters higher education, up from one in eight in 1979, and so the target that we set ourselves for the year 2000 has been all but achieved seven years early. My noble friend Lady Perry will be pleased to know that the Government are also committed to expanding further education. The new plans announced yesterday provide for a 20 per cent. increase in students in further education and sixth-form colleges over the next three years.
We have based these achievements and our reforms, often radical, on the two pillars of Conservative thinking—freedom and responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, looked back over the past 14 years—and so will I because it is a record of which we are proud and which we must not forget.
In our first term of government, we set about tackling the legacy of socialist economics. Through the sale of council houses, we set our sights on giving everyone a real stake of their own-1.4 million people have bought their homes from local authorities in Great Britain under the right to buy—a right opposed so strenuously by Labour—until they realised that it was popular. That is a precedent that they have followed on many other occasions.
Our second term followed logically, extending the progress of social enfranchisement through privatisation. My noble friend Lord Oxfuird reminded us how the Labour Party fought each and every proposal. Let me remind your Lordships of one case—British Airways. In 1980, Air France made a profit; BA made a loss. In 1993, BA is the most successful and profitable carrier in Europe while Air France is seeking yet more state aid to prop itself up, courtesy of the taxpayer. We also started the reform of the tax system to restore the incentives sapped by socialism, a process which the Chancellor built on yesterday by keeping income and corporation tax low and by introducing a substantial package of assistance for business and supply side reform.
In our third term we kept up the momentum. We extended our programme of reform so as to give
630
ordinary people not just a stake of their own, but a say of their own, first of all in education, then in housing and then in health.
In our fourth term, we will bring about an unprecedented shift in power away from the producers and providers of services. The beneficiaries will be those who use the services. We are seeking to give people more control over their own lives. The Opposition are against spreading those and other freedoms and they are against choice for all our people. What has been achieved so far has been done by the Government working with the citizen. That is why we not only held the intellectual agenda in the 1980s, but we retain that grip now.
There is no intellectual agenda from the party opposite. In order to find some clothes, their leader, Mr. Smith, went to Brussels on 9th November and signed up to a programme which would impose a massive burden on industry: the social chapter, a maximum 35-hour working week, European works councils, consultation of workers in multi-national businesses and European sectoral collective agreements. The Socialist manifesto makes it clear that
"the plans of the Conservatives to make Europe more competitive … are unacceptable".
To don those clothes and impose that on this country is to take the short road to ruin.
I recall vividly the vote of no confidence in 1979 in another place. What I saw was in stark contrast to the real world outside where the winter of discontent resulting from the Labour Government's policies was causing havoc. I watched from the Gallery a large number of Labour MPs stay in the Chamber after the vote and sing "The Red Flag". They still, misty eyed, sing it now. Nothing has changed. But in the countries of Eastern Europe which they so admired at the time, they have burnt their red flags, changed the tune and moved on. It was only yesterday at a meeting in Brussels that many of the Ministers of those countries reminded me of their appreciation of what the Conservative Government here did to help them to get rid of their yoke of socialism. We did it by strong defence and determination.
Defending the realm is the first duty of Government. Nothing is more important than to ensure that the country is defended with strength and resolution. When Brezhnev deployed the SS.20s, we deployed the cruise missiles. We were able to negotiate from strength and as a result the threat to our security from the overwhelming conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact has been removed, the Berlin Wall has come down and the Cold War is at an end. The Labour Party and its cohorts in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament would not and never could have put us in that position. As a result of our strength and will, we have a Europe in which democracy, rule of law and basic human rights are spreading ever more widely.
Noble Lords opposite have consistently urged massive reductions in the defence budget. Our policy is to keep the lid on defence cuts while preserving the ability of our front line troops to respond. To that end, we shall continue to maintain highly capable nuclear and conventional forces and ensure that their training,

631
manning and equipment remain sufficient for them to fulfil their roles to the high standards that have been demonstrated in the Falklands, the Gulf and now in Bosnia. Our servicemen and women will not be asked to undertake difficult and hazardous operations without the necessary equipment, support and training. That is why my right honourable friend Mr. Rifkind has today announced 3,000 more troops for the Army, the placing of orders for up to 259 British-built Challenger tanks, new minesweepers and orders for a new RAF helicopter fleet.
Our role in Europe is vital, not just in defence but, as my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham reminded us, within the EC. Unlike the party opposite, we seek an open, outward-looking and decentralised Community. The Community must face up to the competition that other parts of the world pose. We must avoid over-regulation from Brussels and overimplementation of any regulations to which we have agreed. We must ensure that other countries in the EC do the same. As my noble friend Lady Elles said, the high social costs must he tackled as they are posing a crippling burden on growth and jobs, reducing Europe's competitiveness.
It was again only yesterday, as not so long ago, in the 1980s, that I was approached by Ministers of the EC who asked me, "How have you done it again in Britain just when we are going into the deepest of recessions? Can we follow your lead and get ourselves out?" The contrast between our position and that of our European competitors could not be better highlighted than by what we have seen recently—strikes, which used to be known as the British disease, are beginning to cripple industries on the mainland. The socialist habit of compromise which we experienced under Labour is catching up fast. It is every government's responsibility to take hard, difficult and sometimes initially unpopular decisions when necessary. We have done so. We now have the second lowest level of inflation, the lowest interest rates, falling unemployment levels, the highest rate of growth forecast by the Commission both this year and next. But, we cannot afford to be complacent about recovery here when recession continues to bite abroad: 60 per cent. of our exports go to the Community, and it is in Britain's interests to foster an environment of growth and prosperity in the Community.
Having failed to be elected in this country, the Labour Party wants the cover of Europe to introduce its socialist ideas—more quietly, more secretively and more unaccountably than it could in this country. Take its support for the European Recovery Fund. That will increase borrowing by the back door. It wants a fund twice the size of the current EC budget. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, supports that. The advantage to Labour is that the borrowing, thus the debt, thus the repayments our children will face, will not show up on the PSBR. It fulfils the socialist dream. It saves the Labour Party having to take the difficult decisions. It gives it more room to fudge the issue. We have none of that. We know, the people of this country know, and history has shown, that tight control over public expenditure and our finances is a prerequisite for a prosperous Britain. In his Budget Statement yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed precisely how
632
the Government plan to bring the public finances firmly under control, setting the PSBR on a steadily declining path. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, threw out a challenge. He said that if Labour had spent 40 per cent. of GDP it would have been hounded out of office. It did, and it was. Public sector borrowing will be no more than needed to finance capital spending by 1997–98, and eliminated altogether by the end of the decade. By following that principle, and updating legislation made for a previous era, we have made this country more prosperous.
To the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I say that average incomes for all economic status groups and family types have increased. I was sad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wanted all the differentials to be lowered again and to bring everyone to the poorer state that they were before.
We have also had our difficulties. Prosperity has never been one long golden thread. But I so agree with what my noble friend Lord Stewartby said: what is clear to one and all is that, if that we had followed the advice of Labour, inflation would have climbed higher and we should still be plunging downwards. On the contrary, we have a programme based, as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon said, on steady growth for the future.
As year succeeds year, and the Opposition accept policy after policy that we have pursued, it would nice if, just occasionally, they could acknowledge that we were right after all. Whether noble Lords opposite choose to follow in our wake is of course a matter for them. What the Government will continue to do is to pursue the necessity of maintaining this country's high standing at home and abroad. New challenges with which we must deal will always arise. The new Jerusalem may exist, but probably not on this earth. Building a decent, prosperous and successful Britain is work enough. This Government have the values. They have the policies and the will to carry out that work. As a result, the electorate has shown its confidence in a Conservative Government four times in succession. As opposed to having no confidence in the Government, the House should censure the Opposition for having nothing to offer. I urge the House to reject the Motion.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say just two or three things in finally commending the Motion to the House. First, I am delighted at the popularity this debate seems suddenly to have assumed. It is nice to see faces that we do not often see here. Indeed, it is nice to see faces that we have never seen. We welcome them with that spirit of open-heartedness that one would expect from the Labour Benches. No doubt they will all vote the wrong way. Having dragged them all in, I have no doubt that the Government wish to count every one of them as they go through the Lobby.
The only thing about the debate that I do not understand—I listened to most of the speeches—is the sense almost of constitutional outrage that came from the other side of the House: as if we were doing something unconstitutional, improper and unlawful in daring to put down a Motion of no confidence in the

633
policies of Her Majesty's Government. One of the functions of the Opposition is precisely to test the Government's policies. It is to call them to account from time to time. It may upset some people on the other side of the House who may feel that the Opposition are getting uppity; that somehow we are behaving in an unsporting way. I can only tell those who feel that way that it is something that I propose to continue.
What has also been interesting about the debate is that most of the speakers from the other side, including the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, have said very little about government policy. They have said a great deal about Labour policy. There has been a great inquest into what happened under the Labour Government up until 1979, but in terms of looking forward, which we surely should be doing, as to where the Government have taken us and whence we go from here, hardly a word.
The lines are clearly drawn in this debate. The one fact that the Government have to accept is that they have been there now for 14 years. To turn round to try to blame things on the attitude of the Government before 1979, or on the Labour Party while in opposition, is thin, hollow and will not wash. I commend the Motion to the House.
8.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 282.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Airedale, L.

Howell, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Kennet, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

McNair, L.

Desai, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ennals, L.

[Teller.]

Falkender, B.

Mulley, L.

Falkland, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Geraint, L.

Peston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Haskel, L.

Richard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Russell, E.

Hollick, L.

Seear, B.

634

Sefton of Garston, L.

Variey, L.

Serota, B.

Walpole, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stallard, L.

White, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Young of Darlington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Abinger, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Addison, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Aldington, L.

Deedes, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Denham, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Denman, L.

Annaly, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Derwent, L.

Arran, E.

Digby, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Astor, V.

Downshire, M.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dudley, E.

Auckland, L.

Dundonald, E.

Barber, L.

Eccles, V.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Beloff, L.

Elibank, L.

Belstead, L.

Elles, B.

Bessborough, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bethell, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Biddulph, L.

Elton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Erne, E.

Blakenham, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Blatch, B.

Faithfull, B.

Blyth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Boardman, L.

Flather, B.

Bolton, L.

Forbes, L.

Borthwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brentford, V.

Geddes, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Goold, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Goschen, V.

Burton, L.

Gray, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Byron, L.

Greenway, L.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Caldecote, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Camden, M.

Haig, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hambleden, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hanson, L.

Carnock, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Carrington, L.

Harlech, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cayzer, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Harrowby, E.

Chesham, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Chilver, L.

Harvington, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Haslam, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Cockneld, L.

Hemphill, L.

Colwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hertford, M.

Courtown, E.

Hesketh, L.

Cox, B.

Holderness, L.

Craigmyle, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hood, V.

Crathorne, L.

Hooper, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Hothfield, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Howe, E.

Cross, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Huntly, M.

Cumberlege, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Inglewood, L.

635

Ingrow, L.

Prior, L.

Ironside, L.

Pym, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Radnor, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Reay, L.

Kemsley, V.

Rees, L.

Kenyon, L.

Remnant, L.

Killearn, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Kimball, L.

Renton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Renwick, L.

Knollys, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Knutsford, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Rodney, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Romney, E.

Leigh, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

St. Davids, V.

Liverpool, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Long, V.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Lothian, M.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lucas, L.

Sandford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Savile, L.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Sharpies, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sherfleld, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Marchwood, V.

Stewartby, L.

Margadale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strange, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathclyde, L.

May, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Melville, V.

[Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Sherfield, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Swansea, L.

Mills, V.

Swinton, E.

Milverton, L.

Tebbit, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Teviot, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thatcher, B.

Montgomery of Alamein V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mountevans, L.

Tollemache, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Torphichen, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Townshend, M.

Moyne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Moyola, L.

Trumpington, B.

Munster, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Vinson, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Vivian, L.

Norrie, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Onslow, E.

Wakeham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Watkinson, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Westbury, L.

Parkinson, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wigram, L.

Peel, E

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Pender, L.

Windlesham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wise, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wolfson, L.

Pike, B.

Woolton, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wynford, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Young, B.

Polwarth, L.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Prentice, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

British Rail: Smoking Ban
9 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what powers they have to protect passengers on British Rail's Network SouthEast trains who are no longer permitted to smoke in smoking compartments on outer suburban and long distance services; and whether British Rail's action in removing this choice from their customers is contrary to the Citizen's Charter.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apologies for asking the Question; indeed, for asking the House to come back to earth or to the rail track, The Question relates to the removal by British Rail management of all smoking compartments from all trains in Kent and other parts of the south-east; that is, well outside the suburban area. I shall first summarise the background against which I seek to know what powers of intervention the Government have.
The ban on smoking by a public service raises some important issues that go to the rights of minorities to exercise their own choice of social behaviours of all legitimate kinds. That is one of the liberties of the individual. The Question also highlights a case of a public service monopoly manager riding roughshod over a sizeable minority of his customers, knowing that he is so doing, and then seeking to persuade Ministers, as he has wrongly persuaded himself, that a market survey justifies what he has done; or so it seems to me.
Tonight's Question was tabled some months ago, but I was anxious not to press my noble friend Lord Caithness further about smoking compartments while he was, in his charming and not unsuccessful way, piloting the Railways Bill through the House. He knows well—and, indeed, so do his colleagues in the Government—after three Question Times on the matter that several noble Lords, as well as myself, were not at all convinced by his painstaking short replies to our short questions. But, having carefully timed the debate so that my noble friend Lord Caithness could reply to it, we now know that that has become quite impossible. Nevertheless, I welcome in his place the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who I am sure will give me as good as I deserve.
Some people like smoking and some do not. Some people think that smoking, even in moderation., is dangerous and some do not; indeed, some people think that it is beneficial. For many decades there have been smoking compartments in trains so as to enable those who want to smoke to do so without upsetting people who dislike smoking. Of British Rail's Network SouthEast passengers about 29 per cent, are smokers. Since yesterday, that 29 per cent. can pride themselves on contributing more than the non-smokers to the public funds that go to help British Rail.
Outside the inner-suburban area, that minority has been allowed to smoke in trains until early this year—that is, 1993—when a so-called "commercial" reason was adduced for ending the sensible arrangement of marking about one-quarter of the compartments for smoking. Then, for the first time, a ban was dictated on

637
smoking in trains in Kent and throughout most of the south-east, even on journeys of more than one hour and even on journeys as long as those to Cardiff or Birmingham where, under other more sensible management, there is no such ban. If that is not gross discrimination against a part of the United Kingdom, I do not know what is; indeed, it is a lot else too.
The allegedly commercial arguments boil down to just two. The first is about the cost of cleaning and the second is about passengers' attitudes; that is, the market argument. It is said that smokers cause much more mess than non-smokers so that cleaning costs a lot more. But non-smokers also leave litter. They discard tins, sweet and chocolate papers and apple and banana skins. The question is: where do they put them? The same question goes for smokers' ash and stubs. Suitable trays and containers are not difficult or costly to supply or to keep clean. The clean-up argument is as unsound as it is specious. If it were true, it would apply equally to train services everywhere and it would lead to a general ban on smoking throughout the British Rail network.
The second argument rests on an independent market survey conducted in September 1992. First, it is alleged by British Rail that the survey proves that there is "overwhelming support" among existing customers for the extension of the ban. Secondly, the survey is alleged to prove that even 55 per cent. of smoker passengers were in favour of that ban. I shall return in a moment to the former misstatement, but the latter is so monstrously a falsification that I shall deal with it at once.
The market survey showed that 55 per cent. of the smokers on services where smoking was already banned accepted the ban. I regard it as a good bit mischievous for anybody to use that figure in connection with the ban's extension to other services. However, I have to add here that even if there was significant majority support for the extension of the ban, which I do not believe there was, I would still ask Her Majesty's Government whether they really wish to see public services management abandon all concern for the minority in legitimate social habits.
But in truth the market survey most certainly did not prove that there was an overwhelming majority for the ban to extend to long distance services in Kent. The most directly relevant set of figures in the survey—the survey is dated 4th September 1992 and is the latest I know of—is quite clear in its meaning. Those questioned at stations served by trains which at that time had smoking compartments were asked their views on a change, up or down, in smoking accommodation from its then level—at that time that was about one-quarter of the train. One of the questions concerned the case for a possible increase. That does not surprise me for my experience as a moderate user of trains in Kent, and a very moderate pipe smoker, was that at peak travel times the smoking compartments were more crowded than the others.
The answers to the question showed that only 38 per cent. of all passengers—that is, smokers and non-smokers—declared in favour of any decrease in the number of smoking compartments. The rest were in favour either of retaining the then present level or were
638
in favour of an increase. Some 4 per cent. of non-smokers were in favour of an increase. I should have thought that those answers would have persuaded even the most fanatical manager that he would be wrong to impose a ban on smoking. However, that is not the case in Network SouthEast where for some reason, high-minded or not, a ban was wanted so badly that the network found a way of reinterpreting the answers. The attitude to the smoking public of the master of Network SouthEast can be seen in the brief which he sent to my noble friend Lord Caithness. I have, in a quite proper way, been enabled to see that brief. I say "quite proper" because it was sent by one of the colleagues of my noble friend Lord Caithness in the Department of Transport to a noble Lord in this House. The day before the Minister answered questions in this House on this subject in May he received a letter which stated:
"The extension (of the ban) was always bound to generate some strong feelings but was taken for commercial and not social reasons. Extensive market research amongst existing customers showed overwhelming support for a ban".
My goodness gracious! How can anyone interpret that survey that way? When I challenged my noble friend on this point, he argued in a letter to me (no doubt he did so on advice he had received) that the apparent contradiction between such a statement and the figures I have mentioned—those were the figures that showed a majority of all passengers were against any decrease in the then existing level of smoking compartments—is easily explained. He said the contradiction,
"results from passengers in favour of a ban, on whose services smoking had been banned, assuming that the level of accommodation was already nil".
That is about as screwy an interpretation as I can get out of those figures. I call that rather an insult to the intelligence of Network SouthEast passengers. Perhaps my noble friend wishes to see my further deliberations on the figures in the survey. I have ascertained that even as regards long distance services the majority of passengers against any decrease in the supply of smoking compartments is even greater. I was absolutely stupefied that my noble friend could believe his comments. But then my stupefaction became just a bit less when I noticed the date on which I had received the letter. My noble friend's department does not believe in dating letters. I have received a number of letters from that department none of which are dated. However I believe I received that letter on Monday, 5th April and I am quite clear that my noble friend signed it on April Fool's Day. That would explain it.
I checked what the market surveyors themselves said about those figures, taking into account the whole range of questions, from "increase", "decrease", "the same", and so on. This is their summary:
"Although smokers predominate among those desiring an increase in smoking seats, yet there is a strong body of opinion, including a majority of smokers, who would agree with keeping the present level the same".
What could be clearer? How do my noble friends on the Front Bench justify the managing director trying to get round that and arguing that his market wants something different?
What powers do the Government have in such railway matters? I assume that they share with me a concern that minorities should not unreasonably be

639
deprived of rights to behave socially as they wish, provided they are acting within the general law. That principle extends far beyond smoking; for example to sporting activities and other such matters.
The Transport Act 1962 seems to provide powers of intervention by the Secretary of State. I have done my best to try to find out what the law is by reading the books in the Library. There is a specific power in Section 56(6) for my right honourable friend to give directions to the board on any recommendation from the Central Transport Consultative Committee. I do not believe that he has given any such direction.
I have in front of me a press notice dated 18th May from that committee headed:
"Smokers are fuming at Network SouthEast's smoking ban".
It states that Network SouthEast,
"takes the view that the average journey time of users should be the governing factor in determining whether smoking accommodation should be provided. The CTCC takes a different view, believing that rolling stock which normally operates on routes with journey times of substantially more than one hour should carry some smoking accommodation".
Is that not quite clear, my Lords? Is it not clear to my noble friend?
At the end the press release states:
"We think that NSE should find ways of satisfying the demands of its smoking passengers rather than taking action which alienates them".
It said earlier:
"Some NSE managers seem prepared to treat their customers in a rather heavy-handed manner".
I can assure noble Lords that that is correct, because I have received all kinds of threats when I have asked whether I could smoke in a carriage where it was not stated that I could not. That was a clear expression of the committee's considered opinion. What has the Secretary of State done about it?
The British Railways Board's powers to make by-laws on smoking and other matters, set out in Section 67 of the Transport Act, are made subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State, or so it seems to me. We shall hear whether that is so. I am therefore rather surprised that the Government should have approved a by-law of the British Railways Board that enabled its management to ban smoking on services which had never previously had such a ban and then claim that the ban was purely a matter for the commercial judgment of British Rail. I find that inconsistent with what the Act says. When was the relevant by-law confirmed by the Minister responsible?
Lastly—I have spoken for much too long but I regard this as a very serious matter—in my Question I mentioned the Citizen's Charter. I have in mind the emphasis placed there on the importance of choice and the aim of the Government to widen choice in public services. That is set out in the conclusion. I have also in mind the passage on page 17 relating to the railways which states:
"British Rail will seek to make its services to the public friendlier and more personal".
Fewer than 30 per cent. of its passengers are smokers. The guards on our trains show those qualities in enforcing what to many of them seems to be a mistaken rule, but a rule that binds them. But above them is someone, or more, who flouts the spirit of that excellent charter in this matter of smoking bans and
640
accommodation, and then goes on to stretch the limits of all credulity in justifying that outrageous ban. What powers do the Government have to enforce their clearly expressed will?
I hope that my noble friend and the House will feel that something must be done to put right this quite outrageous misuse of monopoly power.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in everything that he has said. I do so as a non-smoker—one who has smoked but has not done so for a very long time—and one who believes in the right of individuals to smoke and for people to have facilities, on an equal basis, to smoke if they wish to do so.
As the noble Lord said, people have been allowed to smoke on Network SouthEast and elsewhere on the railways for over 100 years. It has been possible, without trouble, to provide separate smoking accommodation for people who wish to smoke. However, suddenly a group of people—it does not comprise the passengers; as the noble Lord pointed out, the majority of passengers, both smoking and non-smoking, are happy for the facilities for smokers on trains to continue—the railway management, come along arid say, "We think that it is no longer a commercial proposition to allow people to smoke". Yet their customers state that it is all right for people to smoke provided they are allowed segregated accommodation on the trains.
I, too, was worried about the answers given during Question Time. Like the noble Lord, I too wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to ask what rights smokers had under the Citizen's Charter. It seems to me that smokers in this country now have no rights. They also appear to have no rights to be treated within the health service as other people are treated. I shall come to that later.
I told the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that I was worried that smokers were not being considered in relation to their rights under the Citizen's Charter. I received a similar reply to that given to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington: that it is a commercial matter. did not seem to occur to the Minister that the Government have a duty to protect the individual liberties and rights of all citizens. Where one has a public monopoly, the Government have a double duty to those people because they have nowhere else to go.
The matter of cleanliness seems to rank high on the agenda. Therefore I wrote back to the noble Earl saying:
"You mention improved cleanliness as one of the benefits of the smoking ban but there is to be no action against those who munch, crunch and slurp their way through train journeys producing, as a result, a mountain of paper, cardboard, polystyrene, cans etc. which must be far in excess in both volume and weight of litter produced by smokers".
I should have thought that that was a reasonable thing to say. But the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, had also forgotten about the drinkers. I therefore continued:
"Nor, apparently, is there any suggestion that the drinking of alcoholic liquor should be banned on trains although it is well known that alcohol not only harms the health of those who abuse it but also often results in violence against innocent people—sometimes railway staff. Furthermore, I feel sure that

641
there are many, like myself, who feel disgusted and nauseated at the behaviour—short of violence—of people who have over-imbibed intoxicating liquor".
Noble Lords will have seen such people on the trains. I am virtually teetotal and it offends me. I am a non-smoker, a non-drinker and a non-womaniser; I can really speak from on high! I have no vices that I can think of other than attending the House of Lords every day. But it seems that the only person who is to be banned from doing what he wants is the smoker. It is disgraceful that one section of the community should be treated in that way.
Not only BR but other organisations like British Airways—which is banning smoking on long-haul flights as well as short-haul flights—are doing it as well. Employers are banning smoking. Why? They are responding to a government-inspired witch-hunt against smokers. Their individual rights seem to be suspended by a government who pretend to believe in individual freedom and rights. They are always talking about that. I do not wish to offend the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, but only an hour ago he will have heard them talking about individual rights.
Lord Aldington: I did.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Except apparently for smokers.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. Is not the noble Lord weakening his case to some extent? The possibility of smoking on trains in segregated carriages is surely far removed from a case where there is no real segregation? There can be none on an aircraft, where a curtain is not enough, nor in theatres and cinemas. Is there not a difference of degree that affects the issue? Would it not be better for my noble friend to confine himself to the case where there is a possibility of clear segregation?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall not argue about segregation on aircraft. Modern techniques make it possible to ensure that there is clean air as well as smoky air in aircraft. There is no difficulty about that. I should have thought that in employment it was perfectly possible for employers to set aside rest rooms for smokers and non-smokers. What I want is for smokers to be given the same rights as everyone else, particularly under the Citizen's Charter. Apparently everyone else is entitled to rights under the charter except smokers.
It seems to me that there is a campaign by a narrow elite who wish to impose their standards on their fellows. There is and has been over a long time a campaign to outlaw smoking as a social habit. All kinds of lies are told and statistics cooked; we have heard about them this evening. People are frightened as a consequence of the campaign to outlaw smoking as a social habit.
British Rail in particular has carried on that campaign over a long period. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that it did not start on Network SouthEast. It started with British Rail banning the sale
642
of tobacco in the kiosks on stations. BR is trying to impose its own standards on all its passengers or "customers", as I believe they are now called.
However, the problem goes even further than that. People may be able to manage without a cigarette or a pipe on a train journey of an hour or an hour-and-a-half. But I do not see why they should. I do not see why people should suddenly stop something which has been enjoyed for over 100 years. The problem is becoming much worse than that, however, because we now find that smokers are being denied treatment within the health service, which is much more serious. The problem goes on from the banning of smoking in railway carriages. It extends to patients being banned from treatment within the National Health Service.
The latest example is the case of Mr. Gibson, who went to Southampton General Hospital to have an operation, for which he was getting prepared when the consultant surgeon came along and said: "Have you given up smoking?" Mr. Gibson said that he had not given up smoking. He was sent home. He was told to stop smoking, and when he had stopped smoking he could go back on the list. Mr. Gibson died 11 days later. Mr. Gibson had also been told previously that if he paid £12,000 he could have an operation privately. So had Mr. Gibson had £12,000 to have an operation privately, he might very well have been alive today. Because he was forced into the National Health Service—for which he has paid, let us make no mistake about it; smokers pay their taxes just the same as everybody else; indeed, they pay more taxes than anybody else—he was denied treatment under the National Health Service which might have saved his life.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Is he seriously suggesting that the surgeon who was going to do the operation in the National Health Service was the same surgeon who said that he would operate if he was paid £12,000 in the private sector? That would be a very serious allegation. I cannot believe that that can be so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, my Lords, I was not suggesting that for one moment. I did not say that. I said that Mr. Gibson had been told that an operation was available privately for £12,000. He did not have £12,000, so he had to go to the National Health Service, and he was sent home. I am told of course that it was a matter of clinical judgment, and I have to accept that. But one wonders whether the clinical judgment of the consultant surgeon was right. Would Mr. Gibson still be alive today if the operation had been carried out, rather than being dead today because he was sent home without having the operation? That is a matter which should concern all of us.
This is AIDS week. Let us suppose, for example, that a person suffering from AIDS had been sent home and refused treatment within the National Health Service. There would be a national outcry, and rightly so. But there should be a national outcry every time a smoker is sent home when he needs treatment within the National Health Service. Therefore, as well as considering the serious matter which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, about Network SouthEast, the

643
Government have to look a lot wider. Denying smokers rights in railway carriages leads to denying smokers rights within the National Health Service, which may very well lead to serious illness or even death. That is why I support very strongly indeed the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in demanding explanations and results from Her Majesty's Government on this matter this evening.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, after the devastating indictment of the Government by my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on the Tory Benches, there really is no necessity for further contributions to this debate on the Question. But since when has necessity been a pretext for speeches in this House? I do not want to make heavy weather of this matter, but I have a number of interests to declare. I am a pipe smoker of long standing, though less so than the 60 years of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, by a decade or so. I am a train traveller—if it cannot be absolutely avoided. I am chairman of FOREST, which is the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco. It does not promote smoking; it defends the right for citizens to enjoy a pipe or cigarettes.
I have been a strong and lifelong supporter of individual freedom. For me the hallmark of a free society is that it permits adult citizens the widest conceivable choice attainable without significantly subtracting from the like freedom of others. The key is that we do not simply uphold popular freedoms. Indeed the acid test of a democratic temper is to defend other people's choices of which we actively disapprove; that is to say, tolerance. That is not particularly virtuous because the unwritten contract of a free society is a tolerance of other people's strange preferences for such things as male cosmetics, foxhunting, jogging, eating fish and chips or black pudding, in exchange for their tolerance of our eccentricities.
Democracy does not mean permitting freedoms practised by 51 per cent. of the population. A civilised society is marked by respect—if possible, courteous and good natured—for minority tastes and activities of which we may actively disapprove. Whatever its demerits, the great merit of the competitive market is that it caters sensitively for individuals and consumer idiosyncrasies. Even small minorities favouring fancy waistcoats, pink socks or other familiar Front Bench government styles can have their particular tastes served in a free market. Majority agreement is not required. There is a tendency for small minorities to have their way. Because in nationalised industries that kind of preference is not possible, all the nationalising Acts made provision for consumer representatives to have their voice heard on consultative committees.
The chairman of the British Railways Board, defending the ban, wrote a letter to say that BR liaise carefully with statutorily constituted representatives of transport users, and so forth. There has been much talk of getting approval in that way. This morning I ventured to 'phone the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Southern England and spoke to the acting Secretary, Mr. Edwards. He told me that on 8th December last year the committee received an announcement from British
644
Rail to the effect that all smoking carriages were being withdrawn from Kent and East Sussex. Shortly thereafter the committee was told that smoking facilities had been withdrawn elsewhere on the SouthEast network.
There was no question of consultation. There was absolutely no effort to ascertain the views of the consultative committee, much less to take notice of the views of the consumers themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said, the survey that British Rail conducted last year, in the autumn of 1992, showed that 61 per cent. of passengers on non-banned stations thought that the provision for smoking should either be kept the same or increased.
I turn to British Rail's own charter, which is a rather less pretentious document than the Government's to which I shall come in a moment. British Rail say that it undertakes to:
"ask your views and publish the results".
They asked views through the survey but they did not publish the results. There had to be a Question in this House from the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, before British Rail agreed to put a copy of the findings in the Library. Of course the charter does not say, "We will take notice of your views". It says, "We will ask your views and publish the results if compelled to do so; but we will not necessarily feel obliged to proceed any further".
That is all small beer. We come to this great document that I hold in my trembling hand the—Citizen's Charter—and see what the Government have to say to give comfort to smokers and others. It says,
"The Citizen's Charter applies to all public services. These include government departments and agencies, nationalised industries,"
and so forth. The key principles will include,
"Evidence that the views of those who use the services have been taken into account in setting standards".
It goes on to say,
"The task is an ambitious one. We are determined to make it happen as quickly as possible… We will be taking immediate steps to encourage all public services to adopt Charter principles and to apply them to their own operations".
We move on to transport where it has a section acknowledging that,
"British Rail's performance too often falls short of what the public has a right to expect".
It says we expect,
"simple and effective complaints procedures; a straightforward system of redress in cases where the level of service is unacceptable … BR will seek to make its service to the public friendlier and more personal".
We have heard that before. We move on to the penultimate section and I shall not bother your Lordships beyond that. The heading is "Prisons". It states,
"All citizens are entitled to consideration, including those who offend against the law. The Mission Statement of the Prison Service undertakes to look after all prisoners with humanity".
The deduction I draw from this document is that it is not so much that smokers are second-class citizens. So far as the charter is concerned, smokers on trains are non-citizens.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Aldington. As other noble Lords have said, British Rail has a right and duty to ban smoking in a reasonable proportion of its carriages. It has done so throughout my life, both during the war and before it, just as smoking has always been banned in this Chamber. No one objects to that.
It is arguable that smoking may be banned for short journeys, as is the case on London Underground where the journeys are nearly all short, but it is not the case on Network SouthEast that all journeys are short, as most of us know to our cost. It may be that they are meant to be short, but that is another matter. It once took me three-and-a-half hours to travel from Dover to London in an unheated train. To shut people up for that length of time and give them no area on the train where they can relieve their feelings by smoking is inhuman. If it does not breach the Citizen's Charter, it ought to.
My sympathy goes out to my noble friend Lord Aldington and others who are forced to travel in what are sometimes horrible trains, watching people munching fish and chips and other forms of food while they are forbidden to have an innocent smoke in any part of the foul-smelling premises. I can see no reason for British Rail's intolerance. And why are they telling us all this? I have smoked since joining the army at the age of 17, when we all smoked. We were 100 per cent. fitter then than the average youth one sees on the streets today. I was subjected to passive smoking from the cradle—both of my parents and most of my family smoked like chimneys. I am 66 now and even if I die at 96 I suppose that my death will be entered in the statistics as being smoking-related.
In my view most statistics and market surveys are as suspect as the opinion polls were in the last general election. I believe that the Government have a duty to protect the wishes of my noble friend and others who ask only for a place where they can smoke on what is often an unpleasant journey.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, with the tolerance and courtesy of the House, I should like to speak for a few moments in the gap. I apologise for not putting down my name but it was not until the Unstarred Question appeared on the annunciator that I became aware that it was being debated. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, for raising the matter.
Some years ago, on behalf of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, I conducted a two-year inquiry into the sponsorship of sport in this country. My committee had to face up to the question not just of smoking but of drinking and gambling. We reached the conclusion that where a pursuit is lawful and the state gains many millions of pounds from an activity the state has no business trying to restrict the support of those activities. My first question therefore is: what are the Government or British Rail doing trying to put an inhibition on a lawful activity? I submit to the House that it is quite wrong. In the case of British Rail, if it were not for
646
smokers and the excise duty they provide, the subsidies to meet British Rail's losses would not be available, which makes it an added offence in my view.
All these activities are for individual persons to decide for themselves. I agree that smoking is offensive to some people and that therefore some segregated accommodation should be provided. The only time I smoke my cigars, which I do once or twice a day on British Rail, is to prevent the neurosis brought on by people using mobile telephones, which pester us all the way from Birmingham to London. I am fed up of listening to other people's business activities being conducted on trains. I hope that British Rail will provide segregated places for them too where they can chatter away on their telephones. I might not need to smoke as many cigars as I do.
We have a small amount of accommodation on the trains between Birmingham to London. It is totally inadequate. It is one half of one carriage. The fact that tobacco is sold at New Street and other Birmingham stations makes the ban even more ludicrous and ridiculous. The same is true of aircraft. The sale of duty-free tobacco on aircraft must be a lucrative part of British Airways' income. The cabin staff come around with their trolleys. Therefore, it makes no sense for the Government to stand on one side, do nothing about it and thereby interfere with the personal prerogative of individual citizens who choose to exercise their taste in tobacco.
I suggest to the Minister and to the people involved that the logic of the campaign against smoking, which has not been faced up to by anyone yet, is to say that we ought to make smoking unlawful. Let the people who want to interfere with smoking, which is a lawful activity generating vast sums of income, come out into the open, as people in the United States did about alcohol with disastrous results years ago, and say, "We face the logic of our position. We intend to propose that the Government should ban smoking and make it unlawful." They will not do that—no government would support them if they did.
It is to the credit of the Government that in the area of sport they accepted the recommendations of the committee that I chaired and did not stop the sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies—for the very good reason that tobacco companies are carrying out a lawful activity for the benefit of the state as well as for their industry. That should be the criterion. I therefore strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in his Unstarred Question.
9.49 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I should like to say a few words just to throw perhaps a few spanners into the works. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, says that some people think that smoking is harmful. Not so, my Lords. Anyone who has an open mind knows that smoking is harmful. Sir Richard Doll, a Fellow of the Royal Society, did some careful scientific surveys and trials which showed clearly and without doubt that if one smokes for a long period of time, statistically one is much more likely to die of cancer of the lung. Before any noble Lord leaps to his feet and says that statistics

647
are not to be believed, they are just a scientific way of looking at numbers and simply state what the chances are of the figures being significant or not.
Admittedly, Sir Richard published the work very recently—only a third of a century ago, which is a very short period of time, and some people are a little slow on the uptake. It is accepted in scientific circles that smoking can produce cancer of the lung. It can induce blockage in the arteries, strokes, heart attacks, duodenal ulcers and so forth. It is a long list of diseases. So let us not be in any doubt at all about that.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, as my noble friend quoted me perhaps he will explain why a leading physician in Harley Street said to my grandfather when he was 85 years old that his health was very good and that he would live for a long time so long as he smoked a cigar twice a day. He lived to the age of 95½. All I said was that I know that there is a difference of opinion. Will my noble friend explain why that was right for my old grandfather and had some very beneficial results and why he says that I am wrong?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I would not dream of saying that my noble friend Lord Aldington is wrong. All I am doing is stating the scientific facts. The fact that a Harley Street doctor said X years ago that somebody should smoke does not prove anything. I want to state clearly that there is no doubt whatever that smoking will increase the risk of dying of these conditions. That is the fact.
Much has been said about the freedom of the individual to do as he likes and to smoke. Of course, I would not deny that for one moment. But what about the freedom of individuals who do not smoke and who strongly object to being in the presence of those who do? What about the people who not only strongly object but who have an asthmatic attack induced by smoke? Noble Lords are shaking their heads. Tobacco smoke can induce an asthmatic attack: there is no doubt about that. It is a fact. Supposing it concerns a child? Are noble Lords seriously suggesting that people should have the freedom to induce an asthmatic attack in a child who is in the vicinity of someone who is smoking?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there is nothing between us. British Rail has hitherto set aside a carriage for smokers only and for anyone who wishes to join them. That is a segregated carriage away from everyone else. We fully accept that there are people who do not wish to be in the presence of cigarette smoke. What we object to is the fact that British Rail suddenly withdrew a facility which would have achieved just that—smokers in one carriage and non-smokers in the rest of the train. What is wrong with that?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, there is nothing wrong with that at all. But what happens if there is no room elsewhere on the train and non-smokers have to get on? I know that there is a rather "gung ho" atmosphere in the House and that the majority of noble Lords are smokers. But I have to rise to defend those who do not smoke and who get into difficulty when in the presence of somebody who is smoking. The noble Lord mentioned the aeroplane. If you are on a plane you
648
can be in a non-smoking area but smoke will get to you. That is the whole point. The air in the aircraft is the same. It is not segregated into first-class or second-class air. It is air and it circulates throughout the whole plane. There are some people—I have met them—who suffer from asthma and who did not board a plane only to suffer five hours of great distress. Do noble Lords support the idea that people should be so distressed? I am sure that they do not.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. Is he aware that there are people, including my wife, who can have asthmatic attacks if they are in the presence of an animal? Is my noble friend suggesting that animals should not be carried on passenger trains on Network SouthEast?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I shall not get into the business of animals, but one would certainly have some difficulty taking an animal on a plane.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: We are talking about railways.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I do not mind interventions. I would have as many as possible. It is no problem. I am delighted to be able to do this sort of remedial teaching because I do not often get the opportunity in university circles.
I wish to deal with a point about smokers who are denied operations which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. We should be clear about this. There is no general ban on smokers for particular operations. It is simply that if it is planned that somebody should have an operation and that person continues smoking and if, as a result of their continuing smoking, the operation will have only a poor result, clearly it would be unwise to proceed. That is the basis on which people are sent home—only if they have continued to smoke.
Finally, I have not met the head of Network SouthEast, but he seems to me to be an eminently sensible gentleman. I support what he is doing.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I have just estimated that I have smoked 440,000 cigarettes in the past 55 years. Having declared that interest, I wish to draw attention to just one point as I see it.
I travel by train from time to time although not on the network which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in his Unstarred Question. What happens on each occasion is that I walk along the entire length of the train looking for a smoking compartment. The train is practically empty, but having walked the entire length of the train, if I am lucky I find, right at the front, about half a carriage in which smoking is permitted. It is absolutely packed out. It is so full of people smoking that it is impossible to sit there, and I end up in a non-smoking compartment.
When I fly, which I do rather more often, I find that on a great many flights smoking is now not permitted at all. If it is permitted, it is allowed in perhaps 30 seats at the very back of the plane. Here I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that smoking is unpleasant for other passengers. The smoking seats are always at

649
the rear of the plane and smoke in an aeroplane does not move for'ard; it goes aft. It does not affect other passengers. In any case, here again the 30 seats in which smoking is permitted at the back of the plane are absolutely full of people and the rest of the plane is probably half empty.
Lord Rea: My Lords, that is not true.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, my noble friend says that that is not true, but I assure him that I have travelled perhaps just as much as him and I have found that that is invariably the case. I therefore feel that all forms of public transport are unfair to smokers. That is an irrational failure to a great extent. We, too, have rights.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, I, too, hesitate to intervene at this late hour. I apologise. I shall keep my remarks brief. This is an important debate. The real issue is being obscured by the smoke. The real issue is intolerance of minorities' views. We owe a great debt to my noble friend Lord Aldington and to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for putting forward such a robust defence. I hope that the Government will take due note of it. A real issue exists. My noble friend made some remarks about smoking. I am not sure that he is right. It is true that cigarettes are a known and proven danger. It is not true of tobacco in general; it is not true of cigars; it is not true of pipes. Nothing is as yet proven.
My worry arises from the emotional issue. We are entering into an era of intolerance of views of minorities. I have known North America and Canada for a long time. I have great admiration for them, but we are in great danger of imitating American emotional extremism. That worries me. It is not just on this issue, but it is predominant on this issue at the moment. It is high time that it stopped.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said a great deal about aircraft. I agree with him. I make a further point. During the rush hour there are six aeroplanes an hour to Paris. Why cannot one of them be a smoking aeroplane? Why cannot the 747 on the Hong Kong route, which has an upper deck with a separate air conditioning system, allow smoking? It used to do so. Why can one have cigarettes but not pipes, when pipes are much better for one? It is only seven or eight years ago that cigar smoking was stopped on Concorde.
We have this issue out of balance. The issue is not smoking. Let us not be blinded by the smoke. The real issue is whether we are prepared to become one of the intolerant nations of this world and let extremism and emotionalism override our common sense and our sense of fairness. I am not. I thank my noble friend Lord Aldington and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for raising this subject.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, initiated this interesting debate, which has given rise to a number of interesting revelations: for example, the outstanding modesty of my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who has no vices. I can think of one, but
650
I shall not go into it now. A certain amount of anti-Americanism has also just crept into the debate. I regret one thing: the gap has been used extensively. In my view, that is not consistent with the best procedures of the House because there has been ample opportunity for names to be put down for the debate. That is how debates should be conducted, in my respectful submission. Some of the speeches in the gap, interesting though they were, went beyond what is normally acceptable, which is not more than two minutes.
The case for the majority must not be overlooked. Therefore the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is deserving of further consideration. The debate has been supported by a number of your Lordships who have taken the point about civil liberties. There is a civil liberty attaching to people who are forced, frequently, to enter areas which are uncongenial to them. If one needs to get somewhere on an aircraft and there is no space other than in the smoking section, that is pretty unpleasant if one does not like smoking and if one also finds passive smoking unacceptable. I do not accept that the division that exists is adequate to protect a person from that mischief.
A number of your Lordships recited anecdotes. I suppose that that is reasonable in this House because we are in or approaching our "anecdotage". I should like to tell noble Lords a story which affected me and which might have a moral in it for smokers or for those who support smoking as depicted in the debate. When I was a member of the Commission I flew to Dacca. I flew first-class because it is a long way and because the Commission does that kind of thing—but so do Ministers. The steward asked me whether I would mind if someone took the seat next to me and smoked. I said, "I am sorry. I have an objection to that, particularly during a period of some five-and-a-half hours". He went away saying that that was perfectly understandable. He later came back to me and asked whether I would mind if that gentleman changed seats with a young lady and she came to sit next to me. It so happened that the young lady was a French film actress called Natalie Baye. So it can be rewarding not to engage in smoking.
I believe that those noble Lords who have argued the case have made too much of it. Many of the services about which we have spoken are frequently crowded. We know that one of the problems of Network SouthEast—without going into the arguments about the railway system—is that it is frequently overcrowded. It is an imposition, in particular on short distances, that those who are running the railway should not have the right to say, "No, we are not going to allow smoking", or, "We shall provide a separate compartment". I accept segregation on the railways but I should not accept it elsewhere; for instance, in theatres, cinemas or on short flights. People who operate those services are right to make their commercial judgments about such issues and to invest the element of health into that judgment. But I suppose that when it comes to the railways there is a case for segregation.
One must look at the commercial viability of that. It is not for Members of your Lordships' House to dictate to British Rail or to anyone else the commercial viability of their operations in that regard. If it is

651
practicable to have such a wholly segregated service and to provide one coach for smokers, it is equally right that there should be additional compensation for nonsmokers. As a result of their circumstances they may be required to seek such accommodation on the train as they can—
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord has read my Motion. It does not refer to short journeys but specifically to,
"outer suburban and long distance services".
The Motion deliberately refers to the abandonment of smoking compartments, which have existed for 100 years. It is not a question of striving to do anything new but of retaining what was.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not the only Member to have strayed from the exact terms of the noble Lord's Motion. Like my noble friend Lord Stoddart, the noble Lord is most modest and virtuous about the matter. But other Members have trespassed in this way. The point that I made in relation to segregation, in particular on long distance journeys, is the one that I stand by.
It has been said that the Government have an overall duty to intervene in such a matter. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, placed a rather naive faith in the Citizen's Charter. Well, there are many of us who could have told him that such naivety is not to be practised, any more than smoking is, in certain places. I believe that the Government would be very unwise to intervene so far as concerns British Rail. If BR takes account of what noble Lords have said, then that will be a good thing and something to which I would not object, subject to the point. I made earlier.
As regards the future of British Rail as a whole, it seems to me that the question of smoking was never raised, although privatisation was mentioned by one speaker. I suppose that it is feasible for all smokers to get together to form an organisation that could tender for a franchise. They could then have all the smoking in the world that they wanted. I believe that the Government would welcome that development because they would at least receive one application for a franchise, whereas at present they stand a pretty good chance of receiving none. So perhaps it is a good idea.
I do not want to go into the matter in any great detail. However, my noble friend Lord Howell said that it was wrong to impose a restriction on what is a lawful activity. Well, it is a perfectly lawful activity to commit suicide these days, although that used not to be the case; indeed, it used to be a criminal offence. I suppose that that gets to the nub of the argument: they want to commit suicide.
10.12 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the debate which seems to have attracted a flush of last-minute interest. It is clear that the Question arouses strong feeling. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Aldington has raised the matter on a number of occasions in the past. However, he will not be very surprised to know that the position of Her Majesty's Government has not changed. The provision of smoking
652
accommodation on trains is for British Rail to decide. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene in what is a commercial matter for BR.
It may be helpful to noble Lords if I explain the background to the smoking ban. British Rail decided to ban smoking on Network SouthEast inner-suburban services in 1990. The decision was made on three grounds. First, market research showed that a declining number of passengers wished to travel in smoking compartments. Secondly, the ban was intended to reduce overcrowding in non-smoking compartments, as research showed that non-smokers often chose to stand rather than take a seat in a smoking compartment. Thirdly, the ban was expected to reduce the cost of cleaning trains and improve the cleanliness of trains generally.
The response to the ban was positive. Before the ban was introduced in 1990, some 55 per cent. of passengers were in favour. A survey in August 1992 showed that not only had that figure increased significantly, with 76 per cent. of all passengers in favour, but that over half of those passengers who smoke supported the ban. That increase was believed to be because of the improved cleanliness of the trains in general. Relieved of the need to spend so much time scnibbing smoking compartments, cleaners were able to spend equal time on every carriage, resulting in a considerable improvement in the travelling environment for all passengers.
The survey also explored passengers' attitudes to the possible extension of restrictions on smoking: 55 per cent. of all passengers questioned were in favour of a complete ban on Network SouthEast, while a further significant proportion were not opposed to a complete ban. Given the encouraging results of the research and the very positive response to the existing ban, Network SouthEast decided to proceed with a no-smoking policy on most of its services, The ban was phased in during the first half of this year.
We are satisfied that the research does suggest significant support for the extension of the ban. I know that my noble friend Lord Aldington disputes, that fact, and I am aware that he has corresponded with my noble friend Lord Caithness on the matter. However, I do not believe that there is anything I can add tonight on the subject of those figures.
British Rail recognises that it would not be appropriate to ban smoking on very long distance journeys. That is why smoking is still allowed on the long distance services provided by the south western division of Network SouthEast. My noble friend Lord Aldington will also be pleased to note that British Rail has no plans to extend the smoking ban to InterCity services, although they too have reduced their provision of smoking accommodation in line with passenger demand.
My noble friend Lord Aldington and the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Harris of High Cross, all asked whether the Network SouthEast smoking ban is contrary to the Passenger's Charter. The Passenger's Charter commits British Rail to greater responsiveness to the demands of passengers. As the

653
majority of passengers support the smoking ban, we do not see that this is inconsistent with the aims of the charter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister cannot get away with that. The Passenger's Charter asks British Rail to respond to the needs of passengers. It does not state that BR should respond to the wishes of a majority of passengers: it states that BR should respond to the needs of passengers. That means that BR should respond to the needs of smokers as well as non-smokers. That is what the Citizen's Charter ought to be about. I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount is not saying that British Rail, and indeed every other service, must be governed at any particular time according to what the majority of people say at any given time about anything.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the charter commits British Rail to greater responsiveness to passengers in general. That is the situation. As the majority of passengers support the smoking ban, as I mentioned, we do not see that this is inconsistent with the aims of the charter.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend does not wish to mislead the House. I know it worries him to hear this bandying about of statistics. It worries me also. He has referred to the statistic concerning people's reactions to the existing proposed ban. He says that 55 per cent. were overwhelmingly in favour of completing it. If he will kindly look at the breakdown of the statistics, he will find that 41 per cent. were completely in favour and only 14 per cent. were slightly in favour. Will he stop bandying these figures about as if they showed that people were decisively in favour of the outrageous action of the managing director?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the decision is of course a commercial one for British Rail. It is British Rail's interpretation of those statistics which is important. All respondents from banned stations were asked about their reaction to the ban and the results showed that 55 per cent. were in favour of it. The interpretation of the figures is for British Rail.
Noble Lords: No.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that I am misleading the House by reading out the statistics? I do not like being accused of falsifying statements to the House.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I in no way accused my noble friend of falsifying any statements to the House. I merely said that we are presented with a set of statistics and different people and different organisations have adopted different interpretations of those statistics. I might add that there are three instances where the figure of 55 per cent. appears and perhaps that accounts for some of the confusion.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, it does not.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it does. Perhaps I can take up my speech from where I left off. One of the key aims of the charter is to provide clean stations and clean trains. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that the smoking ban is an important factor in improving cleanliness on trains. A further aspect of the charter is consideration of customer complaints.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister is saying that to ban smoking makes trains, platforms or stations cleaner. But does he not realise that they would be cleaner still if one banned all eating and drinking on trains? Indeed there would be greater cleanliness and greater saving from doing that than from banning smoking. Is the logic now that British Rail will ban all eating and drinking on trains in the interests of cleanliness?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is an indisputable fact that smoking compartments impose an extra cleaning burden.
I am sure that if passengers had reacted badly to the ban British Rail would have had cause to reconsider its position, if only because it does not wish to lose business. We suspect that the ban remains because very few passengers have objected.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned that there is a right to smoke. We do not believe that there is an automatic right to smoke. As with many other activities, it is expected that people who visit properties which belong to others will respect the wishes of those who own or operate those premises. No one would suggest that there was a right to smoke on commercial premises where one was requested not to do so. One would respect the right of the businesses concerned to determine their policies on these matters. Although British Rail is currently a publicly-owned organisation, it is run on a commercial basis and it should behave accordingly.
For the future it will be for individual franchisees to decide whether to provide smoking accommodation on trains. Clearly the Government would not seek to dictate to such companies what their policies should be in this area. They will decide on a commercial basis, taking full account of the wishes of their customers.
British Rail's decision to ban smoking on most Network SouthEast services also reflects similar moves by other public transport operators, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Smoking is banned completely on London Underground, although clearly there are special safety reasons why that should be the case. However, smoking is also banned on London buses, National Express coaches and many local bus services in response to commercial considerations. There is no smoking on British Airways domestic flights or flights to European destinations under 90 minutes. Smoking is banned completely on domestic flights in Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, Sweden, most of the USA and a number of other countries. Bans are also becoming increasingly common on international flights. British Rail therefore cannot be accused of being out of step with other transport operators.
Although British Rail may have other reasons for banning smoking, I should take up the points raised by

655
my noble friend Lord McColl in reminding the House of the impact that smoking has on health. Smoking kills over 110,000 people a year, one in six of all deaths.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. Do all those 110,000 people who die from smoking-related diseases smoke?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I seek merely to draw to the attention of the House the undisputed fact that smoking has very serious associated health problems. Those people who are expert in the matter believe that smoking kills more than 110,000 people a year. I am not a doctor, so I will not argue the point with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. However, it has been estimated that the cost to the National Health Service is up to £325 million annually and the cost to industry and businesses is some 50 million working days lost each year.
The Government are therefore committed to reducing the prevalence of cigarette smoking. The Health of the Nation White Paper set a target of 80 per cent. of public places being covered by effective no-smoking policies
656
by 1994. The Network SouthEast ban is fully consistent with that target and is evidence of the good progress which is being made by voluntary means. However, the White Paper states that the Government should consider legislation on smoking in public places if that progress does not continue.
The by-law which permits British Rail to ban smoking has been in existence for many years. No amendment to that by-law was necessary to apply a complete ban on smoking on some trains. As my noble friend may be aware, the Government have no powers to alter a by-law already made by British Rail. However, I have made it clear that even if we had that power we would not exercise it in order to rescind the ban on smoking on Network SouthEast.
We sympathise with the views of those Members of your Lordships' House who wish to protect the interests of smokers. However, we feel that British Rail is right to listen to the majority of their passengers and to act accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.

  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS SHEEP DIPS: USE
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS SHEEP DIPS: USE
  POTATO MARKETING SCHEME
  POTATO MARKETING SCHEME
  SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMITTEE
  SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMITTEE
  M.40: SERVICE AREAS
  M.40: SERVICE AREAS
  NATIONAL INSURANCE: EVASION INVESTIGATION
  NATIONAL INSURANCE: EVASION INVESTIGATION
  WEST COAST MAIN LINE: MODERNISATION
  WEST COAST MAIN LINE: MODERNISATION
  SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD: INVESTIGATION STRATEGY
  SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD: INVESTIGATION STRATEGY
  INVALIDITY BENEFIT RECIPIENTS
  INVALIDITY BENEFIT RECIPIENTS
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD CONVENTION: COMPLIANCE
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD CONVENTION: COMPLIANCE
  PRISONS: MINISTERIAL STAFF COSTS
  PRISONS: MINISTERIAL STAFF COSTS
  CRIMINAL OFFENCES
  CRIMINAL OFFENCES
  D-DAY: 50th ANNIVERSARY
  D-DAY: 50th ANNIVERSARY
  ABORTIONS
  ABORTIONS
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES: BUDGETS
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES: BUDGETS
  PRINCE CHARLES HOSPITAL: PRIVATE PRACTICE
  PRINCE CHARLES HOSPITAL: PRIVATE PRACTICE
  ALBANIA—MACEDONIA RAIL LINK
  ALBANIA—MACEDONIA RAIL LINK
  US HUMAN LIFE BILL: CONGRESS REPORT
  US HUMAN LIFE BILL: CONGRESS REPORT
  KHIAM PRISON: DETAINEES
  KHIAM PRISON: DETAINEES
  GIBRALTAR
  GIBRALTAR
  DEFENCE EQUIPMENT PROGRAMME
  DEFENCE EQUIPMENT PROGRAMME
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT: IMPLEMENTATION
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT: IMPLEMENTATION